We have no world standing in all this. Bush invaded 2 countries mostly unilaterally, and Iraq was invaded without pretense, so the U.S. can't stand up to Russia when we're the biggest foreign aggressor of sovereign nations in the world, all under the auspices of national security. Crimea has a large Russian population and even though Putin is being overly aggressive in going in there and defying the wishes of the Ukrainian government, I don't fault his deluded reasons for doing so, because technically, it's in HIS national security since Crimea and Ukraine are right next door.
So with that said, I think that Putin's manly saber rattling that's going on right now is just as stupid as our whining about it him doing it without our permission, like another world power needs permission from us in the first place. However sigma, if Putin thinks that nuking the U.S. is a viable response to the U.S. requesting sanctions and other U.N. actions against Russia, he's cutting off his own nose to spite his face. Remember sigma, you're downwind from whatever radiation your bombs throw at us. No one would win and everyone would lose, even you.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
flip wrote:Sigma. have you noticed that no one here, in the 7-8 years I've been posting on this board, has ever attacked Russia verbally? Until you, solely, started attacking America? Did you not know that all wars are started and ended by words? Be careful, or your indoctrination will be the very cause of war.
I apologize if I accidentally broke the etiquette of behavior on the forum. I did not mean that. We just decided to speak frankly. Clueless I'm not interested in small talk.
I will happy to shut up, if the American elite has ceased to pray to God with one hand on the health of their loved ones and the American people, and at the same time the other hand signing military contracts to kill other people for the prosperity of their family business.
I see where you're coming from sigma. America's wars of aggression are now all about starting publicly funded wars, all for the profit of private business contractors. I can't argue with your observation about America, not with all the private military contractors making huge profits off of all these wars in our recent past. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex years ago. Now it's a monster that may be our undoing.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
Sigma don't you dare stop talking. Your voice is just as valid as mine or any others.
We all can be wrong about things and still have important contributions to the conversation.
You haven't broken any forum etiquette.
I treat this place as a bunch of people sitting around the campfire. I'll give you grief or support as I see fit and I would ask you do the same whether I will like it or not.
Just don't piss in the fire. That's nasty
And I don't even know why Putin is going into Crimea so I may agree with him on that but you still can't have Alaska.
Will Robinson wrote:Sigma don't you dare stop talking. Your voice is just as valid as mine or any others.
We all can be wrong about things and still have important contributions to the conversation.
You haven't broken any forum etiquette.
I treat this place as a bunch of people sitting around the campfire. I'll give you grief or support as I see fit and I would ask you do the same whether I will like it or not.
Just don't piss in the fire. That's nasty
And I don't even know why Putin is going into Crimea so I may agree with him on that but you still can't have Alaska.
Putin is going into Crimea to secure it for Russia. It has always been a core interest of Russia's since at least the 1800s.
Having Ukraine "fall" to the west was just too much for Putin to bear. He felt he had to at least make sure Crimea stayed firmly in Russian hands. The rest of Ukraine is less important- though eastern Ukraine is also a crossing point for Russian oil and gas to Europe- and it is mostly ethnic Russian people in the east.
Putin still sees the west as a threat- and in his eyes, with good reason. I don't like him any more than you would 'like' a defacto dictator or mafia boss, but I can see his reasoning.
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
I don't disagree at all with Sigma's accusations of war-mongering. I don't disagree with him that it is the elite that is doing it, but from all sides, not just American Elite's. My point, is that they have to have public approval first and foremost and it appears to me he is falling right into that trap.
