Putin, If We Don't have the Balls to Take Him Out

[DDD]

Learn a little bit about the history of Crimea and then get back to me.

This is a diversion.

The issue is neither history nor Ukrainian Crimea. The issue raised in the interaction with you was the following sentence:

Everyone knew that Russia would never let it go, including the Ukrainians.

This statement has two over-generalized words in it such as "everyone" and "never."

I for one did not know that Putin will not let Ukrainian Crimea go. Did the isolated tribes knew that Putin would not let Ukrainian Crimea go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4_I6YKZoq0

So how is this "everyone?" Whom is included in the over-generalized word "everyone?"

Secondly, there is no one on earth that can agree that Russia will never let Ukrainian Crimea go. This implies certainty over a indefinite period of time. Things may change in time. You do not know what is to come. What if a meteorite hits the north eastern part of the globe with enough intensity to destroy Russia mostly. Would Russia have the force to not let go of Ukrainian Crimea even after it territorially shrinks to the size of the Vatican?

 

[Jack Fabulous]

This is a diversion.

The issue is neither history nor Ukrainian Crimea. The issue raised in the interaction with you was the following sentence:



This statement has two over-generalized words in it such as "everyone" and "never."

I for one did not know that Putin will not let Ukrainian Crimea go. Did the isolated tribes knew that Putin would not let Ukrainian Crimea go?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4_I6YKZoq0

So how is this "everyone?" Whom is included in the over-generalized word "everyone?"

Secondly, there is no one on earth that can agree that Russia will never let Ukrainian Crimea go. This implies certainty over a indefinite period of time. Things may change in time. You do not know what is to come. What if a meteorite hits the north eastern part of the globe with enough intensity to destroy Russia mostly. Would Russia have the force to not let go of Ukrainian Crimea even after it territorially shrinks to the size of the Vatican?

It's more than just "Russia letting it go". Crimea is made up of about 60% ethnic Russians who have no loyalty to Ukraine at all. They have always had their own government and have maintained an autonomous existence within the boundaries of Ukraine since they were "gifted" to them in 1954. When Viktor Yanukovych was ousted one of the first things that the new regime did was to make it clear that they wanted to cut ties with Russia and join the EU and NATO. Incidentally, they also voted to strip Russian as an official language. So not only did you have the Russians saying "hold on there fellas...", you also had the Crimeans saying "no ****ing way, dude".

There was no way this was ever going to happen. It would have been an injustice if it did.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Sure, it's easy in hindsight to say it was a bad idea. But given the public's reaction, for him to assume that he was right wasn't a bad assumption, and in a democracy popular opinion is important.

Poor vision creates poor leadership, period. Hindsight just provides the evidence to prove it.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

That's how Vietnam started. :roll:

That's also how the Arab Spring got started and out of control.

 

[iguanaman]

They have a proper army with tanks, helicopter gun ships, artillery etc. They can and are handling a bunch of gangsters fairly easily. Russia will not intervene much more. The shooting down of an innocent jet was a disaster for the Russians.

After the fighting there will have to be voting. Then the people of eastern Ukraine will go to mother Russia in any case.

Almost the entire "separatist" army is made up of Russian special forces and their arms are all from Russia too. This is nothing but Putin's clandestine war to destabilize Ukraine. No fair election would succeed in dividing eastern Ukraine.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

So?

Putin hasn't got a sober enough army to fight against our modern one...not to mention nothing over there works.

Apparently their MANPADS work.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Sorry, you've got the wrong guy here. I simply think that those in the immediate sphere of influence should get off their asses and take care of their own security needs instead of relying on the US and others to carry the water for them. Hell, the EU isn't even willing to apply serious economic sanctions against Russian aggression but you want the US to go in and do the dirty work for them. Tell you what - you get the UK to launch military attacks against Russian positions and then maybe we can talk about the US joining in and assisting the UK in its efforts. After all, the UK has no less a responsibility under the agreement you cite than the US has yet I haven't really heard a peep out of the UK about "having the balls to take Putin out".

