Putin is crapping bricks!

[Top Gun]

I kind of winced at the Godwinning myself, but on second glance what Clinton said has merit to it: Hitler used a very similar excuse of "protection of German citizens" as a justification for the annexation of Czechoslovakia, and while no one's suggesting that Putin is in any way comparable to Hitler, it's certainly disquieting to see such a historically-weighty reason given by a modern-day leader.

(And shockingly woody throws in both a sexist remark AND some Benghazi nonsense! Take two shots!)

[flip]

I'm suggesting a lot of parallels. Do a few days study on how Hitler gained power and then look at the things Putin has done to assure his. You find it uncannily similar except one was done in haste and the other with utmost patience.

[CUDA]

This is sudatenland part duex.

[callmeslick]

One moment. Is the vast U.S. population does not live in eternal bondage of debt?

no, we don't. Not at all. In fact, given the scale of the US economy, our debt is not out of historical line with debts that have been managed in the past. Right now, due to our economic strength, we actually borrow quite cheaply. Once again, you show no real knowledge of either the US economy nor the banking system in a free society.

[callmeslick]

This is sudatenland part duex.

agreed, and thus, we both agree that Hillary was correct in pointing out the historical parallels? I note also, that former Sec. Gates called out the GOP backstabbers as very counterproductive and essentially causing weakness for the US in the global community. He may have been stating the obvious, but hats off to him for doing so.

[callmeslick]

you gonna watch Maddow's special called "Why We Went" on Thursday slick? She's hinting that Bush/Cheney had designs on invading Iraq long before 9/11.

I'll likely watch it then, or later on Demand.....that theory is NO shock to anyone who had family or friends in the US military in that time period. My nephew was in the Army, and he told me a year beforehand that they were training to go to Iraq. Flat out told me, while the liar-in-chief was denying it.

[Will Robinson]

you gonna watch Maddow's special called "Why We Went" on Thursday slick? She's hinting that Bush/Cheney had designs on invading Iraq long before 9/11.

I'll likely watch it then, or later on Demand.....that theory is NO shock to anyone who had family or friends in the US military in that time period. My nephew was in the Army, and he told me a year beforehand that they were training to go to Iraq. Flat out told me, while the liar-in-chief was denying it.

As if any President would announce an intended military strike years in advance. Oooo big lie!

Saddam was in default of numerous cease fire agreements from the first day we stopped fighting. We had carte blanche because of that. We had good reason to believe he held nasty WMD materials. Just look at the rhetoric of democrats and republicans in congress from BEFORE Bush was in office...
So the notion we might have been training up to go in there is more of forgone conclusion than a surprise.

What is a surprise to some, as suddenly missing as the WMD's, is any sign we "did it for the oil" as so many on the left like to say. Or the other totally silly reason of "He did it for his Daddy's legacy"?!?! As if Bush seniors legacy is now somehow improved?

The only way his fathers legacy could have been motive is if he genuinely believed they would find WMD's....
So what will it be?

[callmeslick]

you gonna watch Maddow's special called "Why We Went" on Thursday slick? She's hinting that Bush/Cheney had designs on invading Iraq long before 9/11.

I'll likely watch it then, or later on Demand.....that theory is NO shock to anyone who had family or friends in the US military in that time period. My nephew was in the Army, and he told me a year beforehand that they were training to go to Iraq. Flat out told me, while the liar-in-chief was denying it.

As if any President would announce an intended military strike years in advance. Oooo big lie!

as I said, if you had any friend or family in the Army infantry or paratroopers in 2001/2002, you'd know that Iraq was in the gameplan that early.

Saddam was in default of numerous cease fire agreements from the first day we stopped fighting. We had carte blanche because of that. We had good reason to believe he held nasty WMD materials just look at the rhetoric of democrats and republicans in congress from BEFORE Bush was in office...
So the notion we might have been training up to go in there is more of forgone conclusion than a surprise.

it shouldn't have been, because there was nothing to gain, and a massive expense to bear. As I said, my nephew's unit was told to expect to be in the Gulf region within 12 months, and they were(blessedly, my nephew's tour ended, and he ended up in a Reserve unit, which did not go, as it turned out).