Will Robinson wrote:And I don't even know why Putin is going into Crimea so I may agree with him on that but you still can't have Alaska.
no way of knowing, Will, but I suspect it gets down to a few factors:
1. Russia has long regretted the loss of the Ukraine to sovereign statehood.
2. With a lot of ethnic Russians in the populace(especially Crimea), some Ukranians agree.
3. Russia is desperate to avoid EuroZone hegemony moving Eastward farther.
4. Still a bit of sting that really nothing much came of the Georgian adventure, in the long run
5. Need a distraction from government corruption and terrorism flareups of late.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
tunnelcat wrote:We have no world standing in all this. Bush invaded 2 countries mostly unilaterally, and Iraq was invaded without pretense, so the U.S. can't stand up to Russia when we're the biggest foreign aggressor of sovereign nations in the world, all under the auspices of national security. Crimea has a large Russian population and even though Putin is being overly aggressive in going in there and defying the wishes of the Ukrainian government, I don't fault his deluded reasons for doing so, because technically, it's in HIS national security since Crimea and Ukraine are right next door.
So with that said, I think that Putin's manly saber rattling that's going on right now is just as stupid as our whining about it him doing it without our permission, like another world power needs permission from us in the first place. However sigma, if Putin thinks that nuking the U.S. is a viable response to the U.S. requesting sanctions and other U.N. actions against Russia, he's cutting off his own nose to spite his face. Remember sigma, you're downwind from whatever radiation your bombs throw at us. No one would win and everyone would lose, even you.
I know.
It is pleasant to me to communicate with clever people.
But the American management, unfortunately, for decades and daily shows that they are capable to understand only language of power.
were that actually the case, what your nation did could be seen as incredibly stupid. Luckily, you aren't, so we will attempt all manor of non-military options, because if we went straight to force, Russia's military would lose out. We don't spend as much money as the rest of the world(combined) on military spending for nothing, you know.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
callmeslick wrote:were that actually the case, what your nation did could be seen as incredibly stupid. Luckily, you aren't, so we will attempt all manor of non-military options, because if we went straight to force, Russia's military would lose out. We don't spend as much money as the rest of the world(combined) on military spending for nothing, you know.
No, everyone would lose slick. Despite Obama's efforts to weaken our fighting forces, we far out class Russia in conventional war- so Russia would immediately resort to nukes (like they have warned several times in the last RECENT few years.)
What's funny is- I'm not entirely sure Obama would retaliate with nukes. I remember hearing Carter saying that he wouldn't have retaliated against a full russian nuke strike.
Obama is Carter x10 in weakness.
. "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"- Mao Zedong
callmeslick wrote:were that actually the case, what your nation did could be seen as incredibly stupid. Luckily, you aren't, so we will attempt all manor of non-military options, because if we went straight to force, Russia's military would lose out. We don't spend as much money as the rest of the world(combined) on military spending for nothing, you know.
No, everyone would lose slick. Despite Obama's efforts to weaken our fighting forces, we far out class Russia in conventional war- so Russia would immediately resort to nukes (like they have warned several times in the last RECENT few years.)
What's funny is- I'm not entirely sure Obama would retaliate with nukes. I remember hearing Carter saying that he wouldn't have retaliated against a full russian nuke strike.
Obama is Carter x10 in weakness.
I seriously doubt Russia would commit national suicide over US troops and hardware showing up to support Ukraine.
Avoiding "assured destruction" is a factor they have based decades of strategies upon.
I'm not saying I think we should go get into it with them necessarily but I believe it could be done without risking a nuclear strike from Putin.
callmeslick wrote:were that actually the case, what your nation did could be seen as incredibly stupid. Luckily, you aren't, so we will attempt all manor of non-military options, because if we went straight to force, Russia's military would lose out. We don't spend as much money as the rest of the world(combined) on military spending for nothing, you know.
As long as the U.S. will regarded Russian nation as a hostile, the American nation will only get in trouble. We never did anything bad to Americans. But we will have to destroy you just because of your stupidity in response to your aggression. Very stupid it would be. I feel sympathy for the American nation. But the other way sometimes not
Why?
Why kill 300 million of ordinary Americans? Which in no way to blame.
