Bush is a hero
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176176 Mar 23, 2014
hey where the negative icons! abbabaabbaaa

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176177 Mar 23, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you stand when Reagan escalated the arms race with aim of bankrupting the USSR? What were the limitations of his power? Reagan UNILATERALLY refused to take SDI off the table and USSR caved. Did you support that very bold position?
Reagan and SDI ... really?

Well, lemme see ... worst speech he gave during his Presidency, bar none. Not nearly as responsible for increased Soviet spending operations in Afghanistan, conventional arms and ballistic missile buildups. Supported the concept of SDI, and supported increasing the spending on the research. Whether it was the proper subject for a prime time address at the time he made it ... that I wasn't sure about.

I supported Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe, too.

The deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe - now, that's a lot more relevant than SDI.

Reagan's critics in this country ignored that. They spun Reagan as the warmonger forcing his dirty missiles on the poor Europeans, making them a pawn in his fixation with the evil empire - some such crap as that. The very real threat that Western Europe faced from the USSR wasn't something they wanted to consider, because it interfered with their ability to trash Reagan.

Some of Reagan's supporters spun (and still spin) this in a completely different way. Reagan, savior of the west, had the idea to deploy those missiles. The Europeans really didn't want them, but Reagan persevered.

The truth? The agreement to counter the new generation of Soviet medium-range with the Pershings was agreed to by the US, UK, France, and Germany while Ronald Reagan was still a candidate.

Every REAL action taken about the USSR during Reagan's presidency was coordinated with our Western European allies. There were no arbitrary decisions made by the American president.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176178 Mar 23, 2014
Should have read "Every REAL action taken about the USSR during Reagan's presidency in Europe was coordinated with our Western European allies. There were no arbitrary decisions made by the American president."
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176179 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Reagan and SDI ... really?
Well, lemme see ... worst speech he gave during his Presidency, bar none. Not nearly as responsible for increased Soviet spending operations in Afghanistan, conventional arms and ballistic missile buildups. Supported the concept of SDI, and supported increasing the spending on the research. Whether it was the proper subject for a prime time address at the time he made it ... that I wasn't sure about.
I supported Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe, too.
The deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe - now, that's a lot more relevant than SDI.
Reagan's critics in this country ignored that. They spun Reagan as the warmonger forcing his dirty missiles on the poor Europeans, making them a pawn in his fixation with the evil empire - some such crap as that. The very real threat that Western Europe faced from the USSR wasn't something they wanted to consider, because it interfered with their ability to trash Reagan.
Some of Reagan's supporters spun (and still spin) this in a completely different way. Reagan, savior of the west, had the idea to deploy those missiles. The Europeans really didn't want them, but Reagan persevered.
The truth? The agreement to counter the new generation of Soviet medium-range with the Pershings was agreed to by the US, UK, France, and Germany while Ronald Reagan was still a candidate.
Every REAL action taken about the USSR during Reagan's presidency was coordinated with our Western European allies. There were no arbitrary decisions made by the American president.
US tricked soviets to invade Afghansitan in '79 and from that day onward, soviets learn the hard lesson of sly US duplicity .of Art of war., so now they are caustous !

Whoa! b !

Bhahahahaha.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176180 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Reagan and SDI ... really?
Well, lemme see ... worst speech he gave during his Presidency, bar none. Not nearly as responsible for increased Soviet spending operations in Afghanistan, conventional arms and ballistic missile buildups. Supported the concept of SDI, and supported increasing the spending on the research. Whether it was the proper subject for a prime time address at the time he made it ... that I wasn't sure about.
I supported Reagan's deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe, too.
The deployment of Pershing missiles to Europe - now, that's a lot more relevant than SDI.
Reagan's critics in this country ignored that. They spun Reagan as the warmonger forcing his dirty missiles on the poor Europeans, making them a pawn in his fixation with the evil empire - some such crap as that. The very real threat that Western Europe faced from the USSR wasn't something they wanted to consider, because it interfered with their ability to trash Reagan.
Some of Reagan's supporters spun (and still spin) this in a completely different way. Reagan, savior of the west, had the idea to deploy those missiles. The Europeans really didn't want them, but Reagan persevered.
The truth? The agreement to counter the new generation of Soviet medium-range with the Pershings was agreed to by the US, UK, France, and Germany while Ronald Reagan was still a candidate.
Every REAL action taken about the USSR during Reagan's presidency was coordinated with our Western European allies. There were no arbitrary decisions made by the American president.
But majority of Europe masses opposed the US missiles silos to be placed in their backyards,they know it cause more regional instability. After that Soviets counteroffensive for US RE-expansionism into Europe, So soviets reintroducing its flyover of the borders of Europe/Russia .... But european people opposed European govts for ok US missile placemen in there backyard , and Fight goes on between its people and govts!! But actually Cold War never ended!
UIDIOTRACEMAKWOR LDPEACE

