• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 15:31
CEST 21:31
KST 04:31
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202577RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18
Community News
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced25BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 2025 Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 I offer completely free coaching services What tournaments are world championships?
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced $5,000 WardiTV Summer Championship 2025 WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign Dewalt's Show Matches in China BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers [G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft?
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
UK Politics Mega-thread US Politics Mega-thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 700 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1683

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Falling
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada11349 Posts
March 01 2015 07:08 GMT
#33641
He's not one of them, he's one of us
Moderator"In Trump We Trust," says the Golden Goat of Mars Lago. Have faith and believe! Trump moves in mysterious ways. Like the wind he blows where he pleases...
Acrofales
Profile Joined August 2010
Spain17983 Posts
March 01 2015 11:20 GMT
#33642
On March 01 2015 16:08 Falling wrote:
He's not one of them, he's one of us

That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them.
lastpuritan
Profile Joined December 2014
United States540 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-01 13:09:29
March 01 2015 13:03 GMT
#33643
On March 01 2015 00:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 00:27 kwizach wrote:
On February 28 2015 16:21 hannahbelle wrote:
On February 28 2015 16:11 lastpuritan wrote:
The United States condemns the brutal murder of Boris Nemtsov, and we call upon the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder and ensure that those responsible for this vicious killing are brought to justice


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.html

Is that all the pressure US can put on as a nation?

Biden, Kerry, Psaki and Marie Harf are saying everything they want (mostly political) when such thing happen in a smaller country.


It's been amateur hour at the executive branch for six years. Why would things change now?

No it hasn't. And I'm not sure what else you're expecting the administration to do in this case.

They could accuse a foreign nation of murder with 0 proof to show for it and bring the world a step closer to another cold war?


so why are they tampering or commenting even on low-key internal affairs of middle eastern countries via ambassadors or marie harf whenever they want to, with your logic, simple answer is, because that would not take us closer to another cold war since they are not equivalent to russia, nor as powerful as she. if you are ruling a coalition against jihadists who wont be capable of shooting a missile into your soil for like a hundred years, you should do more when an opposition leader is shot down, his life was worth 5.000 jihadists in terms of chess-game you play with putin.

and "0 proof" was way off dubious. i would not be surprised if we knew who was the shooter, what kind of ammo he had, where did he eat before assassination etc.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18826 Posts
March 01 2015 13:09 GMT
#33644
On March 01 2015 20:20 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 16:08 Falling wrote:
He's not one of them, he's one of us

That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them.

Describe these good ideas, please.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
March 01 2015 17:45 GMT
#33645
WASHINGTON -- House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (La.) on Sunday rejected the suggestion that House Republicans had made a deal with Democrats to pass a "clean" bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security next week, telling "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace, "There is no such deal and there's no such bill."

Scalise is seen as a leader of the conservative wing of the GOP-controlled House, which has so far rejected any long-term funding for DHS that does not include language that dismantles President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration. That action, announced last year, would enable as many as 5 million undocumented people to remain in the country and work legally for three years. Republicans claim that the president in issuing that directive has overstepped his authority. A federal judge temporarily halted the actions from moving forward.

"On Friday there was a bill on the House floor to pass a clean [DHS] funding bill, and we rejected that because we said, 'We're fighting the president on what he's done illegally on immigration and we want to continue this battle,'" Scalise said. Instead of funding DHS for the year, the House passed a one-week funding bill, ensuring that the GOP's internal battle on the matter would continue for another week.

"What we did was pass a bill that now forces the Senate to vote on going to conference. We actually passed a bill that pushes back on the president's illegal actions on immigration. They made changes to that bill that we don't like," Scalise said. "On Monday, the Senate will actually be taking that vote."

Scalise did not offer any resolution to the impasse beyond encouraging the public to press the Senate to move forward with the House version of the bill, which is all but assured to fail. "I would encourage anybody who disagrees with the president's illegal actions on immigration, like I do, to light up the Senate switchboard between now and Monday evening," he said.


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
oneofthem
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
March 01 2015 17:48 GMT
#33646
im not rly a locckstep liberal tho, have criticized leftists plenty of times and i prob value the market more than most ppl here.
We have fed the heart on fantasies, the heart's grown brutal from the fare, more substance in our enmities than in our love
Yoav
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1874 Posts
March 01 2015 18:05 GMT
#33647
On February 28 2015 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The University of Wisconsin requested that Gov. Scott Walker remove a requirement that all 26 campuses report allegations of sexual assaults to the state every year because it already submits similar information to the federal government, a UW spokesman said Friday.