But sits somewhere senator who suck Russian prostitute, and he begins to believe that Russia can fucк all. And he does not understand that Russia can only drive him a big dick in his ass.
callmeslick wrote:were that actually the case, what your nation did could be seen as incredibly stupid. Luckily, you aren't, so we will attempt all manor of non-military options, because if we went straight to force, Russia's military would lose out. We don't spend as much money as the rest of the world(combined) on military spending for nothing, you know.
No, everyone would lose slick. Despite Obama's efforts to weaken our fighting forces, we far out class Russia in conventional war- so Russia would immediately resort to nukes (like they have warned several times in the last RECENT few years.)
What's funny is- I'm not entirely sure Obama would retaliate with nukes. I remember hearing Carter saying that he wouldn't have retaliated against a full russian nuke strike.
Obama is Carter x10 in weakness.
you're X10 in clueless if you believe either of those men wouldn't have effectively retailiated a nuke strike. Still my point is that the US so vastly outspends the rest of the planet, with so much of that spending in secret, one has little exact knowledge of HOW we could retailiate if we chose to really unload on someone. Obama is, by the way, not in any way attempting to weaken our fighting force, merely retooling to deal with the reality of modern warfare. Of course, you can't see that, because your Obama-hate-on obscures your view. It's high time we had leadership insightful enough to do so, IMHO.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Will Robinson wrote:Sigma, without committing nuclear suicide how would Russia destroy America?
I'd love to hear that, as I am quite certain we could annihilate Russia, and suspect even their nuclear deterrant would be pretty negated in the process. Does any American, aware of the trillions we have spent on research and hardware NOT suspect we have some pretty nasty stuff under wraps someplace?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
We seem to be forgetting one thing here. In the Ukraine, there are 4-5 major oil companys fracking for natural gas.. Russia now holds a strangle hold on Europe as it supplies most of the natural gas to it (feel free to correct me). If those oil companies succeed, Russia will loose a sizable portion of it's revenue stream. So it would make sense for Putin to attempt to take over Ukraine and the potential NG it has being developed. If all Obama and friends can do is window dressing puffery diplomacy, then Putin may just blow on into Ukraine proper and "protect" the Russian ethnic population. Unless the EU and NATO start putting troops on the boarder, Putin will shrug off the effete leadership and continue on.
woodchip wrote:We seem to be forgetting one thing here. In the Ukraine, there are 4-5 major oil companys fracking for natural gas.. Russia now holds a strangle hold on Europe as it supplies most of the natural gas to it (feel free to correct me). If those oil companies succeed, Russia will loose a sizable portion of it's revenue stream. So it would make sense for Putin to attempt to take over Ukraine and the potential NG it has being developed. If all Obama and friends can do is window dressing puffery diplomacy, then Putin may just blow on into Ukraine proper and "protect" the Russian ethnic population. Unless the EU and NATO start putting troops on the boarder, Putin will shrug off the effete leadership and continue on.
as I stated earlier, Woody, Natural Gas is a huge part of our strategic advantage, both production output and technology to assist the Ukraine. Russia absolutely depends on the sale of LNG, and could be crushed either by Ukranian produce heading West, or the US covering the Euro need until such time as Ukraine is on-line.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
tunnelcat wrote:We have no world standing in all this. Bush invaded 2 countries mostly unilaterally, and Iraq was invaded without pretense, so the U.S. can't stand up to Russia when we're the biggest foreign aggressor of sovereign nations in the world, all under the auspices of national security. Crimea has a large Russian population and even though Putin is being overly aggressive in going in there and defying the wishes of the Ukrainian government, I don't fault his deluded reasons for doing so, because technically, it's in HIS national security since Crimea and Ukraine are right next door.
So with that said, I think that Putin's manly saber rattling that's going on right now is just as stupid as our whining about it him doing it without our permission, like another world power needs permission from us in the first place. However sigma, if Putin thinks that nuking the U.S. is a viable response to the U.S. requesting sanctions and other U.N. actions against Russia, he's cutting off his own nose to spite his face. Remember sigma, you're downwind from whatever radiation your bombs throw at us. No one would win and everyone would lose, even you.