United States

#176181 Mar 23, 2014
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWORLDPEACE wrote:
<quoted text>If that does not work send in the US economic hitmans and if fail US jackals and Full US military Industrial complex assualt/invasion on its way to bully little world off morons! ABbabaabaaaa Nwhahahahaha
Wink Wink Wink1 Bsbbebeebeee
that is use lite touch for allies and harder touch and more for frontal for other nations
bhahahaaaa
UIDIOTRACEMAKWOR LDPEACE

United States

#176182 Mar 23, 2014
That right give me those negative Icons. you know it can be researched and truth will come forth! Bhahahhaa

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#176183 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>No, lisw, I don't think you want to talk about real solutions.

I think all you want to talk about Obama. You clearly don't want to acknowledge that this is something more than a "High Noon" confrontation between Obama and Putin.

The mere mention of the interests of the European countries just as, if not more, involved in this has you very quickly going into dismissal mode. The mention of a possible energy embargo by Russia (a weapon they've used before) is cavalierly dismissed as concern with 'creature comforts'. You seem to think the US should do things without consideration for what our allies want or how it will effect them. You take Obama's willingness to consider the allies in this process off somewhere into lala land - some silly nonsense about his preference to the 'European way', whatever that means.

This is all about Obama for you to the exclusion of anything and everything else that puts his actions in context.

Just because it is all about Obama for you doesn't mean it is for me. For me this is just another in a series of confrontations between the West and Russia. That being the case, you have to look at the actions of previous U.S. presidents in similar circumstances. What you'll find is consistency. That consistency is due to the limitations of the power of the United States irrespective of who happens to be in the White House.
Not to mention the hard consideration of possible end-game scenarios. Is the situation in Crimea/Ukraine - I mean the big picture, historically and politically-laden, on-site situation - worth initiating the next Big One?

This isn't just some abstract academic conversation about "right to self-determination" - there are real human stakes at play here. Never mind that the populations of the areas in dispute are decidedly muddled as to allegiance, rendering "borders" the arbitrary things they tend to be on the Eurasian continent. Speaking strictly of America, deciding to be more "proactive" has to consider the possibility of ultimately involving a whole bunch of young idealistic Americans who think serving their country might be a good thing, and that we'll have their back by not involving them in some kind of geo-political Big D*ck contest.

Besides all the great points you keep making (and keep making, and keep making), Crimea is simply NOT important enough to American interests to require any sort of response beyond vigorous finger-wagging. Bush knew this in 2008 (Georgia) and the current President knows it now.

The very fact that armchair diplomats give a wide berth to the Georgia precedent is all the proof needed that this latest hew and cry is all about American elections.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176184 Mar 23, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention the hard consideration of possible end-game scenarios. Is the situation in Crimea/Ukraine - I mean the big picture, historically and politically-laden, on-site situation - worth initiating the next Big One?
This isn't just some abstract academic conversation about "right to self-determination" - there are real human stakes at play here. Never mind that the populations of the areas in dispute are decidedly muddled as to allegiance, rendering "borders" the arbitrary things they tend to be on the Eurasian continent. Speaking strictly of America, deciding to be more "proactive" has to consider the possibility of ultimately involving a whole bunch of young idealistic Americans who think serving their country might be a good thing, and that we'll have their back by not involving them in some kind of geo-political Big D*ck contest.
Besides all the great points you keep making (and keep making, and keep making), Crimea is simply NOT important enough to American interests to require any sort of response beyond vigorous finger-wagging. Bush knew this in 2008 (Georgia) and the current President knows it now.
The very fact that armchair diplomats give a wide berth to the Georgia precedent is all the proof needed that this latest hew and cry is all about American elections.
The big one , WW 3 start by our US neocons in power? Please NO!