The governor’s plan also calls for cutting out information about sexual assaults from orientation programs for new and existing UW students at all campuses, as well as removing the requirement that any employee who witnesses an assault or is told by a student that they’ve been assaulted report that information to the dean of students.


Source

What is with Republicans and Rape?


Beats the shit out of me, but I wonder the same thing about Democrats.

Republicans: Rape? What rape?
Democrats: Let's have a two-tiered system of justice where the poor get prosecuted by the cops and the rich get prosecuted by idiot college administrators!

On March 01 2015 13:04 puerk wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On March 01 2015 12:36 Mercy13 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 11:38 hannahbelle wrote:
On March 01 2015 11:19 Mercy13 wrote:
On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote:
If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!

Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore.


So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now.

At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders.

I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so.

There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on.

What? The sanctions were having next to no effect. They were so effective, in fact, that Europe was about to abandon them because they were making life too inconvenient. Russia's economy continues to ebb and flow based on oil prices.

You really don't get it do you? Nobody in the world has faith in Obama's pledges. He will defend Estonia like he honored the obligations to Ukraine. Like he followed through with the red line he drew in Syria. Obama speaks and the world laughs. That is the reality of today.

The oligarchs aren't going to act against Putin. They follow lock step behind him. They are getting rich off the industry/resources seized during the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Putin is still extremely popular in his own country. Except for the decline in oil prices, things are looking great for Putin. Turkey is migrating away from Europe to Russia and Bulgaria is getting closer to them.

You guys need to stop burying your head in the sand. Obama is doing real and permanent damage to the world through his inept bungling of foreign affairs. You ask what to do about Ukraine. Now? What can we do? The situation has been handled incompetently from the beginning. As I mentioned in a previous post, once you screw things up so bad, there often isn't any saving them.


There's a big difference between a political agreement like the US had with the Ukraine and a treaty like NATO. If Russia straight up invades a NATO country I would support intervening militarily, as would most liberal minded Americans (I think), and Obama would be under a lot of pressure to defend our allies.

The oligarchs care about their own money and power. If Putin's actions cause them to lose money and power, they will get rid of him. There's a reason the sanctions initially focused on Putin's political allies, rather than the Russian economy. You're right that the sanctions weren't hugely effective at first, but falling oil prices have compounded their effect. Russia currently is facing a huge budget deficit, and no one will lend them money to plug it because of the existing sanctions and fears of future ones. Putin's popularity doesn't come into it - if the oligarchs decide that what Putin is doing isn't good for them, he'll be gone.

Do you have a source suggesting that oligarchs are getting rich off Crimea? It is my understanding that Russia has committed to pay the equivalent of billions of dollars in subsidies to Crimea as part of the annexation deal. I suppose this might not directly impact the oligarchs, but I find it hard to believe that Russians are looting Crimea, for political reasons if nothing else.

Your answer to my question about what you would have done is a pretty big cop out... So what would you have done differently in the beginning? Tried harder to get the EU to levy stiffer sanctions? Put American troops in the Ukraine (this would have been beyond stupid, in my opinion)?

The truth is that there is not and never has been any easy solution to Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine. The world is a complicated place, and just because America is rich and has a strong military doesn't mean there's a possible solution to every problem.

Out of curiosity:

Poll: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?

Yes (18)
 
75%

No (3)
 
13%

Not Sure (3)
 
13%

24 total votes

Your vote: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?

(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Not Sure



Apparently, about 60% of Americans support fulfilling our treaty obligations, though the support is lower for certain countries:

Source

The poll didn't mention which countries were in NATO, however. I would be interested to see how that information would change peoples' responses.




wait what, 30% of americans wouldn't want to defend france if it got attacked by russia but they want to invade middle eastern countries to kill bearded men with bronze age morals?
straight priorities...


The people who don't want to defend France are not the same people who want to intervene in the Middle East.

On March 01 2015 20:20 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 16:08 Falling wrote:
He's not one of them, he's one of us

That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them.


The truth is spoken.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
March 01 2015 18:29 GMT
#33648
WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Sunday made an effort to walk back recent controversial comments comparing union protesters to the Islamic State group and expressing doubt over whether President Barack Obama loves America.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Walker said he was "not comparing" union protesters to the terrorist group known as ISIS.