[Will Robinson]

you gonna watch Maddow's special called "Why We Went" on Thursday slick? She's hinting that Bush/Cheney had designs on invading Iraq long before 9/11.

I'll likely watch it then, or later on Demand.....that theory is NO shock to anyone who had family or friends in the US military in that time period. My nephew was in the Army, and he told me a year beforehand that they were training to go to Iraq. Flat out told me, while the liar-in-chief was denying it.

As if any President would announce an intended military strike years in advance. Oooo big lie!

as I said, if you had any friend or family in the Army infantry or paratroopers in 2001/2002, you'd know that Iraq was in the gameplan that early.

Saddam was in default of numerous cease fire agreements from the first day we stopped fighting. We had carte blanche because of that. We had good reason to believe he held nasty WMD materials just look at the rhetoric of democrats and republicans in congress from BEFORE Bush was in office...
So the notion we might have been training up to go in there is more of forgone conclusion than a surprise.

it shouldn't have been, because there was nothing to gain, and a massive expense to bear. As I said, my nephew's unit was told to expect to be in the Gulf region within 12 months, and they were(blessedly, my nephew's tour ended, and he ended up in a Reserve unit, which did not go, as it turned out).

You clearly didn't read my post very well. "Before Bush was in office" puts the date at ?

[callmeslick]

not my experience, Will. My nephew was in the service from around 1996, and never heard one word about Iraq, in terms of mission or preparing for a mission, until around January 2002.

[Will Robinson]

not my experience, Will. My nephew was in the service from around 1996, and never heard one word about Iraq, in terms of mission or preparing for a mission, until around January 2002.

Well we all know that if someone 'you know' didn't tell you then it must not have happened.

I know a guy who worked the missile systems that later became known to the public as the Patriot missile system that shoots down incoming rockets. He was training in Israel and other middle eastern locations and he thought Iraq was what they were getting ready for during Clinton's term. He would never have told me outright that it was and he probably was too low on the pay scald to need to know anything for sure.

My Father was a navigator/bombardier in Greenland and he took off twice to go bomb Soviet targets. He never knew until he was handed the charts in the aircraft as it warmed up....
And he obviously didn't know the mission was scrapped until they were called back either.

Maybe your nephew doesn't know what you want us to believe he does. He only knows what he was told when he was told.....

[callmeslick]

I believe what you're saying, Will, and in fact, it sounds like prudent planning, given the long-term 'no fly zone' and incursions. But the idea of ground troops DID seem to surface far later.

[Tunnelcat]

By invading Crimea, it does appear that Russia violated the 1994 "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances". They broke the signed promise that was made between Russia, the U.S. and the U.K, to not to threaten or interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine. What say sigma?

http://euobserver.com/opinion/123375

http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-ex ... 80502.html

In the "Budapest Memorandum," Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States promised that none of them would ever threaten or use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.

[callmeslick]

playing devil's advocate, it could be said that the ouster of the old President was not within the Ukrainian Constitution. This is precisely where decades of neo-con foreign policy(the think Obama has generally avoided) serve the US poorly. How do we make the case that Russia cannot intervene in the interest of 'rule of law' when we did similar?

[woodchip]

Watching a bit of Anderson Cooper, the guy he was interviewing made the statement that "At one time Russia was offering to help Ukraine financially in conjunction with the west. The west (just who I can't remember now) replied that Ukraine had to decide either one or the other would supply them the cash they needed. Ukraine leadership decide to borrow money from Russia. So on the face of it, this whole mess started because someone in the west got their panties in a wad over the idea of both sides would help Ukraine. If this is true then it puts the onus of where we are at today not in Putin's lap but someone else's lap.
Also what is not being discussed here is that the west (read America) supplied money to the dissenters to oust a democratically elected president. If this is the case, along with Hillary Clinton's Hitler comment and now the US sending American F-15's (and American pilots) to bolster forces in the region, I have to wonder...who is trying to d-escalate the situation? You know, we are not dealing with a third world country here.