BAHHAHAAAA

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#176185 Mar 23, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention the hard consideration of possible end-game scenarios. Is the situation in Crimea/Ukraine - I mean the big picture, historically and politically-laden, on-site situation - worth initiating the next Big One?
This isn't just some abstract academic conversation about "right to self-determination" - there are real human stakes at play here. Never mind that the populations of the areas in dispute are decidedly muddled as to allegiance, rendering "borders" the arbitrary things they tend to be on the Eurasian continent. Speaking strictly of America, deciding to be more "proactive" has to consider the possibility of ultimately involving a whole bunch of young idealistic Americans who think serving their country might be a good thing, and that we'll have their back by not involving them in some kind of geo-political Big D*ck contest.
Besides all the great points you keep making (and keep making, and keep making), Crimea is simply NOT important enough to American interests to require any sort of response beyond vigorous finger-wagging. Bush knew this in 2008 (Georgia) and the current President knows it now.
The very fact that armchair diplomats give a wide berth to the Georgia precedent is all the proof needed that this latest hew and cry is all about American elections.
Do either of you even remember what Bush did during the Georgia conflict. Seems to me that it got a little overshadowed by McCain's and Obama's opinions during the election. Bush's response at the time may have been softer than I would like, but not near so soft as Obama and he had a history of continually addressing the issue of Georgia's sovereignity from the time that he first took office. He also did not have a reputation for backing down. Putin was unlikely to feel terribly comfortable forging on as he does now and I believe it is why France was able to broker a peace agreement.
Don't you think I know that nuclear weapons are at play here. The "oh it's all about politics and Obama " is truly insulting and I don't intend to try any further to talk with either of you for the purpose of getting insulted.. I believe i have shown equal knowledge of current events to both you and Willie and I know Lyndi has. It's a shame that this thread evolves into swatting matches because you refuse to take us seriously. As I said before that says more about you than it does us.
(sorry Lyndi to include you but I see them get all itchy when you have salient points, don't mean to speak for you)

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176186 Mar 23, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>Not to mention the hard consideration of possible end-game scenarios. Is the situation in Crimea/Ukraine - I mean the big picture, historically and politically-laden, on-site situation - worth initiating the next Big One?
This isn't just some abstract academic conversation about "right to self-determination" - there are real human stakes at play here. Never mind that the populations of the areas in dispute are decidedly muddled as to allegiance, rendering "borders" the arbitrary things they tend to be on the Eurasian continent. Speaking strictly of America, deciding to be more "proactive" has to consider the possibility of ultimately involving a whole bunch of young idealistic Americans who think serving their country might be a good thing, and that we'll have their back by not involving them in some kind of geo-political Big D*ck contest.
Besides all the great points you keep making (and keep making, and keep making), Crimea is simply NOT important enough to American interests to require any sort of response beyond vigorous finger-wagging. Bush knew this in 2008 (Georgia) and the current President knows it now.
The very fact that armchair diplomats give a wide berth to the Georgia precedent is all the proof needed that this latest hew and cry is all about American elections.
I agree with you up to a point. I mean, Crimea only became part of Ukraine in a Stalin-era realignment of administrative divisions shortly after WWII, if I remember correctly. Before that it had been Russian since the 17th or 18th century, and part of the Ottoman Empire (?) before that.

That said - Putin's aggression toward the former Soviet republics does need to be stopped. The fact that Crimea has been detached from Ukraine and reattached to Russia isn't the problem. How that occurred is a damned big problem.