The comment came three days after Walker answered a question about ISIS at a conservative conference by saying, "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world." Walker was referring to the protesters who gathered in Wisconsin in 2011 to oppose his efforts to strip public sector unions of collective bargaining rights.

His remarks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference drew an immediate backlash, and since then, both Walker and his spokespeople have been working overtime to dial back and "clarify" what he meant.

"What I meant was it's about leadership, and the leadership we provided under extremely difficult circumstances," Walker, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace. "To me, I apply that to saying, 'If I were to run and if I were to win and be commander-in-chief, I believe that kind of leadership is what's necessary to take on radical Islamic terrorism.'"

Walker also sought to use the interview to repair another self-inflicted wound to his potential presidential campaign: His failure to rebut comments by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fundraiser for Walker last month, in which Giuliani said Obama doesn't "love this country."


Source
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Falling
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada11349 Posts
March 01 2015 18:33 GMT
#33649
On March 01 2015 20:20 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 16:08 Falling wrote:
He's not one of them, he's one of us

That's quite a good illustration of the deplorable state of the political debate at the moment. The fact that there's an us and a them... even the good ideas from the other "team" must be rabidly opposed, simply because it came from them.

It would be... if I was serious and not simply making a play on his name.
Moderator"In Trump We Trust," says the Golden Goat of Mars Lago. Have faith and believe! Trump moves in mysterious ways. Like the wind he blows where he pleases...
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
March 01 2015 18:48 GMT
#33650
On March 01 2015 13:04 puerk wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On March 01 2015 12:36 Mercy13 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 11:38 hannahbelle wrote:
On March 01 2015 11:19 Mercy13 wrote:
On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote:
If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!

Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore.


So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now.

At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders.

I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so.

There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on.

What? The sanctions were having next to no effect. They were so effective, in fact, that Europe was about to abandon them because they were making life too inconvenient. Russia's economy continues to ebb and flow based on oil prices.

You really don't get it do you? Nobody in the world has faith in Obama's pledges. He will defend Estonia like he honored the obligations to Ukraine. Like he followed through with the red line he drew in Syria. Obama speaks and the world laughs. That is the reality of today.

The oligarchs aren't going to act against Putin. They follow lock step behind him. They are getting rich off the industry/resources seized during the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Putin is still extremely popular in his own country. Except for the decline in oil prices, things are looking great for Putin. Turkey is migrating away from Europe to Russia and Bulgaria is getting closer to them.

You guys need to stop burying your head in the sand. Obama is doing real and permanent damage to the world through his inept bungling of foreign affairs. You ask what to do about Ukraine. Now? What can we do? The situation has been handled incompetently from the beginning. As I mentioned in a previous post, once you screw things up so bad, there often isn't any saving them.


There's a big difference between a political agreement like the US had with the Ukraine and a treaty like NATO. If Russia straight up invades a NATO country I would support intervening militarily, as would most liberal minded Americans (I think), and Obama would be under a lot of pressure to defend our allies.

The oligarchs care about their own money and power. If Putin's actions cause them to lose money and power, they will get rid of him. There's a reason the sanctions initially focused on Putin's political allies, rather than the Russian economy. You're right that the sanctions weren't hugely effective at first, but falling oil prices have compounded their effect. Russia currently is facing a huge budget deficit, and no one will lend them money to plug it because of the existing sanctions and fears of future ones. Putin's popularity doesn't come into it - if the oligarchs decide that what Putin is doing isn't good for them, he'll be gone.

Do you have a source suggesting that oligarchs are getting rich off Crimea? It is my understanding that Russia has committed to pay the equivalent of billions of dollars in subsidies to Crimea as part of the annexation deal. I suppose this might not directly impact the oligarchs, but I find it hard to believe that Russians are looting Crimea, for political reasons if nothing else.

Your answer to my question about what you would have done is a pretty big cop out... So what would you have done differently in the beginning? Tried harder to get the EU to levy stiffer sanctions? Put American troops in the Ukraine (this would have been beyond stupid, in my opinion)?

The truth is that there is not and never has been any easy solution to Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine. The world is a complicated place, and just because America is rich and has a strong military doesn't mean there's a possible solution to every problem.

Out of curiosity:

Poll: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?

Yes (18)
 
75%

No (3)
 
13%

Not Sure (3)
 
13%

24 total votes

Your vote: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?

(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Not Sure



Apparently, about 60% of Americans support fulfilling our treaty obligations, though the support is lower for certain countries:

Source

The poll didn't mention which countries were in NATO, however. I would be interested to see how that information would change peoples' responses.




wait what, 30% of americans wouldn't want to defend france if it got attacked by russia but they want to invade middle eastern countries to kill bearded men with bronze age morals?
straight priorities...