I know.
It is pleasant to me to communicate with clever people.
But the American management, unfortunately, for decades and daily shows that they are capable to understand only language of power.
Putin is not immune to that either. All leaders suffer from that same affliction. It's not just a American leader's disease. But I see the Crimean population as mostly Russian, so I can still see why Putin did what he did. The only problem I see here is that Crimea, and Ukraine, didn't ask for Putin to come in and stabilize things with the Russian military. Putin made his decision to go into Crimea unilaterally and without Crimean and Ukrainian input. To the rest of the world, Putin looks like an invader that should be repelled. Appearances are everything.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
What makes you think the cost of shipping NG to Europe from US is anywhere near as cost efficient as a pipeline from Russia. Russia may very well just cut off the NG to Europe if they in turn try sanctions. Don't know how well that would go for either side.
woodchip wrote:What makes you think the cost of shipping NG to Europe from US is anywhere near as cost efficient as a pipeline from Russia. Russia may very well just cut off the NG to Europe if they in turn try sanctions. Don't know how well that would go for either side.
The Russians have already used the NG supply to Europe as leverage before. We just have the capability to negate that. You are likely correct to surmise that LNG shipping is more costly, but if it comes without a threat of supply interruption, does it become a bargain?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Kerry put his foot in his mouth on the weekend news shows. Like the U.S. has a leg to stand on here after Bush and Iraq.
John Kerry wrote:“The larger point is really this: It is diplomacy and respect for sovereignty, not unilateral force, that can best solve disputes like this in the 21st Century,” Kerry said. “We are not seeking confrontation. There is a better way for Russia to pursue its genuine interests in Ukraine.”
I'm also getting tired of the right wing armchair quarterbacking from idiots like Giuliani and the other usual Fox "guests" that doubles for discussion couched as Obama bashing on Fox News. If all these right wingers think that Obama is playing a wussy weakling to Putin, I'd like to know what they'd do differently. Nuke Russia? Send in troops? Uh huh. None of these morons has given what they'd do in the same situation. I'm betting nothing different. They've only used their vile political Fox soapbox to bash a president they hate.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
tunnelcat wrote:Kerry put his foot in his mouth on the weekend news shows. Like the U.S. has a leg to stand on here after Bush and Iraq.
John Kerry wrote:“The larger point is really this: It is diplomacy and respect for sovereignty, not unilateral force, that can best solve disputes like this in the 21st Century,” Kerry said. “We are not seeking confrontation. There is a better way for Russia to pursue its genuine interests in Ukraine.”
Seems rather disingenuous and partisan for you to attribute the hypocrisy to Bush when Kerry was quite puffed up and verbose when he demanded camera time to declare his support for our going into Iraq. I believe he was quite the Hawk then....
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
You should check your partisan training and call a spade a spade.
Kerry was being hypocritical....not Bush made him sound hypocritical.
woodchip wrote:What makes you think the cost of shipping NG to Europe from US is anywhere near as cost efficient as a pipeline from Russia. Russia may very well just cut off the NG to Europe if they in turn try sanctions. Don't know how well that would go for either side.
The Russians have already used the NG supply to Europe as leverage before. We just have the capability to negate that. You are likely correct to surmise that LNG shipping is more costly, but if it comes without a threat of supply interruption, does it become a bargain?
You know of what each simple citizen of Russia dreams? When we will get down from an oil needle at last. It will mean search of new sources of the income and global development of economy of Russia. I sincerely want that EU found for itself alternative energy sources to give new incentive for development of Russia. Especially as oil in Russia will suffice a maximum for two hundred years. Though in the Arctic also very large supplies, unfortunately.
Not only does it give some perspective on the tension there, but also how much Europe (mainland) relies on Russia for natural gas.