Putin's aggression toward the former Soviet Republics is a problem, and it's a problem the US needs to partner with Europe to solve. What our role is in that remains to be seen, because frankly the Cold War is over and it's about damned time the Europeans started investing their own treasure in dealing with the Russians. That includes negotiations with the Russians about what's going on in their own back yard, and investing in their own military forces to prepare for some of those worst case scenarios without an over reliance on Uncle Sam to do it for them.

My objection to the discussion that's been going on here is the partisan nature of it - the taking of an event and pretending that it was within the power of the United States to stop it, or that the United States can take unilateral action to punish Russia.

Your post, on the other, hand, seems to dismiss the whole thing out of hand, and a little too neatly for my taste. Yes, idealistic young Americans could get sucked into something nasty - but young Americans have been sucked into that stuff before. Part of the reason we got sucked into that before is that we sat by too uninvolved for far too long while the Europeans were just being Europeans.

It occurs to me that maybe your dismissal is not of the problem of Putin but the problem of the people who keep screaming about Hitler and Chamberlain and the Anschluss - comparisons I don't think fit at all, not yet. If you're going further than that, however. and saying what happens over there isn't really our problem, well, that I can't agree with any more than I can agree that this is all Obama's fault.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176187 Mar 23, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Do either of you even remember what Bush did during the Georgia conflict. Seems to me that it got a little overshadowed by McCain's and Obama's opinions during the election. Bush's response at the time may have been softer than I would like, but not near so soft as Obama and he had a history of continually addressing the issue of Georgia's sovereignity from the time that he first took office. He also did not have a reputation for backing down. Putin was unlikely to feel terribly comfortable forging on as he does now and I believe it is why France was able to broker a peace agreement.
Don't you think I know that nuclear weapons are at play here. The "oh it's all about politics and Obama " is truly insulting and I don't intend to try any further to talk with either of you for the purpose of getting insulted.. I believe i have shown equal knowledge of current events to both you and Willie and I know Lyndi has. It's a shame that this thread evolves into swatting matches because you refuse to take us seriously. As I said before that says more about you than it does us.
(sorry Lyndi to include you but I see them get all itchy when you have salient points, don't mean to speak for you)
I'm sorry if you feel insulted, lisw, but when you can cavalierly dismiss the concern of the Europeans over a potential energy cutoff by Russia as mere 'creature comforts', you don't seem to know much about current events.

If you had talked about something OTHER than how Obama has failed, how Obama is not responding properly, how Obama this and Obama that and Obama dosey-doe, then maybe I wouldn't have seen your posts as focused on Obama to the exclusion of anything else.

Obama has already been as successful in dealing with Putin over Ukraine/Crimea as Bush was with Georgia. Somehow, though, Obama was is a failure.

Not sure how that works.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#176188 Mar 23, 2014
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>Do either of you even remember what Bush did during the Georgia conflict. Seems to me that it got a little overshadowed by McCain's and Obama's opinions during the election. Bush's response at the time may have been softer than I would like, but not near so soft as Obama and he had a history of continually addressing the issue of Georgia's sovereignity from the time that he first took office. He also did not have a reputation for backing down. Putin was unlikely to feel terribly comfortable forging on as he does now and I believe it is why France was able to broker a peace agreement.
Don't you think I know that nuclear weapons are at play here. The "oh it's all about politics and Obama " is truly insulting and I don't intend to try any further to talk with either of you for the purpose of getting insulted.. I believe i have shown equal knowledge of current events to both you and Willie and I know Lyndi has. It's a shame that this thread evolves into swatting matches because you refuse to take us seriously. As I said before that says more about you than it does us.
(sorry Lyndi to include you but I see them get all itchy when you have salient points, don't mean to speak for you)
Yes, lisw, I remember what Bush did, and didn't do, during the Georgian "crisis". I'd like you to note that all the bad stuff Cold War hawks were predicting then have not come to pass. The good people of Georgia are doing fine. The world did not end then, and it won't now. We'll pass over the gratuitous "Bush was soft but not as soft as Obama", because, you know, it ain't about Obama. I'm convinced now.