[callmeslick]

the bit about us financing the uprising is sort of suspect from all I've read, Woody. Hillary was making an observation that is VERY well rooted in historical fact. That said, I've read the exact same about the financing package(I think it was the Germans behind the all-or-nothing approach, the Obama crew has been working hard for cooperation with Russia, much due to needing same for Syria and Iran). This is a murky business, but, WE DO have a treaty with the Ukraine, and cannot appear to not be supporting an ally, given the new blockade put in place by the Russians. Agree, Woody, that this is Russia, not some dirt-poor place stuck in the 8th century. In a way, that is refreshing, as it has seemed to me, for decades, that the US tends to rattle the swords at folks who are armed with rocks and sticks.

[Will Robinson]

I worry that it isn't a third world nation that might put Obama in a situation where he feels a need to save face.
If Don Rumsfeld is available they should bring him in because Obama/Hagel is no match for Putin.

[callmeslick]

I worry that it isn't a third world nation that might put Obama in a situation where he feels a need to save face.

I worry when some of my fellow citizens view attacking undeveloped nations is 'saving face'.

If Don Rumsfeld is available they should bring him in because Obama/Hagel is no match for Putin.

Donald Rumsfeld is, to my mind, a borderline war criminal(launching an invasion on false pretenses and lying to the UN about it).
Give me the rational leadership of Obama and Hagel any day. Sad how people seem to forget exactly how fecked up Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld were in regards to our national security, national finances(unpaid for wars) and moral standing on the planet(this speaks to exactly WHY and HOW the Russians can presently act as they do).

[Will Robinson]

I worry that it isn't a third world nation that might put Obama in a situation where he feels a need to save face.

I worry when some of my fellow citizens view attacking undeveloped nations is 'saving face'.

How you came to that from what I said is a true mystery.
I was suggesting if Obama's inability to deal with a provocation leads him to make a bad call I'd prefer he do it facing a less dangerous opponent.

If Don Rumsfeld is available they should bring him in because Obama/Hagel is no match for Putin.

Donald Rumsfeld is, to my mind, a borderline war criminal(launching an invasion on false pretenses and lying to the UN about it).
Give me the rational leadership of Obama and Hagel any day. Sad how people seem to forget exactly how fecked up Bush/Cheney and Rumsfeld were in regards to our national security, national finances(unpaid for wars) and moral standing on the planet(this speaks to exactly WHY and HOW the Russians can presently act as they do).

If you think Putin is only doing what he is because of ANYTHING we have done in the past then you are wrong. Unless you want to examine anytime we have failed to be a deterent.....thus my concern about Obama/Hagel being lightweights in Putins eyes.

[Z..]

Let Putin do what he wants. It's just Ukraine, who the hell cares? We don't get to claim the moral high ground anymore so let it be. Much of the world views us the way we view them, as potential enemies. You think sigma is the only foreigner that thinks like that? Sadly, I think sigma represents what the rest of the world actually thinks about us, not the rosy picture we like to paint for ourselves about being some shining beacon of hope. Yeah that shining? It's probably the exhaust from a missile being fired from a drone.

[Tunnelcat]

If you think Putin is only doing what he is because of ANYTHING we have done in the past then you are wrong. Unless you want to examine anytime we have failed to be a deterent.....thus my concern about Obama/Hagel being lightweights in Putins eyes.

Of course Putin's doing what he wants because of what we've done in the past. Bush unilaterally invaded another sovereign country, Iraq, for the express reason of taking their resources, oil in this case. Yes, that is the reason. The war certainly didn't have anything to do with preventing terrorism. That's as illegal of a reason in the eyes of the international world as it comes. Too bad they bought his lies, then never prosecuted the bastard for war crimes. Once Bush got what he wanted, Saddam dead, the oil companies got what they wanted, the oil, he and his cronies took their eyes off the ball and left our military hanging in the wind. The citizens of Iraq paid a heavy price and got royally pissed off at us, which got us bogged down in the effort to stabilize the mess we created. The whole affair ended up making us look like wussy chumps after all was said and done. And we looked like chumps under the auspices of an illegal war started by a Republican president's, long before Obama took office. So we have no leg to stand on, period.