I'm not in favor of the US being the world's police either. However, look what's happening all across the ME and now in western Europe since the US has taken a "lead from behind" approach to foreign policy.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm not in favor of the US being the world's police either. However, look what's happening all across the ME and now in western Europe since the US has taken a "lead from behind" approach to foreign policy.

I agree, but there's a middle ground between being the world's police and being disinterested and disengaged. American disengagement from a number of hot spots in the world has led to situations where the US is almost forced to move in and from a position of weakness. American disengagement creates vacuums that others are only too eager to fill, most notably Russia in Syria, Iran, Ukraine and elsewhere. And it allows the world's bad actors to act out and cause trouble without any apparent consequences.

Unlike the old saying, "speak softly and carry a big stick", Obama prefers to "speak tough and carry a small stick". He's like the parent who constantly yells and threatens unruly kids but never acts on the threats so the brats just ignore the threats and push the boundaries even further. Unfortunately, Obama's world reputation is now set in stone and nothing can be done about it. It will be left to the next President to regain America's standing in international affairs.

 

[Montecresto]

I agree, but there's a middle ground between being the world's police and being disinterested and disengaged. American disengagement from a number of hot spots in the world has led to situations where the US is almost forced to move in and from a position of weakness. American disengagement creates vacuums that others are only too eager to fill, most notably Russia in Syria, Iran, Ukraine and elsewhere. And it allows the world's bad actors to act out and cause trouble without any apparent consequences.

Unlike the old saying, "speak softly and carry a big stick", Obama prefers to "speak tough and carry a small stick". He's like the parent who constantly yells and threatens unruly kids but never acts on the threats so the brats just ignore the threats and push the boundaries even further. Unfortunately, Obama's world reputation is now set in stone and nothing can be done about it. It will be left to the next President to regain America's standing in international affairs.

President Obama has put the Bush drone campaign on steroids, he bombed the hell out of Gaddafi forces and overthrew the government, he has supported militant Islamists trying to overthrow president Assad, he has sent nearly a thousand troops back into Iraq and repositioned an aircraft carrier should he need further response there. As a symbolic gesture of his willingness to use force, he positioned a couple thousand Marines in Australia and gave a very threatening speech directed toward china, he has conducted some very provocative moves toward China in the WestPac, has continued construction on the US's largest military base in Guam, I could probably think of more examples that Obama IS wielding a big stick. Though I wish you were right.

 

[CanadaJohn]

President Obama has put the Bush drone campaign on steroids, he bombed the hell out of Gaddafi forces and overthrew the government, he has supported militant Islamists trying to overthrow president Assad, he has sent nearly a thousand troops back into Iraq and repositioned an aircraft carrier should he need further response there. As a symbolic gesture of his willingness to use force, he positioned a couple thousand Marines in Australia and gave a very threatening speech directed toward china, he has conducted some very provocative moves toward China in the WestPac, has continued construction on the US's largest military base in Guam, I could probably think of more examples that Obama IS wielding a big stick. Though I wish you were right.

1. Obama has abused the drone program that initially came into use under Bush - it was a military weapon, for use on the battlefield, and he has expanded that to become a weapon of assassination, creating untold new enemies of America in the process.

2. NATO, led be France, with air command handled by a Canadian general, led the attack on Libya. American weaponry was instrumental, but Obama didn't lead that action one bit.

3. He let Egypt fester for months and months with little effort to assist in a peaceful or productive resolution, similar to his inattention to Syria until it became a cesspool of multiple factions that may never be deciphered. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood that barely won the Egyptian elections and stood by as they abused Christians and other opposition, tried to institute Sharia law against the wishes of the population, and ended up precipitating a military coup to regain and reset the road to democracy there.

4. He was unable to build on and extend the Bush agreement in Iraq for a retention of American military forces in the range of 10,000, happily removing all troops from Iraq in order to fulfill an ignorant campaign promise. He again, through inattention, watched as the US supported leader in Iraq moved to consolidate power in one faction and create the unrest that has festered in Syria and spilled over into Iraq, all with the assistance of Iran who have filled the vacuum left by Obama's inattention.

I could probably think of more examples of Obama wielding a limp noodle, though I wish you were right.