Simple question: Why? Why is it so god-awful important that President Obama or Bush "do something" about freeking Crimea OR Georgia? We've got no economic interest. We've got no strategic interest. We've got no leverage. We're not trading partners. We've got no "populations at risk". This is ground they've owned before. They have significant military investment there, not unlike our Guantanamo. There is a majority Russian population. Moscow didn't like the way local politics was leaning, so they moved to protect their interests. Gee whiz, it seems America has similar history in our own hemisphere. We're just not as out in the open about it, we prefer black ops and assassination. It's more gentlemanly that way, I guess.

So it ain't about anything tangible to America. It's all about some meat-headed jingo pride masquerading as "patriotism". We've been playing this twisted "Who's Got The Biggest One" game my entire life, and I for one am long past sick of it. This is real. I've got a boy right now a lot closer to Crimea than he is to home, and there's thousands more just like him, and this isn't just politics as usual for them and their families.

There is absolutely no reason for America to do any more than it's done, now or in 2008, just to satisfy the neocon bloodlust of a bunch of weekend Cold War re-enactors. Get your feelings hurt as much as you need to, but it ain't about you. You're just representative of a larger voice of shrill partisanship. An alien watching American television from space would think that Putin is a hero to half of America. While we're noting (finally) comparisons between 08 and now, let us note that "lefties" didn't mount anything resembling the sh*t-storm of squalling the news-cycle is beaming around the globe now from the right. Patriots? Ri-i-i-ight....

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#176189 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I agree with you up to a point. I mean, Crimea only became part of Ukraine in a Stalin-era realignment of administrative divisions shortly after WWII, if I remember correctly. Before that it had been Russian since the 17th or 18th century, and part of the Ottoman Empire (?) before that.
That said - Putin's aggression toward the former Soviet republics does need to be stopped. The fact that Crimea has been detached from Ukraine and reattached to Russia isn't the problem. How that occurred is a damned big problem.
Putin's aggression toward the former Soviet Republics is a problem, and it's a problem the US needs to partner with Europe to solve.
I believe that's what we're doing, with the only viable tools we have, short of a military response.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Your post, on the other, hand, seems to dismiss the whole thing out of hand, and a little too neatly for my taste. Yes, idealistic young Americans could get sucked into something nasty - but young Americans have been sucked into that stuff before.
I gotta tell ya, I don't like the sound of that at all. I suspect you don't mean it as resigned as it sounds, but.....
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Part of the reason we got sucked into that before is that we sat by too uninvolved for far too long while the Europeans were just being Europeans.
That's a long time ago. Our reactions since then, culminating in our historical "pro-action" in our last declaration of war, are what concern me. I object to our troops being used to satisfy ideological hawks. I object to the population being immunized to war by keeping it on the down-low, as we have the last 60 years. If we're going to war, it needs to be full-scale, if for no other reason than to remind each of us that it ain't all, "Let's have us a war AND go shopping." The mindset and rhetoric have to change.
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>It occurs to me that maybe your dismissal is not of the problem of Putin but the problem of the people who keep screaming about Hitler and Chamberlain and the Anschluss - comparisons I don't think fit at all, not yet. If you're going further than that, however. and saying what happens over there isn't really our problem, well, that I can't agree with any more than I can agree that this is all Obama's fault.
My dismissal is of the partisan nature of the outcry, and, with the right combinations in legislature, the grave possibility of over-playing our hand simply due to "Talk Loudly and Carry A Big Stick" mentalities tragically coupled with electoral considerations.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176190 Mar 23, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, lisw, I remember what Bush did, and didn't do, during the Georgian "crisis". I'd like you to note that all the bad stuff Cold War hawks were predicting then have not come to pass. The good people of Georgia are doing fine. The world did not end then, and it won't now. We'll pass over the gratuitous "Bush was soft but not as soft as Obama", because, you know, it ain't about Obama. I'm convinced now.
Simple question: Why? Why is it so god-awful important that President Obama or Bush "do something" about freeking Crimea OR Georgia? We've got no economic interest. We've got no strategic interest. We've got no leverage. We're not trading partners. We've got no "populations at risk". This is ground they've owned before. They have significant military investment there, not unlike our Guantanamo. There is a majority Russian population. Moscow didn't like the way local politics was leaning, so they moved to protect their interests. Gee whiz, it seems America has similar history in our own hemisphere. We're just not as out in the open about it, we prefer black ops and assassination. It's more gentlemanly that way, I guess.
So it ain't about anything tangible to America. It's all about some meat-headed jingo pride masquerading as "patriotism". We've been playing tthis twisted "Who's Got The Biggest One" game my entire life, and I for one am long past sick of it. This is real. I've got a boy right now a lot closer to Crimea than he is to home, and there's thousands more just like him, and this isn't just politics as usual for them and their families.
There is absolutely no reason for America to do any more than it's done, now or in 2008, just to satisfy the neocon bloodlust of a bunch of weekend Cold War re-enactors. Get your feelings hurt as much as you need to, but it ain't about you. You're just representative of a larger voice of shrill partisanship. An alien watching American television from space would think that Putin is a hero to half of America. While we're noting (finally) comparisons between 08 and now, let us note that "lefties" didn't mount anything resembling the sh*t-storm of squalling the news-cycle is beaming around the globe now fromright. Patriots? Ri-i-i-ight....
As many of us Americans are clueless to fact about War -for-profiteering interests of the greedy , the US Securitydefense contractors, the Military Industrail complexes like blood thirtsy Haliburton ...and over 100, 000 Arms/weapons US war manufactures /Distrubtors , and Investors/owners is all about making high double digit returns/profitability from these inhuman dirty bloody Investments - the War Stocks -thats what keeps our US economy running ! What morals? Youngsters like my generation are scarife/used as conscripts to fight in illegitimate wars , helping these dirty mass murdering greedy /corrupted men with reasons but without/lack of morals will do what to its people/nation and world people in it!. So?

