|
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. |
On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. This kind of talk is getting annoying. Again, answer this question: What the hell is the west supposed to do?Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do. So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S. Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations.
"It's a 19th century act in the 21st century. It really puts at question Russia's capacity to be within the G8." I'd be scared of Kerry, too!
|
On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now.
Its less the strength of Russia's army (we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance.
|
On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home
This is more unrealistic than Call of Duty lol.
|
I'm afraid that I have to agree with Danglars. Putin isn't Mikhail Gorbachev. I don't think policy of detente will cut it here. I think the only thing Russia responds to is strength. Every 'act of kindness' from the west will probably be interpreted as weakness in Russia and encourage Putin to continue what he's doing right now.
|
On March 04 2014 14:01 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now. Its less the strength of Russia's army ( we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance.
You can't be serious.
|
On March 04 2014 14:00 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. This kind of talk is getting annoying. Again, answer this question: What the hell is the west supposed to do?Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do. So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S. Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations.
George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia.
|
On March 04 2014 14:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:01 Adreme wrote:On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now. Its less the strength of Russia's army ( we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance. You can't be serious.
We couldn't defeat a group of tribesmen with AK-47's and IED's in 13 years.
|
On March 04 2014 14:38 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 14:01 Adreme wrote:On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now. Its less the strength of Russia's army ( we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance. You can't be serious. We couldn't defeat a group of tribesmen with AK-47's and IED's in 13 years.
ya but in a certain way, I bet the US army would welcome fighting someone who has clearly defined units and things to blow up. Like, its pretty obvious that Gulf War 2/Kuwait was their favorite war ever. Bad guys in crap equipment, in large numbers, just standing there, waiting to get killed
|
On March 04 2014 14:38 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 14:01 Adreme wrote:On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now. Its less the strength of Russia's army ( we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance. You can't be serious. We couldn't defeat a group of tribesmen with AK-47's and IED's in 13 years.
We defeated them in about a month we couldn't occupy them which are 2 entirely different things.
|
On March 04 2014 14:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:38 Livelovedie wrote:On March 04 2014 14:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 14:01 Adreme wrote:On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now. Its less the strength of Russia's army ( we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance. You can't be serious. We couldn't defeat a group of tribesmen with AK-47's and IED's in 13 years. ya but in a certain way, I bet the US army would welcome fighting someone who has clearly defined units and things to blow up. Like, its pretty obvious that Gulf War 2/Kuwait was their favorite war ever. Bad guys in crap equipment, in large numbers, just standing there, waiting to get killed
But once you kill those guys then you have the endless "unlawful combatants" to deal with.
|
On March 04 2014 14:34 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:00 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. This kind of talk is getting annoying. Again, answer this question: What the hell is the west supposed to do?Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do. So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S. Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations. George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia. I suppose a second 9/11 was preferable to Bush's actions. What was it you were talking about, again? Something about equating the war on terror to Russian opposition or something?
|
On March 04 2014 15:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 14:00 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. This kind of talk is getting annoying. Again, answer this question: What the hell is the west supposed to do?Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do. So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S. Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations. George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia. I suppose a second 9/11 was preferable to Bush's actions. What was it you were talking about, again? Something about equating the war on terror to Russian opposition or something?
When USA military = big, Putin did what he is now doing again. It is thus reasonable to assume that a big, assertive military does not deter what Russia does, so long as what it does doesn't involve any NATO countries.
|
On March 04 2014 15:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 14:00 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. This kind of talk is getting annoying. Again, answer this question: What the hell is the west supposed to do?Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do. So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S. Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations. George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia. I suppose a second 9/11 was preferable to Bush's actions. What was it you were talking about, again? Something about equating the war on terror to Russian opposition or something?
Your point was that "By cutting the defense budget and withdrawing from the wars" Obama has shown "weakness to Putin" and my point was George Bush literally did the opposite of that and...didnt stop Putin's aggression either. Maybe its more complicated than that...(and really, invading Iraq prevented another 9/11?)
|
On March 04 2014 15:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 14:00 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. This kind of talk is getting annoying. Again, answer this question: What the hell is the west supposed to do?Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do. So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S. Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations. George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia. I suppose a second 9/11 was preferable to Bush's actions. What was it you were talking about, again? Something about equating the war on terror to Russian opposition or something?
You are missing the point, intentionally. With all of Bush's aggression and military expansion, Russia still rolled into Georgia.
You argue the following:
(1) if America projects strength and does a lot of Republican things
(2) then Putin will be contained
But Bush did (1), up to the max the treasury could support. Putin went ahead and invaded Georgia anyways.