It's pretty normal for a country to be more willing to defend itself than its allies.

Flip it around. Following 9/11 NATO invoked Article 5, yet Europeans weren't thrilled about backing the US into Afghanistan. I guess Europeans won't defend their most important ally, but still wants us to kill men in fuzzy hats who own a lot of gas. Straight priorities
Paljas
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6926 Posts
March 01 2015 18:55 GMT
#33651
yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia
TL+ Member
hannahbelle
Profile Joined April 2014
United States0 Posts
March 01 2015 19:05 GMT
#33652
On March 02 2015 03:55 Paljas wrote:
yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia


It's not literally the same, but I'm not sure NATO treaty differentiates them? No?
hannahbelle
Profile Joined April 2014
United States0 Posts
March 01 2015 19:07 GMT
#33653
On March 02 2015 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Sunday made an effort to walk back recent controversial comments comparing union protesters to the Islamic State group and expressing doubt over whether President Barack Obama loves America.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Walker said he was "not comparing" union protesters to the terrorist group known as ISIS.

The comment came three days after Walker answered a question about ISIS at a conservative conference by saying, "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world." Walker was referring to the protesters who gathered in Wisconsin in 2011 to oppose his efforts to strip public sector unions of collective bargaining rights.

His remarks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference drew an immediate backlash, and since then, both Walker and his spokespeople have been working overtime to dial back and "clarify" what he meant.

"What I meant was it's about leadership, and the leadership we provided under extremely difficult circumstances," Walker, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace. "To me, I apply that to saying, 'If I were to run and if I were to win and be commander-in-chief, I believe that kind of leadership is what's necessary to take on radical Islamic terrorism.'"

Walker also sought to use the interview to repair another self-inflicted wound to his potential presidential campaign: His failure to rebut comments by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fundraiser for Walker last month, in which Giuliani said Obama doesn't "love this country."


Source


Talk about much ado about nothing. The libs keep beating this horse, but it just shows their desperation.
hannahbelle
Profile Joined April 2014
United States0 Posts
March 01 2015 19:09 GMT
#33654
On March 02 2015 03:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 13:04 puerk wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On March 01 2015 12:36 Mercy13 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 01 2015 11:38 hannahbelle wrote:
On March 01 2015 11:19 Mercy13 wrote:
On March 01 2015 11:04 Danglars wrote:
If only the more sophisticated individuals of today had concluded Cold War business of a country freed from the USSR possessing nuclear weapons. You give them up and we'll ... give you assurances for food and blankets should Russia get a new hankering for its lost territories (and our diplomats will throw in some harsh verbage, free). Thanks for the warm fuzzies about nuclear non-proliferation!

Today's foreign policy disasters will prove for decades that the US and NATO are not to be trusted when signing treaties. At least, not anymore.


So what are you guys actually advocating for in regards to Russia? The situation in Ukraine is bad, but Russia has suffered consequences as a result of its actions. The sanctions were starting to scare investment away even before energy prices crashed, and Russia's economy is a real mess right now.

At the same time, we have Obama visiting Estonia and promising to defend it, and US troops parading on Russia's borders.

I bet things are looking pretty bleak from Putin's perspective right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if the oligarchs have him ousted in the next year or so.

There is no conceivable military response that wouldn't lead to far worse damage to the rest of the world, including Ukraine, than what is currently going on.

What? The sanctions were having next to no effect. They were so effective, in fact, that Europe was about to abandon them because they were making life too inconvenient. Russia's economy continues to ebb and flow based on oil prices.

You really don't get it do you? Nobody in the world has faith in Obama's pledges. He will defend Estonia like he honored the obligations to Ukraine. Like he followed through with the red line he drew in Syria. Obama speaks and the world laughs. That is the reality of today.

The oligarchs aren't going to act against Putin. They follow lock step behind him. They are getting rich off the industry/resources seized during the annexation of Crimea and the de facto annexation of eastern Ukraine. Putin is still extremely popular in his own country. Except for the decline in oil prices, things are looking great for Putin. Turkey is migrating away from Europe to Russia and Bulgaria is getting closer to them.

You guys need to stop burying your head in the sand. Obama is doing real and permanent damage to the world through his inept bungling of foreign affairs. You ask what to do about Ukraine. Now? What can we do? The situation has been handled incompetently from the beginning. As I mentioned in a previous post, once you screw things up so bad, there often isn't any saving them.