 

[JumpinJack]

Let's help out those who do.

It

Why us? There's a whole world of countries out there. There is an international coming together over the MH17 airplane incident, which includes our country. Let's see what the world thinks. Not everything is up to us and only us. Besides, we're broke, right? That's what I keep hearing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Let's be honest, if our intelligence did come out and say the missile was fired from "here", would you believe them?

You are correct that I distrust this administration. That said, they aren't even giving us a "fired from" location. I would expect if they could see that size of a rocket that they could pinpoint it's firing point from a 1/2 mile range or better. If they gave us a location, then it could be independently verified. The assumed damage to secrecy is already done by claiming we have the capability of seeing that small of a rocket from space, from a system designed to see ICBM's.

I find it fishy that more detail isn't given.

 

[Montecresto]

1. Obama has abused the drone program that initially came into use under Bush - it was a military weapon, for use on the battlefield, and he has expanded that to become a weapon of assassination, creating untold new enemies of America in the process.

2. NATO, led be France, with air command handled by a Canadian general, led the attack on Libya. American weaponry was instrumental, but Obama didn't lead that action one bit.

3. He let Egypt fester for months and months with little effort to assist in a peaceful or productive resolution, similar to his inattention to Syria until it became a cesspool of multiple factions that may never be deciphered. Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood that barely won the Egyptian elections and stood by as they abused Christians and other opposition, tried to institute Sharia law against the wishes of the population, and ended up precipitating a military coup to regain and reset the road to democracy there.

4. He was unable to build on and extend the Bush agreement in Iraq for a retention of American military forces in the range of 10,000, happily removing all troops from Iraq in order to fulfill an ignorant campaign promise. He again, through inattention, watched as the US supported leader in Iraq moved to consolidate power in one faction and create the unrest that has festered in Syria and spilled over into Iraq, all with the assistance of Iran who have filled the vacuum left by Obama's inattention.

I could probably think of more examples of Obama wielding a limp noodle, though I wish you were right.

So apparently we agree on point one.

Point two, we certainly agree on who led, who would argue against that. But it wouldn't have happened as quickly, and possibly not without BOTG. If your dismissing Obama's willingness to use force considering the firepower we showed up with, I'm laughing a little.

To point three, he didn't show weakness in Egypt, or an unwillingness to wield our big stick, he just didn't find merit in helping Mubarak retain power. Disagree with him on that if you will.

And to point four, he didn't show an unwillingness to do anything in Syria, including use our big stick, he was just prevented.


Obama has done his share of damage to US credibility as his predecessor before him, but he's shown every bit of the belligerence.

 

[Montecresto]

Why us? There's a whole world of countries out there. There is an international coming together over the MH17 airplane incident, which includes our country. Let's see what the world thinks. Not everything is up to us and only us. Besides, we're broke, right? That's what I keep hearing.

Good news is, new poll surveys indicate that there is a growing number of Americans who feel as you do!!

 

[DDD]

It's more than just "Russia letting it go". Crimea is made up of about 60% ethnic Russians who have no loyalty to Ukraine at all. They have always had their own government and have maintained an autonomous existence within the boundaries of Ukraine since they were "gifted" to them in 1954. When Viktor Yanukovych was ousted one of the first things that the new regime did was to make it clear that they wanted to cut ties with Russia and join the EU and NATO. Incidentally, they also voted to strip Russian as an official language. So not only did you have the Russians saying "hold on there fellas...", you also had the Crimeans saying "no ****ing way, dude".

There was no way this was ever going to happen. It would have been an injustice if it did.

These would have been good grounds for an independent Crimea. But annexation!?!

 

[thinkforyoursel]

I agree, but there's a middle ground between being the world's police and being disinterested and disengaged. American disengagement from a number of hot spots in the world has led to situations where the US is almost forced to move in and from a position of weakness. American disengagement creates vacuums that others are only too eager to fill, most notably Russia in Syria, Iran, Ukraine and elsewhere. And it allows the world's bad actors to act out and cause trouble without any apparent consequences.

