Free Republic

As a general rule these hedge fundie geniuses donated to Obama and voted for him big time. For them to turn around and act all surprised and hurt at his actual policies is quite hilarious. Are all their other predictions equally good?

The permanent battery of Patriot Missiles that Poland demanded as part of the deal to put that missile defense system there and the American troops at the missile station 115 miles from the Russian border is just "Russian insanity-level paranoia"?

Patriot missiles are surface-to-air missiles. They intercept targets in the air. (Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept Of Target). Pray tell, how could these be used offensively against Russia?

If Russia doesn't ATTACK POLAND?

Please square that circle. PLEASE. I'm all ears.

Does Russia have a God-given right to attack Poland? That's what she seems to think. Is that what you think?

If not then HOW IN THE HELL does a Patriot missile, which intercepts AIR TARGETS, represent a "threat to Russia"?

This is the kind of illogical propagandistic nonsense I have to listen to from bloviated Russian politicians. Do you have to parrot it?

we have now personally guaranteed that the US wiill come to Poland's defense if Russia (or anyone) attacks them

Again: how is this a "threat to Russia" IF RUSSIA DOESN'T ATTACK POLAND?

Why does Russia want to attack Poland? Why does Russia need to attack Poland? Is it Russia's manifest destiny to attack Poland?

Since when is Poland "part of the USA"?. Did I miss the debut of the 51st State? Poland?

Presumably you are unfamiliar with the concept of "allies".

Largest friggin nuclear arsenal in the world, a million soldiers on active duty, exports 30% of the worlds armaments, and we just need "to deal with them", like Russia is some piss ant Balkan backwater nobody.

Actually, Russia is a backwater. "Mexico with nukes" as the saying goes. (Again: Have you been there?)

That nuclear arsenal - how up-to-date is it?

Those "million soldiers on active duty" - you realize these are primarily unmotivated draftees from villages who could not bribe or college their way out, right?

Actually, Russia told us loud and clear that we were breaking all the rules of international law when we unilaterally decided to push for Kosovo independence and we ignored them. They flat-out told us that we were destroying the international order in unilaterally recognizing Kosovo, and we ignored them.

Why does Russia care whether or not this piece of some other country got recognized? Oh, right: they own the countries around them. Right?

They told us that eventually this could force their hand with S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, and we ignored them again. Well, we are not ignoring them now, are we?

No, we are not. Your point? That this all transmogrifies Russia into being correct? Sorry no.

Mr. Rogers generation.

That's unfair to Fred Rogers.

But seriously, I'm from Mr. Rogers' generation as well (dude lasted a long time), and when I was playing Little League, if there was a kid who was dominant with the fastball (which there were - I still remember names), and some grownup started whining about how that kid was pitching "too fast", I would've thought that grownup was crazy.

P.S. Although, reading the article, the chronology is not clear; did the league suggest he move up an age-bracket before "they first told Vidro that the boy could not pitch after a game on Aug. 13"? Or only after, and after the mother raised a fuss? I guess I still reserve judgment on this.

Still stand by your comments?

No, I stand corrected. I didn't click through & read the article. (I miss the days when FR didn't have to excerpt :)

I still think 40mph isn't "too fast" in the first place, and the whole issue need not have been raised. The forfeiting also seems like a rather stupid reaction. But if the option of moving up in age-bracket was given, and the kid/parents refused it, I have to wonder why.

They are nine year olds...the ball is being thrown TOO fast

"Too fast" for what? Among the objects of the position known as 'pitcher' in the game known as 'baseball' is to throw the ball as fast as you can, so that the batter is less able to put the ball into the field of play. This kid is apparently playing the game of baseball correctly, to the best of his ability.

Where do you get your conclusion that he's throwing the ball "too fast"? Again, 40mph is not really all that fast. And so what if he's throwing it "too fast"? Then the batters who face him will strike out. And?

This is a part of the game called 'baseball'. Parents who didn't want their kids to potentially experience this shouldn't have signed them up to play baseball. I suggest 'tumbling' or perhaps 'rhythmic clapping class' instead.

And on the other end, why play in a league you are far too good for. .... PUT HIM IN A LEAGUE HIS SKILLS BELONG IN..it’s good for him and it’s good for the other kids.

I liked the earlier poster's idea of bumping him up to a higher age-level. But that's not what this league did, to their utter discredit and shame.