And if you want to sit there like an armchair quarterback and criticize Obama for looking like a lightweight, what would you personally do any different? Russia is a superpower that has the ability to wipe the U.S. clean off the earth, and if you want to go to war with Russia because Putin's a short little man with a complex who has delusions of grandeur, you'd better duck and cover.

[flip]

This all boils down to attempts by both America and Russia to capitalize on events to segregate the other. The majority always wins, so the anyone left out in the cold is going to be very lonely. Just take local GA politics as an example. Awhile back, with a little bit of cronyism creeping through, a friend of a friend was able to legislation passed that tied the BOE of Douglas County's pay to that of Superior Court Judges, making them the second highest paid in the state. Well, a resistance has built up and a lot of bantering and posturing was done by the GA Senate, to refuse to pass a counter-measure, until it just passed the House 157-0 .

[Will Robinson]

If you think Putin is only doing what he is because of ANYTHING we have done in the past then you are wrong. Unless you want to examine anytime we have failed to be a deterent.....thus my concern about Obama/Hagel being lightweights in Putins eyes.

Of course Putin's doing what he wants because of what we've done in the past. Bush unilaterally invaded another sovereign country, Iraq, for the express reason of taking their resources, oil in this case. Yes, that is the reason. The war certainly didn't have anything to do with preventing terrorism. That's as illegal of a reason in the eyes of the international world as it comes. Too bad they bought his lies, then never prosecuted the bastard for war crimes. Once Bush got what he wanted, Saddam dead, the oil companies got what they wanted, the oil, he and his cronies took their eyes off the ball and left our military hanging in the wind. The citizens of Iraq paid a heavy price and got royally pissed off at us, which got us bogged down in the effort to stabilize the mess we created. The whole affair ended up making us look like wussy chumps after all was said and done. And we looked like chumps under the auspices of an illegal war started by a Republican president's, long before Obama took office. So we have no leg to stand on, period.

And if you want to sit there like an armchair quarterback and criticize Obama for looking like a lightweight, what would you personally do any different? Russia is a superpower that has the ability to wipe the U.S. clean off the earth, and if you want to go to war with Russia because Putin's a short little man with a complex who has delusions of grandeur, you'd better duck and cover.

The oil went where the oil was going, the US didn't alter that.

And Putin would be doing exactly what he is regardless of if Bush was ever President. Al Gore could have won and not invaded Iraq and that wouldn't change Putins desires or tactics one bit.
He isn't motivated nor emboldened by any thing we did in Iraq.

He may be emboldened by Obama projecting weakness but Putin doesn't need an excuse....he is from the school that anything he says is a valid excuse because no one dares to challenge it. The Hawks have left the arena.

We had a promise to protect the Ukraine and now Obama is giving that promise lip service. John Kerry, wow, there's a force to be reckoned with

[Tunnelcat]

Tell that to the multitudes of Iraqis and our own troops who died in the name of Bush's folly. Not only that, we now look weak because our mighty military couldn't even finish 2 idiotic and pathetic wars WE started in 2 small countries. I'm pretty sure that played into Putin's thinking on what he could get away with.

As for protecting Ukraine, how would YOU do it? You sit here bashing Obama and Kerry like every other right winger out there, but you're not giving a better solution in return. What would you do? Send in troops to kick some butt and get us involved in yet another stalemate Cold War battle? Fire a few nukes at them? I'm sure that would go well for the world.

[Will Robinson]

The problem TC is "what I would do" on the day Putin made his move would be useless if I am forced to do it on the heels of 5 years of Obama's screwy foreign policy.
So, in order to do 'what I think is correct' I need to be able to roll back the clock 5+ years to avoid the the welcome mat he set at Putins feet!

And as to your comments on how our termination of invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq might have contributed to Putins brazen maneuvers....uh...yea...re-read my comments stating the only way our activities might be construed to embolden Putin would be if you consider how they showed weakness...
So you are in agreement with me there.