Unlike the old saying, "speak softly and carry a big stick", Obama prefers to "speak tough and carry a small stick". He's like the parent who constantly yells and threatens unruly kids but never acts on the threats so the brats just ignore the threats and push the boundaries even further. Unfortunately, Obama's world reputation is now set in stone and nothing can be done about it. It will be left to the next President to regain America's standing in international affairs.

We've seen this "stunt" before haven't we? I mean, one of the reasons Putin is embolden is because he's listening to the loud voices from the right wing of Obama's disapproval! He also see your willingness to break the old unwritten rule and take your anti-American jihad beyond American shorelines. Along with that he also hears how much you guys have slobbered over him for years now.

But should Obama try to escalate America's involvement what would be the .."play"...from the right-wing...guess? You would loudly proclaim your disapproval for his decisions for one reason or another ....and when he backs down....you run out saying that he's weak. We now know the game bud!

But there is something else I see in particular with the Russian conflict.

Those people are savages ...they want war ...and if next year this time they're still killing each other ...nothing could be better for the rest of the world. Let them "thin-out-the-herd" in their own back yard. I think Obama should only provide enough support to keep that war on-going.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

These would have been good grounds for an independent Crimea. But annexation!?!

The Crimeans overwhelmingly voted for it and supported it.

 

[humbolt]

well, here is my question.

Why isn't our intelligence telling us where it was fired from? Maybe they really don't know?

Hard to say if a network designed to pick up ICBM's would see smaller rockets.

I don't think we're about to reveal the extent or sophistication of our surveillance.

 

[Montecresto]

The Crimeans overwhelmingly voted for it and supported it.

Which is precisely why "annexation" is an incorrect characterisation, or Western propaganda.

 

[DDD]

The Crimeans overwhelmingly voted for it and supported it.

So should a population vote for annexation overwhelmingly then this formula should follow and apply for other countries also.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

So should a population vote for annexation overwhelmingly then this formula should follow and apply for other countries also.

Has it ever occurred prior to this?

 

[CanadaJohn]

We've seen this "stunt" before haven't we? I mean, one of the reasons Putin is embolden is because he's listening to the loud voices from the right wing of Obama's disapproval! He also see your willingness to break the old unwritten rule and take your anti-American jihad beyond American shorelines. Along with that he also hears how much you guys have slobbered over him for years now.

But should Obama try to escalate America's involvement what would be the .."play"...from the right-wing...guess? You would loudly proclaim your disapproval for his decisions for one reason or another ....and when he backs down....you run out saying that he's weak. We now know the game bud!

But there is something else I see in particular with the Russian conflict.

Those people are savages ...they want war ...and if next year this time they're still killing each other ...nothing could be better for the rest of the world. Let them "thin-out-the-herd" in their own back yard. I think Obama should only provide enough support to keep that war on-going.

Gee - what an inconsequential and weak man you must believe Obama to be. Criticism causes him to wilt under pressure and become totally ineffectual.

And I'd love for you to post some of the "anti-American jihad" statements that the American right or Republicans have taken beyond American shores. Name a single American politician on the right who has traveled outside of the US to criticize President Obama or America. Or are you simply saying that President Obama is beyond question and any disagreement with the great man is the equivalent of treason?

 

[DDD]

Has it ever occurred prior to this?

It may occur with us. See details in my signature.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think we're about to reveal the extent or sophistication of our surveillance.

Yet there are those who claim it is capable of distinguishing the relatively small missile and firing location.

That was my point. To speak of such ability would probably be a violation if true... A release of classified material.

I suspect the system isn't sophisticated enough for such detail. The satellites watching that region were/are looking for a much larger rocket... An ICBM.

 

[humbolt]

Yet there are those who claim it is capable of distinguishing the relatively small missile and firing location.

That was my point. To speak of such ability would probably be a violation if true... A release of classified material.

I suspect the system isn't sophisticated enough for such detail. The satellites watching that region were/are looking for a much larger rocket... An ICBM.

The system referenced can't - at least that's my understanding. However, we are fully capable of detecting the launch of a missile the size of an SA-11 and tracking it, and quite possibly did in this case.