Posted on 04/30/2014 2:10:56 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
Saying President Barack Obama hasn’t been tough enough on Russia, a high-powered group of Republican senators introduced legislation on Wednesday aimed at imposing new sanctions on Moscow over its actions in Ukraine.
“Rather than react to events as they unfold, which has been the policy of this administration, we need to inflict more direct consequences on Russia prior to Vladimir Putin taking additional steps that will be very difficult to undo,” said Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top GOP member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who drafted the measure.
The congressional push for a harder line on Russia comes with Obama set to welcome German Chancellor Angela Merkel, one of his key partners on Ukraine, to the White House on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
We don’t have the military to do anything. We are broken after ten years of failed COIN.
Also, I am in no hurry to defend the coup government. We really don’t know whose side they are on.
And yes, if we decide to play, expect blow back.
~When America armed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan with anti-helicopter missiles the Russian invasion of Afghanistan came to a bloody, grinding halt.~
It is largely a myth. Soviet aircraft losses were minimal comparing to Vietnam, let alone manpads weren’t all that effective against their choppers. No more than 20 helicopter gunships were lost to Stingers.
Here is the "high-powered" Republican senators:
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell backed the bill, as did Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Cornyn of Texas, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Marco Rubio of Florida, John Hoeven of North Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana.
That list includes most of our favorite RINOs.
And I don't want to make it seem as if just one weapon type added to a campaign acted as a silver bullet. Operation Cyclone was based on a broad base of weapons, tactics, and logistics.
But Wilson (the congressman behind Operation Cyclone) described the first Stinger Mi-24 shoot-downs in 1986 as one of the crucial moments of the USSR/Afghan war, saying:
"we never really won a set piece battle before September 26, and then we never lost one afterwards".
He might have had an axe to grind of course. But helicopter mobility was critical to the Soviet battleplan (e.g. for deploying toops and landmines). Anything which increased the range of shootdowns must necessarily have circumscribed Russian strategy.
LOL. It is more like Russia was land hungry and used Serbian nationalism as its excuse to land grab. Britain was plain jealous of German naval pursuits and wanted to take them down a notch.
Well then Buttercup, as I told another chest thumping hyperpatriot banging the war drums last week, you have a duty as an American to contact Fedgov and turn me and all those like me in as the foreign agents you believe us to be. At the very least, ping JR and have us zotted as liberal scum.
Of course you could haZ a problem with said Fedgov when that is shown false.
Are you comparing Reagan and the military under Reagan to the collection of directionless lying crapweasles in office today? Really? You think that Bhenghazi Barry and his merry band of Dem/GOP frauds are going to have the guts to mirror Reagan and back up his policies?
Because when your internet bluster is over and shooting starts, that’s what happens in war. When you begin the game of backing one hostile country with food, med supplies ect, that is in and of itself an act of war. Whether justified or not, you are providing aid to the enemy of the other country and you are now SQUARELY on one side of the conflict. And walking away when the shooting starts is NOT an option. Actions incur consequences.
Now if you are Ronald Reagan, that is a beautiful thing because your army, your enemy and the greater world at large know you are resolute in determination and are going to back your play to the hilt. You will finish what you involved yourself in.
When you are Bhenghazi Barry, you have not drawn red lines in the sand and blew the hell out of Lybia when they crossed them as did Reagan. Instead, you have drawn MULTIPLE red lines in the sand and backed away from each and every one time and again. Your army knows that their CIC will jail them for fighting the enemy or strip them of command, the enemy knows that if they wait 5 min your will will crumble and the world at large knows your idea of resolute determination ends at hiding your college records.
No, short of Israel who has been our lightning rod over in that craphole of a mid east, we should stop sending countries money and aid. It does not make the world more dangerous because most of them are using it to fund terror, buy weapons, start wars of their own and general stick it to their idiot benefactors who stand there wondering WTF just happened.
Now all the above is easily researched and provable/proven. As such, take your ‘appeasement’ talking point and shove it firmly yet lovingly, with special attention to social justice, homosexual rights for the military and perhaps a slice of lime for added ‘zing’.
You ignore the fact that the CIC is an enemy combatant whose obvious goal is to destroy the US. And you trust him in charge of yet another war, or any aspect of foreign policy? Or the stellar patriots of good character he surrounds himself with?
Are you hired by this administration? Or just a lone nutcase volunteer?
“You ignore the fact that the CIC is an enemy combatant whose obvious goal is to destroy the US.”
I understand your frustration, but that doesn’t mean your statements that slightly exaggerate the situation are true.
Obama has an anti-American belief system and believes in the goodness of big government. His background suggest heavy influence from both real Marxist-Leninists, as well as Islamist and anti British sentiment.