If this kid's birth certificate (his REAL one) says he's nine, and he pitches two perfect games in a row, he should move up and pitch to kids who can hit him. That's not socialism - that's instructional level sports.

It's also an intelligent, reasonable solution as opposed to the one actually implemented.

So, the whole league needs to disband because this woman doesn’t get her way?

The whole league doesn't need to disband at all. They could, for example, let the kid and the kid's team play the damn baseball games as originally scheduled and stop being such ninnies.

Pathetic. Nauseating. Almost makes me think OBL was right - we are weak, a paper tiger. "Too fast"

You know what? I gotta say, 40mph isn't even all that fast. When you go to batting cages, is it even possible to find a machine that pitches that slowly?

These are 9-year-olds and can't even face 40mph?

Just pathetic.

NATO was chartered as "a defensive organization" (against the SU during the Cold War), but it broke its own charter in 1999 with the 78 day NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia. That told everyone that NATO was no longer about "defense of NATO nations" -- it was a military force for world government.

And so you think that a Russian belief that NATO would engage in offensive operations against Russia is warranted? Because I think it is insanity-level paranoia. I guess that's where we disagree.

["Defensive anti-missile-defense sites in Poland?"] That's like saying, "Don't mind the gun that I have pointed at your head, it's only for defense."

No, it is not. Read up on the defensive missiles in question. They have no effectiveness as an offensive weapon (unlike a gun).

Putin IS the real Russia. And like it or not, that is what we need to deal with.

Well, sure. Now he's overreaching Russia's rights and authority and we need to deal with that. Sure.

If anyone is truly concerned about the people of Georgia, the Ukraine and that neighborhood, then we need to partner with Russia to make it safe

This presupposes that Russia is interested in "making", and will, "make" those countries "safe". The evidence suggests otherwise.

based on rule of law,

"Russia" and "rule of law" do not belong in the same sentence.

Have you ever been to Russia? Do you know anything about it at all?

If we keep pushing and encircling Russia in this needless game of chicken, sooner or later we are going to have a military confrontation.

We are not "pushing" Russia and we are only "encircling" Russia in the sense that one's neighbors' fences "encircle" one's property. A person has no right whatsoever to complain about neighbors putting up fences on their own fricking property, "encircling" or not, and the same applies here.

The neocon visceral hate of things Russian, is going to push us there.

I'm at the point where virtually all sentences containing the word "neocon" force me to lower my estimate of the author's IQ by 20%. Suffice it to say that I'm not a "neocon", whatever that is, nor do I hate "things Russian", which you would know to be a laughable claim if you knew me.

The real problem is the romanticization and excusal of "things Russian", including the paranoid imperialism prevalent in her foreign policy, that is dangerous. Because it leads people to advocate for unlimited appeasement of and bowing down to any and all Russian supposed grievances and claims to dominance over her neighbors.

There is a difference between understanding why Russia did what it did, and defending Russian actions.

Sure. By any reasonable reading, the author of the above article is squarely on the latter category.

Georgia is so far into our pocket, that she wouldn't have dared make the move she did without us OKing it.

Any even cursory reading of various news sources will reveal that the US tried to discourage the Georgian action.

As I said before, Communism is not an ethnicity, it is an ideology

Not sure what this has to do with anything. No one here is talking about "Communism".

[more "neocon" babble deleted]

There goes another 20%...and another...

It's not "Russophilia". It's recognizing that Russia doesn't want -- and won't tolerate -- potential threats on their doorstep anymore than we would -- or did in 1962.

It's Russophilia to think that Russian claims to dictate what neighboring countries do or don't do in pursuit of their self-defense have merit. Well, if it's not Russophilia, I don't know what it is - stupidity? evilness? - Russophilia was in fact the best spin I could put on it.

Of course Russia doesn't want potential threats on their doorstep. I too 'recognize' that. But what "potential threats" would those be in this case? Nato, a defensive alliance? Defensive anti-missile-defense sites in Poland? I recognize that to hear Russian politicians talk, it's unclear that the Russian language has a word for 'defense' as distinct from 'offense' - but the English language certainly does, and you've demonstrated that you read/understand English, so go ahead, explain to me how any of these defensive measures add up to a "potential threat" to Russia.