The above link give details like cost and the countries effected.
tunnelcat wrote:Kerry put his foot in his mouth on the weekend news shows. Like the U.S. has a leg to stand on here after Bush and Iraq.
John Kerry wrote:“The larger point is really this: It is diplomacy and respect for sovereignty, not unilateral force, that can best solve disputes like this in the 21st Century,” Kerry said. “We are not seeking confrontation. There is a better way for Russia to pursue its genuine interests in Ukraine.”
Seems rather disingenuous and partisan for you to attribute the hypocrisy to Bush when Kerry was quite puffed up and verbose when he demanded camera time to declare his support for our going into Iraq. I believe he was quite the Hawk then....
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
You should check your partisan training and call a spade a spade.
Kerry was being hypocritical....not Bush made him sound hypocritical.
Where did I give Kerry a pass? I posted his remarks because he seems to have forgotten the deluded lies he supported under Bush. Yes, I remember his, and many other idiotic Democratic speeches at the time of 9/11. They all stood there and thumped their chests like they were badass gorillas on the march out to kick ass and take names in a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. But blaming Iraq for 9/11 WAS Bush's idea, by the way, so don't forget. I thought they were all nuts going along with it too. I'm not absolving Kerry for making essentially the same damn speech he made back during Bush's presidency THIS TIME either. That's why I posted it. He's still a political hack and he hasn't changed one wit when using the bully pulpit for advancing his and Obama's political meme. And nowhere did I say Bush made him sound hypocritical. Kerry is his own hypocrite.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
tunnelcat wrote:Kerry put his foot in his mouth on the weekend news shows. Like the U.S. has a leg to stand on here after Bush and Iraq.
John Kerry wrote:“The larger point is really this: It is diplomacy and respect for sovereignty, not unilateral force, that can best solve disputes like this in the 21st Century,” Kerry said. “We are not seeking confrontation. There is a better way for Russia to pursue its genuine interests in Ukraine.”
I'm also getting tired of the right wing armchair quarterbacking from idiots like Giuliani and the other usual Fox "guests" that doubles for discussion couched as Obama bashing on Fox News. If all these right wingers think that Obama is playing a wussy weakling to Putin, I'd like to know what they'd do differently. Nuke Russia? Send in troops? Uh huh. None of these morons has given what they'd do in the same situation. I'm betting nothing different. They've only used their vile political Fox soapbox to bash a president they hate.
today's prize-winner for me is Lindsay Graham. Apparently this weak kneed coward is so afraid of his Primary challenge that he is willing to publicly attack the President and try to tie this to Bengazi(yet again). As one wag noted(which I read today), if this was Bush in charge, things would be different. We'd have invaded Peru by now. Another noted that when Putin did the same thing in Georgia, Bush went on vacation for two weeks.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
sigma wrote:You know of what each simple citizen of Russia dreams? When we will get down from an oil needle at last. It will mean search of new sources of the income and global development of economy of Russia. I sincerely want that EU found for itself alternative energy sources to give new incentive for development of Russia. Especially as oil in Russia will suffice a maximum for two hundred years. Though in the Arctic also very large supplies, unfortunately.
well, so far, you've pissed away the money that has come to Mother Russia from oil, giving the proceeds to the political elite and a handful of wealthy men. Sadly, I sense from your utter brainwashing expressed on these pages at times, that you all won't fare any better from any future income stream. Over 70% of your high-tech investment monies at present come from the EuroZone. Anger them and the flow stops. You will cling to your oil and wheat and then discover that the US can bury both of those commodities in the world market.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
sigma wrote:You know of what each simple citizen of Russia dreams? When we will get down from an oil needle at last. It will mean search of new sources of the income and global development of economy of Russia. I sincerely want that EU found for itself alternative energy sources to give new incentive for development of Russia. Especially as oil in Russia will suffice a maximum for two hundred years. Though in the Arctic also very large supplies, unfortunately.
well, so far, you've pissed away the money that has come to Mother Russia from oil, giving the proceeds to the political elite and a handful of wealthy men. Sadly, I sense from your utter brainwashing expressed on these pages at times, that you all won't fare any better from any future income stream. Over 70% of your high-tech investment monies at present come from the EuroZone. Anger them and the flow stops. You will cling to your oil and wheat and then discover that the US can bury both of those commodities in the world market.