Bahhahaaaa
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176191 Mar 23, 2014
i'm all itsy and Scrachy is it time to bring Cracken out from it home?

How about Postings anyone?
herhehheheheheeeeeeEeee!

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176192 Mar 23, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, lisw, I remember what Bush did, and didn't do, during the Georgian "crisis". I'd like you to note that all the bad stuff Cold War hawks were predicting then have not come to pass. The good people of Georgia are doing fine. The world did not end then, and it won't now. We'll pass over the gratuitous "Bush was soft but not as soft as Obama", because, you know, it ain't about Obama. I'm convinced now.
Simple question: Why? Why is it so god-awful important that President Obama or Bush "do something" about freeking Crimea OR Georgia? We've got no economic interest. We've got no strategic interest. We've got no leverage. We're not trading partners. We've got no "populations at risk". This is ground they've owned before. They have significant military investment there, not unlike our Guantanamo. There is a majority Russian population. Moscow didn't like the way local politics was leaning, so they moved to protect their interests. Gee whiz, it seems America has similar history in our own hemisphere. We're just not as out in the open about it, we prefer black ops and assassination. It's more gentlemanly that way, I guess.
So it ain't about anything tangible to America. It's all about some meat-headed jingo pride masquerading as "patriotism". We've been playing this twisted "Who's Got The Biggest One" game my entire life, and I for one am long past sick of it. This is real. I've got a boy right now a lot closer to Crimea than he is to home, and there's thousands more just like him, and this isn't just politics as usual for them and their families.
There is absolutely no reason for America to do any more than it's done, now or in 2008, just to satisfy the neocon bloodlust of a bunch of weekend Cold War re-enactors. Get your feelings hurt as much as you need to, but it ain't about you. You're just representative of a larger voice of shrill partisanship. An alien watching American television from space would think that Putin is a hero to half of America. While we're noting (finally) comparisons between 08 and now, let us note that "lefties" didn't mount anything resembling the sh*t-storm of squalling the news-cycle is beaming around the globe now from the right. Patriots? Ri-i-i-ight....
Neocon blood lust? Really?

Uhhhh ... kinda over the top here, Hip. To say that Putin this because Obama's weak is to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of Putin (or a willingness to ignore what they claim to know), but I haven't heard anyone suggest we go to war to stop him, or anything close to it.