There's a big difference between a political agreement like the US had with the Ukraine and a treaty like NATO. If Russia straight up invades a NATO country I would support intervening militarily, as would most liberal minded Americans (I think), and Obama would be under a lot of pressure to defend our allies.

The oligarchs care about their own money and power. If Putin's actions cause them to lose money and power, they will get rid of him. There's a reason the sanctions initially focused on Putin's political allies, rather than the Russian economy. You're right that the sanctions weren't hugely effective at first, but falling oil prices have compounded their effect. Russia currently is facing a huge budget deficit, and no one will lend them money to plug it because of the existing sanctions and fears of future ones. Putin's popularity doesn't come into it - if the oligarchs decide that what Putin is doing isn't good for them, he'll be gone.

Do you have a source suggesting that oligarchs are getting rich off Crimea? It is my understanding that Russia has committed to pay the equivalent of billions of dollars in subsidies to Crimea as part of the annexation deal. I suppose this might not directly impact the oligarchs, but I find it hard to believe that Russians are looting Crimea, for political reasons if nothing else.

Your answer to my question about what you would have done is a pretty big cop out... So what would you have done differently in the beginning? Tried harder to get the EU to levy stiffer sanctions? Put American troops in the Ukraine (this would have been beyond stupid, in my opinion)?

The truth is that there is not and never has been any easy solution to Russia's shenanigans in the Ukraine. The world is a complicated place, and just because America is rich and has a strong military doesn't mean there's a possible solution to every problem.

Out of curiosity:

Poll: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?

Yes (18)
 
75%

No (3)
 
13%

Not Sure (3)
 
13%

24 total votes

Your vote: Would you support war with Russia to defend a NATO country?

(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Not Sure



Apparently, about 60% of Americans support fulfilling our treaty obligations, though the support is lower for certain countries:

Source

The poll didn't mention which countries were in NATO, however. I would be interested to see how that information would change peoples' responses.




wait what, 30% of americans wouldn't want to defend france if it got attacked by russia but they want to invade middle eastern countries to kill bearded men with bronze age morals?
straight priorities...

It's pretty normal for a country to be more willing to defend itself than its allies.

Flip it around. Following 9/11 NATO invoked Article 5, yet Europeans weren't thrilled about backing the US into Afghanistan. I guess Europeans won't defend their most important ally, but still wants us to kill men in fuzzy hats who own a lot of gas. Straight priorities

Not to mention the threat that Libya posed to France...
Paljas
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6926 Posts
March 01 2015 19:20 GMT
#33655
On March 02 2015 04:05 hannahbelle wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 02 2015 03:55 Paljas wrote:
yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia


It's not literally the same, but I'm not sure NATO treaty differentiates them? No?

even invoking the NATO treaty was problematic. it simply wasnt designed for such cases
TL+ Member
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
March 01 2015 19:34 GMT
#33656
On March 02 2015 03:55 Paljas wrote:
yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia

The poll question was: 'should the US use military force if Russia attacks any of the countries listed below?'

Now its an invasion, and you're probably assuming unprovoked as well.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
March 01 2015 19:46 GMT
#33657
On March 02 2015 03:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON -- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Sunday made an effort to walk back recent controversial comments comparing union protesters to the Islamic State group and expressing doubt over whether President Barack Obama loves America.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Walker said he was "not comparing" union protesters to the terrorist group known as ISIS.

The comment came three days after Walker answered a question about ISIS at a conservative conference by saying, "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world." Walker was referring to the protesters who gathered in Wisconsin in 2011 to oppose his efforts to strip public sector unions of collective bargaining rights.

His remarks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference drew an immediate backlash, and since then, both Walker and his spokespeople have been working overtime to dial back and "clarify" what he meant.

"What I meant was it's about leadership, and the leadership we provided under extremely difficult circumstances," Walker, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, told "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace. "To me, I apply that to saying, 'If I were to run and if I were to win and be commander-in-chief, I believe that kind of leadership is what's necessary to take on radical Islamic terrorism.'"

Walker also sought to use the interview to repair another self-inflicted wound to his potential presidential campaign: His failure to rebut comments by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at a fundraiser for Walker last month, in which Giuliani said Obama doesn't "love this country."


Source


I actually think his other walk back was funnier.

"but I think it's pretty clear, that's the closest thing I have in terms of handling a difficult situation, not that there's any parallel between the two."