[Tunnelcat]

The problem TC is "what I would do" on the day Putin made his move would be useless if I am forced to do it on the heels of 5 years of Obama's screwy foreign policy.
So, in order to do 'what I think is correct' I need to be able to roll back the clock 5+ years to avoid the the welcome mat he set at Putins feet!

And as to your comments on how our termination of invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq might have contributed to Putins brazen maneuvers....uh...yea...re-read my comments stating the only way our activities might be construed to embolden Putin would be if you consider how they showed weakness...
So you are in agreement with me there.

You still seem to be forgetting that Russia is a superpower. Going at them militarily would be costly in lives and money, plus it would be a sure way towards mutually assured annihilation. And Putin has that short man's syndrome of compensating for something and no psychiatrist worth their salt could cure him of his "inadequacy". Don't forget, Europe doesn't want to lose that oh-so-precious natural gas feed that's helping their economy rise out of the tank, which war, or even sanctions, would impel Russia to shut down. So you can rule them out helping us in opposing Russia with little more than a political spanking.

I agree that Obama's foreign policy has been too tepid, vacillating and unresponsive, a weak carrot approach. But I see that as the response to the previous administration's militaristic stick approach to solve world problems. Besides, the public was sick and tired of both affairs by the end of Bush's administration. Were those wars any better for everyone in the end either? They were costly and deadly for both sides involved, and yet they were both fiascoes. We invaded 2 separate countries with 2 separate military campaigns and there was no clear winner with either. Both countries are still hotbeds for terrorist activities, with the blessings or ineptness of those corrupt governments we helped create. Worse, a lot of people died needlessly and the U.S. ended up with a massive debt we're still trying to pay off at the expense of our own infrastructure spending and social programs. Right wingers like to sit there and say that if Obama had a more proactive approach, Putin would have backed down. I say, he wouldn't have backed down in a million years, no matter who was president. He's already seen the U.S. epically fail with 2 modern wars we started ourselves, so I'm betting he's quite sure of the lack of response from the U.S. and Europe. He's probably even laughing at us right now. Obama is in between a rock and a hard place with this one. No amount of fist waving and grandstanding is going to change things, short of all out nuclear war. However, don't rule out that something isn't going on in the background in secret. A lot of what Obama has done as president has been done in secret.

[sigma]

Well why. The USA achieved a certain progress. Now each country seeks for development or possession the nuclear weapon that nobody dared to wipe about them feet. It is a pity that Americans made of the American president of the clown. It because he is Black?
Obama the good person on mine. Barack, hold on, do not be discouraged, get out of the fucкing policy. You all will be well.

[flip]

I think Obama is holding his self well considering how much smearing and isolating Putin tried to achieve over Syria.

[Top Gun]

Barack, hold on, do not be discouraged, get out of the fucкing policy. You all will be well.

How's about Russia gets out of the ★■◆●ing Crimea. THEN all will be well.

[sigma]

Barack, hold on, do not be discouraged, get out of the fucкing policy. You all will be well.

How's about Russia gets out of the **** Crimea. THEN all will be well.

Do not misunderstand
Where America is and where the Crimea? Who are you to tell us what and how we do in our country? Martians have more relations to the Crimea, than the Americans.
P.S. I will definitely give your friendly attitude of Americans to Crimeans

[woodchip]

Russia problem is they need a experienced war machine like we do. If Putin was smart he'd find some excuse to attack a third world country and give his military some experience...hopefully a more positive experience than the one they had in Afghanistan.

[sigma]

Russia problem is they need a experienced war machine like we do. If Putin was smart he'd find some excuse to attack a third world country and give his military some experience...hopefully a more positive experience than the one they had in Afghanistan.

So far, only the U.S. attacked more than 30 countries.
You have in your mind at all? If you are tired, you need a good sleep. Why Russian attack somebody? Though one reason? Russia can only provoke to protect their territory or independence of other countries from U.S. aggression. The only threat to world peace has long been a U.S. only.

