Well, I will agree with you that this is being hyped out of proportion. But many of the hypsters, are republicans like Graham and McCain.
Yes, that is why it works so well for the Dems...the Neocons love it and they look strong to the masses.
They probably lose few votes on the lib side and definitely gain many on the undecided/borderline Republican side.
Of course, the whole thing is moronic and pandering to paranoia...but when did that ever stop a POTUS before?
So you missed it. One country left NATO and hasn't been invaded over it, is there not more then one country that had left the USSR that didn't get invaded?
No country was either forced to join NATO, or punished for wanting to leave. The opposite is the case with the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union was breaking up, countries rushed to flee.
Well if Russia's to be accused of "bribing" Ukraine, then so has the US/EU, and the countries that left the Soviet Union weren't punished or invaded either.
Russia isn't bribing Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine, and seized territory through the use of military force. As for the idea that countries that wished to leave the Soviet Union weren't punished, perhaps you should check with the Czechs or the Hungarians before you make that claim.
Russia is responding to US/EU intrigue in Kiev, and justifiably so.
And if you'll look at my post again, you'll see that I was challenging your assertion that because you can point to one country, France, that has withdrawn from the EU, has any relevance, since there are several countries that withdrew from the Soviet Union without repercussion.
Complete and utter bull****. The US/EU strengthening their relationship with Ukraine is not justification to invade and seize Crimea.
Sure. When the Soviet Union collapsed. Prior to that, attempting to withdraw was a decision that brought on the tanks.
Crimea was annexed by popular referendum, that's something you need to deal with, like it or not!
No, Crimea was invaded, and Russia then sent troops into Eastern Ukraine, both of which wern unjustifiable acts. Crimeans were then offered a fixed election in which they were not allowed to determine what they wanted to vote on.
For someone who claims to be so against imperialism and the like, you sure are quick to rush to support it when it contradicts US foreign policy. Leading us back again to the point that that is your one consistent position.
And your one consistent position is your hypocritical support of US violation of sovereign borders while wringing your hands over perceived Russian violations of the same.
On the contrary - I'm a frequent critic of US foreign policy. Are you willing to say that the decision by Russia to invade Ukraine and seize territory, reshaping the map in a way that has not been done since WWIi was justified?
That may be true, though it haven't seen it. As to Russia, I thought I've made my position on that clear numerous times, but perhaps you haven't seen that. I think that it's completely reasonable that Russia responded to US/EU intrigue as they did and secured their assets, people and interests in Crimea,
:shrug: Fine. Then it is equally reasonable for us to respond to Middle Eastern turmoil by securing our assets, people, and interests in that region.
:shrug: Fine. Then it is equally reasonable for us to respond to Middle Eastern turmoil by securing our assets, people, and interests in that region.
I can't imagine any other reason we would give two shakes of a lamb's tail what happens to those folks over there.
It's all about $$$$. OUR $$$$$. (Or, that is to say, rich fat-cat money.)
I guess they gotta do what they gotta do to keep gasoline under 4.00 a gallon. Not to mention the billions of dollars in equipment and service contracts to companies such as Halliburton, Schlumberger, Chevron, Exxon, etc.
A lot of American livelihood depends on our acquiring their resources.
Good speech. Not so good examples of what he thinks are successes. As far as a military strategy is concerned, I tend to be concerned that we are putting our hope in ground forces that so far have accomplished record desertions and set a new standard for fleeing from the enemy.
Air power will not, and has never, won a war or defeated and enemy.
What I found most interesting, was the dichotomy of his statements in the speech versus what he was saying just weeks ago, and then trying to present them as if it was his strategy all along - specifically this part: "Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven."
Also, he couched the entire speech as if it were some counter-terrorism campaign, yet ISIS has tanks, rocket launchers and is a real Army. Not a bunch of guys that are planning suicide bombings (although they do that as well), but a real Army, with money, heavy weapons and thousands of soldiers. I don't think that a counter-terrorist strategy is what is needed when this is a real war, which will be waged on the ground with ground troops, armor and heavy weapons. None of which the Arab countries, especially Iraq, is prepared to do.
I hope he is successful. I thought he gave a good speech. I just don't think it's going to be successful. I hope I'm wrong.
Other.
I found the President’s strategy a mixed bag. There were parts I agreed with: airstrikes against ISIS, aiding Kurdish and Iraqi forces, expanding Intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism efforts, and continuing humanitarian assistance. Unfortunately, there were also parts that were counterproductive, namely the tactic of aiding actors in Syria’s vicious sectarian conflict with no mention of controls or mechanisms to assure that such assistance is directed at ISIS. Toward that end, the President declared:
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters.
Assisting sectarian factions in Syria’s multifaceted civil war would be a counterproductive step. While the U.S. need not partner with the Assad government, it should not assist sectarian elements that have displayed little regard for civilian welfare, have engaged in shifting alliances of expediency resulting in weapons leakage to radical elements, have made no meaningful commitments toward American interests and those of regional American allies, and have contributed significantly to the instability that ISIS has exploited.
In the broader geopolitical framework, allies of the Assad regime can reasonably worry that increasing arms deliveries to various sectarian actors in Syria’s conflict is, at least in part, a backdoor “regime change” initiative. If so, one can expect them to step up their own assistance to that dictatorship. The end result could be a more intense sectarian conflict in Syria. Such an outcome could diminish the effectiveness of the air campaign against ISIS, as it could also create new opportunities for the terrorist organization from the expanded instability. Furthermore, there was no mention of helping Jordan and Egypt, both key American regional allies, deal with potential threats from ISIS.
Another point that I found troublesome is that the strategies in Yemen and Somalia were described as successful. In fact, both areas continue to face substantial terrorist activity. Just as President Bush famously erred in his “mission accomplished” address, I believe President Obama is prematurely proclaiming success in two initiatives that remain far more works in progress than concrete successes.
Finally, the President declared, “I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat” but provided no examples to demonstrate the breadth of this coalition. In fact, later in his speech, his remarks hinted that key parts of such a coalition are not yet in place. He stated:
Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today… and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands.
IMO, given their direct and large interests in the situation, the White House should already have put together the Arab coalition. That it hasn’t is not exactly encouraging. This begs the question as to whether the White House is promising more than it can deliver when it comes to putting together such a coalition.
All said, the speech was a mixed bag. There were some strong points, but also the glaring weakness of aiding sectarian factions in Syria with no mention of controls or other mechanisms to assure that such assistance would be used strictly against ISIS rather than in the pursuit of those organizations’ own sectarian goals. In short, my guess is that the fight against ISIS is unlikely to be close to resolution in the near-term. Furthermore, there is a risk that ISIS will remain a fairly formidable regional threat even by the end of the President’s term in office.
The transcript can be found at: Text of Obama
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?