You have to remember that at least some who are now screaming loudly about Obama doing nothing would be (at the end of one, at the most two news cycles) screaming just as loudly about his irresponsibility if he acted more boldly.

I also think it's short-sighted to say that what happens over there is none of America's concern, because what's happening over there has sucked us in before. It captured my dad's life from 1940-1945; if my grandpop had been drafted just two months earlier, it would have sucked him into their crap twenty years before that.

Sure, stuff in Georgia or Ukraine doesn't impact us directly - but if allowed to go unchecked, then that sh*t just keeps happening, and it keeps getting closer to where it DOES impact us more directly.

I understand your concerns, and don't want to dismiss that. Been there (closer to the crap than home) myself, and have a son-in-law still in uniform. We're nowhere near getting them involved more than some extra training or perhaps an alert, however, so it's too soon to bring them into it.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#176193 Mar 23, 2014
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>.
That's a long time ago. Our reactions since then, culminating in our historical "pro-action" in our last declaration of war, are what concern me. I object to our troops being used to satisfy ideological hawks. I object to the population being immunized to war by keeping it on the down-low, as we have the last 60 years. If we're going to war, it needs to be full-scale, if for no other reason than to remind each of us that it ain't all, "Let's have us a war AND go shopping." The mindset and rhetoric have to change.
<quoted text>My dismissal is of the partisan nature of the outcry, and, with the right combinations in legislature, the grave possibility of over-playing our hand simply due to "Talk Loudly and Carry A Big Stick" mentalities tragically coupled with electoral considerations.
Yes, Hip, it was a long time ago.

Guess what? The post Cold War world is a lot like it was a long time ago. The world was nasty when it was mainly Uncle Sam and Ivan staring back and forth at one another, but it was a lot more manageable.

All those regions formerly under Soviet/communist control are free of those controls now. Those controls were brutal and inexcusable - but they kept a lid on centuries-old simmering tensions that can STILL burst forth. Czechoslovakia managed to dissolve peacefully, but look at what happened in Yugoslavia. The conflicts in Chechnya, in Georgia, now Ukraine/Crimea are also related to that.

I agree completely that we need new language, and we need to take a different role than we have since the end of WWII - but we can't sit out of a game we have a stake in, and we have a stake in what happens in Europe.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176194 Mar 23, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Neocon blood lust? Really?
Uhhhh ... kinda over the top here, Hip. To say that Putin this because Obama's weak is to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of Putin (or a willingness to ignore what they claim to know), but I haven't heard anyone suggest we go to war to stop him, or anything close to it.
You have to remember that at least some who are now screaming loudly about Obama doing nothing would be (at the end of one, at the most two news cycles) screaming just as loudly about his irresponsibility if he acted more boldly.
I also think it's short-sighted to say that what happens over there is none of America's concern, because what's happening over there has sucked us in before. It captured my dad's life from 1940-1945; if my grandpop had been drafted just two months earlier, it would have sucked him into their crap twenty years before that.
Sure, stuff in Georgia or Ukraine doesn't impact us directly - but if allowed to go unchecked, then that sh*t just keeps happening, and it keeps getting closer to where it DOES impact us more directly.
I understand your concerns, and don't want to dismiss that. Been there (closer to the crap than home) myself, and have a son-in-law still in uniform. We're nowhere near getting them involved more than some extra training or perhaps an alert, however, so it's too soon to bring them into it.
"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."

H. L. Mencken

====
DO PSYCHOPATHS RULE THE WORLD?
Roman Emperor Caligula

'Throughout history, psychopaths, sociopaths and character-disordered individuals have ruled societies. And, they rule ours.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#176195 Mar 23, 2014
"I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism... The general public shoulders the bill. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones, Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."

Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler
===
Note he is agaisnt capitalism but Predatory capitalism/corporatism!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min karl44 973,684
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 14 min Steve III 653,698
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 42 min ImFree2Choose 2,569
Difference between white masons and black masons (Apr '08) 50 min Mason3138 377
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 55 min udzwon udzwon 45,227
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr here 63,445
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr faithfull slave 618,752
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 hr Pegasus 281,841
More from around the web