As for recognizing that Russia "will not tolerate" these occurrences, well I recognize even that too. My point however would be that they are wrong not to tolerate it, have no right not to tolerate it, and need to learn this sooner or later. Your point, I take it, is that it's perfectly okay for Russia to create lists of innocent activities by neighboring sovereign countries which they "will not tolerate", and throw tantrums when the rest of the world en masse doesn't obey those lists. Again, if this attitude of yours towards Russia doesn't come from some sort of Russophilia, I am unable to credit what can possibly lie at its root.

It's also coming up with potential alternative solutions for the US to deal with Russia, other than blowing it -- and potentially us -- off the planet.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen anyone here suggest blowing Russia off the planet. What are you talking about?

I'm all for solutions that don't involve blowing Russia off the planet. This need not involving, er, blowing Russia however. It's possible to form the accurate and moral judgment "Russia is in the wrong" without being a planet-blower-offer. Does this weird Russia-subservience come simply from fear, then? You're afraid that if you were ever to admit that Russia was in the wrong about something - no matter how power-grabbing and imperial - that might lend credence to the blow-them-off-the-planet solution that everyone else is supposedly pursuing? Is that it?

How does all this posturing with Russia really benefit America?

What "posturing with Russia"? Russia's done an evil crappy power-grabbing thing and goddamit anyone with a brain and an ounce of integrity ought to be able to recognize it and say so. "How does it benefit America" to say so? I don't know how to answer that specifically; on a broader and more ethereal level though, I guess I like to think that free individiuals exchanging ideas and judgments and truths based on morality and justice benefits America. You?

And are there better and more intelligent strategies than continual political and possible military confrontation?

Maybe, but even if there were, that wouldn't make Russia right. Are you unable to separate the issues (1) whether Russia is right and justified in what she's doing and (2) whether we out to 'make a deal' with her out of realpolitik? Because they are really separate issues, you know.

Or are we just going beat our chests like apes at each other until somebody blinks?

"beat our chests like apes"? I'd really like to understand what you're talking about, but you seem to be making up out of whole cloth about 50% of what you're purportedly responding to. This makes it difficult. It seems to happen in all such threads in which I encounter this type of Russophile. Why is that?

It's really hard to know where to begin, but I'll just pull out one point because it exemplifies the upside-down nature of the thinking behind this sort of thing:

But offering NATO membership to parts of the former Soviet Union, like Georgia, threatens Russia's right to control its own borders and no nation can tolerate that.

Nato membership for Georgia, of course, has nothing to do with Russia's right to control its own borders either way. (News flash: Georgia is not situated inside the borders of Russia.) The problem is not Russia's desire to control Russia's borders, the problem is her desire to control other nations' borders.

This is symptomatic of a broader problem that starts and ends with a wrongheaded Russian attitude about her "near abroad" that is utterly devoid of merit: if Russia doesn't want Georgia or Ukraine to enter Nato, they shouldn't. If Russia doesn't want Poland to have missile defense, she shouldn't. If they do anyway, well, why, that's threatening Russia!

Idiocy. Sheer paranoid arrogant idiocy.

The author however has swallowed the kool-aid necessary to accept this Russian imperial-overlordship attitude towards her neighbors and embraces the logic inherent in it, which is presumably how her brain can produce (without exploding) absurd conclusions such as offering Nato membership to Georgia = Russia can't control her own borders. In response to such a claim there is little one can do but point to its self-evident imbecility; further discussion is not warranted.

What warrants further discussion is why a certain faction of the West (Buchananites for example) is prone to romanticize and fall for Russian maximalist claims to neo-imperialism in the first place. What is attractive about this point of view, this pointing at a faraway authoritarian oil regime and saying 'yes it is only right and proper that she controls all her neighbors if she wishes, and we shouldn't stop her because she might get mad at us, when we'd like to be her friend'. Where does this fantastical Russophilia come from?

Author: Fantasist

If banks didn't "short what they sell" they'd be unhedged and naked-long. They're supposed to "short what they sell". I'm not sure what Stein's point is.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like what he's basing this part of the article on boils down to Goldman having shorted a ton of ABX (more than pure hedging would require - as if that's possible to know in such a market..) long before the rest of the market caught up to subprime realities. Well, perhaps so. If so, that's called foresight and the will be rewarded for it.