PS: "preventing a second 9/11" ... are you serious? How do you think Iraq did that? Iraq almost certainly sowed the seeds for a future 9/11. It provided the training ground for the Syrian terrorists we will be dealing with over the next few years. The Iraq war also proved to all the Jihadists out there that Bin Laden was right, America is an aggressor. We won't live down that argument for a generation all thanks to Bush.
|
On March 04 2014 16:56 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 15:43 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2014 14:34 Sub40APM wrote:On March 04 2014 14:00 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. This kind of talk is getting annoying. Again, answer this question: What the hell is the west supposed to do?Any economic or political actions from the U.S. are either useless or not feasible. The same goes for the EU. The UN is completely useless in this matter, and military action over this would be the single dumbest thing that the U.S. could possibly do. So go ahead. Tell us. What should Obama do to "be a strong leader"? Huh? Because there really are no meaningful or effective responses available to anyone, let alone the U.S. Just because there aren't any terrific USA-wins moves does NOT mean you're free to project weakness and impotence. Military cutbacks, "Russian Reset" button, "red line" talk ... just don't do that crap. It's Obama himself that has telegraphed his feeble commitment to using force if necessary, and it was talked up in both his elections. You can't just reverse course and suddenly say you've changed your mind and its now OK to act like a superpower. Not when your enemies haven't also put all their eggs into the intellectual paper agreements and international condemnations. George Bush invaded 2 different countries and raised the defense budget to almost a trillion, that didnt seem to stop Putin from invading Georgia. And the American response was what? No sanctions, no end of trade talks, no targeted visa bans. In fact, the US has done more to punish the guys who tortured and killed sergei magnitsky than who invaded Georgia. I suppose a second 9/11 was preferable to Bush's actions. What was it you were talking about, again? Something about equating the war on terror to Russian opposition or something? You are missing the point, intentionally. With all of Bush's aggression and military expansion, Russia still rolled into Georgia. You argue the following: (1) if America projects strength and does a lot of Republican things (2) then Putin will be contained But Bush did (1), up to the max the treasury could support. Putin went ahead and invaded Georgia anyways. PS: "preventing a second 9/11" ... are you serious? How do you think Iraq did that? Iraq almost certainly sowed the seeds for a future 9/11. It provided the training ground for the Syrian terrorists we will be dealing with over the next few years. The Iraq war also proved to all the Jihadists out there that Bin Laden was right, America is an aggressor. We won't live down that argument for a generation all thanks to Bush.
Good try, but not good enough.
1) It was Georgia who struck first, effectively cutting any support US could have provided at that time. It was also Georgia who provoked Russia in the first place with the NATO plan.
2) It happened when Bush was on his way out. Putin saw the timing and he took it.
I am by no means a fan of Bush; I feel that he was one of the worst presidents. But Obama is really trying hard to be in that same category. In fact, I think he's already there with two years left in his term. If you add up all the drama and lies that he's spitted out to the public, and you are one of the ones who voted for him (twice), then you really have to think hard about what the heck it was that you were smoking.
|
"rolled into / invaded" - georgia is a very bad descriptor of south-ossetian conflict, sarah palin level bad.
|
On March 04 2014 14:38 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 14:01 Adreme wrote:On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now. Its less the strength of Russia's army ( we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance. You can't be serious. We couldn't defeat a group of tribesmen with AK-47's and IED's in 13 years.
Of course not. At least not when you play by the rules. You can't just go total war on people's ass anymore.
|
Some comments are really ignorant. Do you really think the US or any country in the world can really go to war against russia ? Going against russia is a war that no side would win.
On March 04 2014 23:36 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 14:38 Livelovedie wrote:On March 04 2014 14:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 14:01 Adreme wrote:On March 04 2014 13:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 13:41 TLCDR wrote:On March 04 2014 13:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 04 2014 12:56 Danglars wrote:
Every new crisis is a chance to prove your leadership, or lack thereof. I'm waiting to hear Obama's next brave choice of vocabulary to condemn Putin's actions. The description to beat lately is "deeply destabilizing." ("There will be costs" and "deeply concerned" are further behind). I wonder what comes next for this tough-talk president? Each subsequent statement seems to be taken from some 90s UNSC resolutions. What the hell is the west supposed to do? send in the 101st airborne, some F-35s and a couple B-2 bombers to kick Putin's ass all over the weak ass place. make these russians get into a wheelchair and roll themselves home Horrible, horrible, horrible idea. Not only can we not afford to be in yet another military conflict so soon, but Russia isn't some weak third-world country that we can just bully. We haven't faced a country that is anywhere near as strong as Russia is in an armed conflict since WWII. Do you really think that they'll just take military action lying down? That they'll just slink away and surrender? Military action against the Russians would lead to something long and protracted, which is something we can't afford right now. Its less the strength of Russia's army ( we could probably crush there whole arm in less then 3 months with minimal losses) and more the fact that they are a nuclear power that we would be declaring open war on and forcing them into a desperate situation where the nukes would be only way they could have a chance. You can't be serious. We couldn't defeat a group of tribesmen with AK-47's and IED's in 13 years. Of course not. At least not when you play by the rules. You can't just go total war on people's ass anymore.
Remember viet nam? you didn t play by the rule there, but still couldn't win. Even Rambo came back broken.
You neglect climate, geography, and everything that makes a war more than a bunch of people launching expensive toys at each others. There is a reason why Napoleon and Hitler failed to conquer russia.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
rambo was not a real person.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
better call on american hypocrisy(while true) some more while russia and china run rampant
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