And this one:

As recently as Friday, Walker was still holding fast to his ignorance, telling a Wisconsin newspaper, "I don't really know what his opinions are on that one way or another." But Walker changed his tune in the interview with Wallace, saying, "I don't question" that Obama loves America, and emphasizing that the former New York mayor wasn't speaking on Walker's behalf.


Presumably this one will be walked back eventually...

Yet even as Walker sought to tamp down these two controversies, he ignored an opportunity to put to rest a third dust-up, this one regarding Obama's faith. Last month, Walker said he didn't know whether or not Obama was a Christian, telling the Washington Post, “I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that."
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Toadesstern
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Germany16350 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-01 20:00:53
March 01 2015 19:59 GMT
#33658
On March 02 2015 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 02 2015 03:55 Paljas wrote:
yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia

The poll question was: 'should the US use military force if Russia attacks any of the countries listed below?'

Now its an invasion, and you're probably assuming unprovoked as well.

there is indeed a difference here, because as you figured out, the phrasing does indeed imply a clean cut scenario like that and not a terrorist attack by some extremist group. There was no real nato follow up on the charlie hebdo attacks either, or at least it's questionable sparking discussion, there was nothing comming from the Nato for the more recent ones in Denmark either because it just simply isn't that clean cut.

If the question wasn't supposed to imply exactly that, and it does sound as if it does, the question's useless.
<Elem> >toad in charge of judging lewdness <Elem> how bad can it be <Elem> also wew, that is actually p lewd.
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
March 01 2015 20:34 GMT
#33659
On March 02 2015 04:59 Toadesstern wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 02 2015 04:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On March 02 2015 03:55 Paljas wrote:
yeah, a terrorist attack by an global militant Islamist organization is literally the same as an invasion by russia

The poll question was: 'should the US use military force if Russia attacks any of the countries listed below?'

Now its an invasion, and you're probably assuming unprovoked as well.

there is indeed a difference here, because as you figured out, the phrasing does indeed imply a clean cut scenario like that and not a terrorist attack by some extremist group. There was no real nato follow up on the charlie hebdo attacks either, or at least it's questionable sparking discussion, there was nothing comming from the Nato for the more recent ones in Denmark either because it just simply isn't that clean cut.

If the question wasn't supposed to imply exactly that, and it does sound as if it does, the question's useless.

I think you're illustrating my point very well. The US was attack on 9/11 and Europeans did and still do hem and haw over whether they should have supported the US into Afghanistan. Yet and minority of Americans voice disfavor towards protecting France from an attack, not details given, and that's just outrageous.
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2015-03-01 20:44:38
March 01 2015 20:38 GMT
#33660
There wasn't that much fuzz about Afghanistan, it was mainly Iraq which caused a big outrage here. Which by the way made a lot of sense because the war was complete bs, which pretty much most Americans will admit today.

Pretty much all big European NATO countries did their part in the Afghanistan war and still do today. I don't know what hem and haw means in this context, or do you think we shouldn't even controversially discuss our military involvement and rename our french fries to freedom fries, too?
Prev 1 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
18:00
RO8 Round Robin Group - Day 4
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
ZZZero.O231
LiquipediaDiscussion
FEL
09:00
Cracow 2025
SKillous vs LamboLIVE!
Clem vs TBD
Reynor vs TBD
RotterdaM2656
ComeBackTV 2058
IndyStarCraft 736
WardiTV500
3DClanTV 217
CranKy Ducklings176
EnkiAlexander 104
Rex73
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
RotterdaM 2656
IndyStarCraft 736
Rex 73
Vindicta 52
MindelVK 48
StarCraft: Brood War
Shine 328
ZZZero.O 231
firebathero 221
Soulkey 127
Dota 2
capcasts125
LuMiX1
League of Legends
febbydoto4
Counter-Strike
fl0m3675
flusha226
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox1968
Mew2King1093
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor638
Liquid`Hasu470
Other Games
Grubby2605
B2W.Neo1016
KnowMe155
mouzStarbuck54
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick2685
StarCraft 2
angryscii 15
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta18
• LUISG 14
• Legendk 5
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• HerbMon 18
• Azhi_Dahaki11
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV1032
Other Games
• imaqtpie1327
• Shiphtur417
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
15h 29m
Sparkling Tuna Cup
1d 14h
WardiTV European League
1d 20h
Online Event
1d 21h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL 20 Team Wars
FEL Cracov 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.