As for the conspiracy theory about the Kanzius paper, I do not even understand what Stein is trying to say exactly. Sometimes Stein's mind seems to lose its sharpness.

In a congratulatory message to mark the day, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called on Ukraine not to spoil their historically close ties.

For Ukraine to seek to defend itself threatens to "spoil" their "close ties" with Russia.

You know, the "ties" according to which Russia owns Ukraine and can attack her at will. Those "ties".

[What 'keyboard warriors'? I haven't seen anyone in this thread propose military action against Russia. Again, what are you talking about?] Maybe not on this thread,

Right, so you agree.

but when this nonsense started over in S.Ossetia there were a bunch of FReepers (including some I respected) who were talking about the need for the US military to rapidly dispatch A-10 Warthogs and B-2 Stealth Bombers into the region.

But what does this have to do with the issue at hand (=is Russia right or wrong)? Because Freepers in some other thread advocated military action, and you don't (I'm guessing), that makes Russia....right? No. Yet that was the tack taken by L.J.

As I've said multiple times now, some need to learn to separate the issues (1) is Russia in the right and (2) should the US have a military response.

[more irrelevant stuff about posts you read in other threads from other Freepers and disagreed with, deleted]

iii) There is no 'good side' in this fight ....the Russians were in the wrong, but the Georgians are not the saints people were making them out to be.

Who's making Georgians out to be "saints"? Oh, nevermind, I can guess - probably someone in some other thread.

While I agree with you there's no 'good' side necessarily, that doesn't mean one side can't be way more in the wrong than the other. I think most people here know which side that is, even some of the ones pretending not to.

1. The Russian people - as during the Cold War - hear completely one-sided news. There is no free press.

2. The Russian body politic has a history of paranoia/conspiracy theorizing. This is not to say that Russian individuals lack intelligence or hospitality. It's when they get together that the Stupid comes out. My theory is that this sort of dichotomy is true of any culture that evolved in harsh climates (see also: Arabs).

GWOT, Iraq, Afghanistan (duh)... because any war, even when it's necessary, is too many (duh)... because each one makes me poorer and less safe (duh)

1. Which offensives/battles are under way in the "GWOT", whatever that means as separate from Afghanistan and Iraq?

2. Which offensives/battles are under way in the Iraq "war"? (Which in reality has been over for years now; at present we have a military garrison that does training and some counterinsurgency, not a "war"...)

3. How exactly are any of these "wars" making you "less safe"? Less safe than what? How did you measure your "safety"? What unsafe things have happened to you since or as a result of any of these wars (or former wars, as in the case of i.e. Iraq)?

You're right... having our military forces in an area (on Russia's border) where active fighting is taking place could never draw us into conflict, could it? I mean, wars never start accidentally, do they?

Whether we get drawn into the conflict is a separate matter from making a judgment over who's right/wrong. Why are you unable to separate the two?

Must have really been putting in extra-credit hours at school (what grade?) to have missed the news, but yes - there's a war on and yes - the good old USofA has taken sides (wrong one) on a matter that's none of it's business and in an area outside our traditional sphere of interest.

Let's say you're right that it's none of our business and outside our sphere of interest. This doesn't make the Russians in the right or add up to an argument that we have taken the wrong side. I still await a coherent argument from you as to why the Russian side is in the right.

Anyone advocating any US interference in this conflict is advocating potential conflict with Russia.

Who advocated US interference in this conflict? Certainly not me in this thread. My point in this thread has been to dispute those who claim that Russia is in the right - no more, no less.

I've served in the armed forces of this nation, I'm a citizen of this nation, and I pay a very large amount of taxes... I say I have as much right to express my opinion on this matter as anyone else does.

You have every right to express your opinion (who ever questioned that?). That doesn't make you correct to posture (with your keyboard, from your home, over your internet connection) as somehow an injured party should this or that foreign policy action be adopted, when in reality you are not and have not been tangibly affected.

Putin was wrong. Saakashvilli was dumb. Putting us in a tough spot.

It puts us in a tough spot regarding what (if anything) our nation's diplomatic/military/economic reaction ought to be, sure.

But it doesn't and shouldn't put us in a tough spot when it comes to forming a personal judgment on the situation (which is what this thread has been about).

I see there's an inability or reluctance among some to separate the two.

Thanks for explaining. Actually, the answer does kinda make sense given how stupid the question was.