[Tunnelcat]

Russia problem is they need a experienced war machine like we do. If Putin was smart he'd find some excuse to attack a third world country and give his military some experience...hopefully a more positive experience than the one they had in Afghanistan.

So far, only the U.S. attacked more than 30 countries.
You have in your mind at all? If you are tired, you need a good sleep. Why Russian attack somebody? Though one reason? Russia can only provoke to protect their territory or independence of other countries from U.S. aggression. The only threat to world peace has long been a U.S. only.

Ah sigma? Tell me how the Soviet Union was created from all those countries that surrounded Russia pre-WWII? Your country did it when they re-conquered all those territories as their army drove through Eastern Europe wiping out the Nazis. Did Russia return that land to it's former owners as a gift? Nope. They annexed it instead and created the repressive and militaristic Soviet Union and locked everyone up behind the Iron Curtain.

Back to the present day. Clearly, Putin got mad that his puppet president in Ukraine was ousted, so as payback to the Ukrainians, who fought a bloody fight against a president they hated, he decided to violate the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances and send his troops to take control and fix things. So what if Putin wasn't invited when the Ukrainians overthrew their rich pig of a president who pillaged the Ukrainian national treasury to build his tacky palaces and zoos at their expense. What matters to Putin is that he now has control of his neighbor through force. And we can't do much about it without screwing over Europe's economy or starting WWIII.

[flip]

Woody has a point. Must have watched all the same WW2 documentaries that I have . Although, I watched a program recently that said since so much of the battle these days was from a technological standpoint, they were having a 2 day crucible, just in case there was any actual combat! LOL, I laughed, 2 days. What they need is to be put on a framing crew for a couple years! I can say this because I was raised by a Marine that didn't have that much love for me. God knows I had to unlearn a lot of stuff, like how to stick a icepick in somebody's ear to get away with murder, or how to tie a belt around your neck to cut off the blood but not your air .

[Top Gun]

Barack, hold on, do not be discouraged, get out of the fucкing policy. You all will be well.

How's about Russia gets out of the **** Crimea. THEN all will be well.

Do not misunderstand
Where America is and where the Crimea? Who are you to tell us what and how we do in our country?

Except for the teeeeensy little fact that IT'S NOT YOUR COUNTRY. The Crimea is the sovereign territory of the Ukraine. Your military has invaded and is now currently occupying a foreign country, in defiance of international law. I knew you were brainwashed, but good lord.

[sigma]

Again the same . TC, the Soviet Union gave full independence to its former republics. And what we got in the end ? We got millions of refugees to Russia from these countries , when those countries were not able to survive on their own , without Russia. You know a lot of countries that have been given independence and they were able to thrive ? Incidentally, the same thing happen when the U.S. invasion of other countries. Wealthier countries receive only a big headache from the huge number of refugees who are fleeing from war or "independence" in their countries. They are taking jobs from the indigenous population , they are unwilling to accept the rules of conduct or religion of the indigenous population . And besides, these refugees are not want to assimilate into the countries that gave them shelter, jobs , or have to spend huge amounts of money on their unemployment benefits . In other words , the activity of the United States to protect the world from the " Russian threat"(?!) only contributes to the displacement of the population of the Third World in a civilized countries.

[flip]

Sigma, what would be the difference between what Russia is doing in Crimea and if America did the same to Cuba? Just as close, yet we let them live in peace and under their own laws of governance. In fact, the only problem we ever had with Cuba is because the USSR was trying to put missiles on it.

[Spidey]

Are you forgetting the economic sanctions we have had on that country for decades, just because they are commies?

I am personally of the opinion that sanctions of the economic type are immoral.

[flip]

Hmm, can't say right off hand I'm familiar with them, but right off the top of my head I would have to agree. Definitely a form of coercion.

[sigma]

Generally the answer to your question is laid in my previous comment. The fact that Crimea is subsidized region. To feed themselves, in any case they need help from the outside. Given that neither the EU nor the U.S. is not interested in the development of Ukraine's economy, and they can give money to a beggar Crimea just to accommodate NATO bases, of course, Russia can not allow them to do so.