“And you trust him in charge of yet another war, or any aspect of foreign policy?”
And you would suggest that we just shut it all down like a merry-go-round due to your frustrations with Obama. Since this is real life, we go on. We don’t have the luxury of personal fantasies.
“And you would suggest that we just shut it all down like a merry-go-round due to your frustrations with Obama. Since this is real life, we go on. We don’t have the luxury of personal fantasies.”
Another straight question for you to ignore...
Why do you believe that doing the wrong things are preferable to doing nothing?
What is wrong with ‘shutting it all down’ when the alternative is the communist in Chief screwing things up more by the day? Because that IS what he is doing and ‘shutting it all down’ stops that from happening/things from further deteriorating.
The only reason it has gotten to this point is the cowardace of people to ‘shut it all down’ or even shut ANY OF IT DOWN.
“Why do you believe that doing the wrong things are preferable to doing nothing?”
That is your incorrect assumption. Because Obama is our political enemy, doesn’t mean he can’t do a few things right. His droning of terrorists for one.
“The only reason it has gotten to this point is the cowardace of people to ‘shut it all down’ or even shut ANY OF IT DOWN.”
You can’t hide from reality by sticking your head in the sand. Obama will not send troops to Ukraine. (Correct thing) Obama has applied soft economic sanctions, giving Russia an out (Correct thing)...Russia is persisting and the sanctions will get progressively tougher, entirely dependent on Russia acting responsibly. (Correct thing)
What has he done right? Lets see it. Show me one solitary success of this admin. Show me a single positive outcome. show me one action that did not reduce America’s standing oe power in the world.
One
Killary couldn’t do it on TV recently. Think you can do better?
The drone attacks on Jihadist terrorists. Very successful operations.
Obama will not send troops to Ukraine. (Correct thing) Obama has applied soft economic sanctions, giving Russia an out (Correct thing)...Russia is persisting and the sanctions will get progressively tougher, entirely dependent on Russia acting responsibly. (Correct thing)
That was my quote actually.
Businesses can say/ do whatever. But if we ship supplies and Putin decides it is an act of war, his people will quickly pull russian businesses in the ‘correct’ mindframe. Just as Russian leaders have done for centuries.
Let us not forget that the mere threat of sanctions has a massive effect on financial markets and each such threat costs many dollars to all involved. Eventually all involved will tire of perpetual instability...coming from our impotence.
The drone attacks that set world opinion further against us? That is a foreign policy success in your book? You have a rather upside down book. Whether they were the correct action here is not the issue. The issue is foreign policy. And his drone strikes have unarguably hurt our standing in other countries.
Try again.
Aww, so you prefer to run foreign policy by opinion poll.
Just like the libbie libs. You are to the left of Obama in your foreign policy.
You’re over compensating, posting as a tough guy, doesn’t hide the distinct lack of spine you have shown here, “Buttercup”.
The Russians are always happy to proxy against us and the one recent chance we have to pay them back - you instead hide behind Obama and grab your ankles because Putin pretends to be a scary guy.
Why are you even bad mouthing Obama? He is nearly being the total wuss you demand America must be, because of... you know, “consequences”. You should be cheering Obama!
Dat’s about it.
Trade is fungible.
If we outlaw selling business services, airplane parts, computers, etc., to Russia, the companies will then look for other buyers for all those goods.
Middlemen, in fine Marc Rich style, will trot around the globe, make a few calls, and set up a deal. A company in a third country will buy them, then possibly a company in yet another country will buy them, and then Russia will be able to buy them from that company.
Russia will pay a little extra markup, our company will have to cut its price a little, the middlemen will make a huge profit on their phone calls and transactions.
Like wise, the things we import from Russia - we’ll buy them from a company in another country. But guess where those things will have originated from ?
The only sanction that has an effect that’s actually annoying is when the country is cut out of central banking, i.e., they are not allowed to move any money via the Western international banking system, even to make payments.
But in the case of a country where we’re doing all that legitimate trade, i.e., IBM, Dupont, Goldman Sachs, etc., you put those American companies in a nasty, nasty, hurtful bind. Western central banking won’t cut off Russia. They didn’t even cut off Hitler during WWII ! BIS was essential for German gold transfers, all supervised by an American head of BIS at the time.
And how is the U.S. supposed to make NATO do that?
Yea about the tough guy thing...
What do you call people impotently sticking their junk out calling for sanctions, calling for ‘action’ calling for trade blocks? What do you call drawing red lines and running away?
I’m not the pseudo tough guy here. Of course that doesn’t fit the agenda. Some of you need to get your heads out of 1963 and into the reality we live in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.