And Russia can dump the dollar and US treasuries it holds as can China.
"An attempt to announce sanctions would end in a crash for the financial system of the United States, which would cause the end of the domination of the United States in the global financial system,"
why would China bother?..... and Russia would be committing financial suicide and would in no way be able to doom the US system..they simply don't have enough cash invested here. More gloom and doom from TB.
from TB's own linked article:"Economists have long mocked his apocalyptic and confrontational vision of global economics but also expressed concern that he appears to have grown in authority in recent months." This is the 'source' of expertise whose threats you feel obliged to put into large type, TB? Pathetic, as always.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
callmeslick wrote:why would China bother?..... and Russia would be committing financial suicide and would in no way be able to doom the US system..they simply don't have enough cash invested here. More gloom and doom from TB.
from TB's own linked article:"Economists have long mocked his apocalyptic and confrontational vision of global economics but also expressed concern that he appears to have grown in authority in recent months." This is the 'source' of expertise whose threats you feel obliged to put into large type, TB? Pathetic, as always.
You have a very big ego. In my opinion, even superficial audit the U.S. financial system may put the U.S. to its knees.
callmeslick wrote:why would China bother?..... and Russia would be committing financial suicide and would in no way be able to doom the US system..they simply don't have enough cash invested here. More gloom and doom from TB.
from TB's own linked article:"Economists have long mocked his apocalyptic and confrontational vision of global economics but also expressed concern that he appears to have grown in authority in recent months." This is the 'source' of expertise whose threats you feel obliged to put into large type, TB? Pathetic, as always.
You have a very big ego. In my opinion, even superficial audit the U.S. financial system may put the U.S. to its knees.
please, you have no clue what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop demonstrating that ignorance publicly. "Audit of the US Financial system"? Ours is about the most transparent public finance system on the planet. Further, it is the most reliable and stable overall, which is why the rest of the planet invests here. Unlike, for example, Russia, who reneges on major investment deals, steals capital from foreign investors, and the like. Spare me the lecture. It isn't a matter of ego, it's simple, readily available knowledge(to anyone in the civilized world) that upsets you.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
One moment. Is the vast U.S. population does not live in eternal bondage of debt? Do not increase the annual U.S. government debt limit , the amount of which has already become a phenomenon? Indeed, Americans have nothing but debts . Russian banks have tried such a scheme , but the lower classes zakreditovannost loans under the extortionate interest rates led to a reform of the global banking industry and the closure of the largest banks in corruption schemes and launder black money . My imagination is not enough, how corrupt the banking system in the United States in such a case.
callmeslick wrote:today's prize-winner for me is Lindsay Graham. Apparently this weak kneed coward is so afraid of his Primary challenge that he is willing to publicly attack the President and try to tie this to Bengazi(yet again). As one wag noted(which I read today), if this was Bush in charge, things would be different. We'd have invaded Peru by now. Another noted that when Putin did the same thing in Georgia, Bush went on vacation for two weeks.
Yeah, one can count on Graham AND McCain to swagger around bashing Obama like the hairy warmongers they are, and yet not come up with a more viable and reasonable solution that doesn't hint at their usual solution of using our war machine as the sledge hammer to solve every military incident that crops up in the world.
Speaking of our leaders having no leg to stand on, 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.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
callmeslick wrote:why would China bother?..... and Russia would be committing financial suicide and would in no way be able to doom the US system..they simply don't have enough cash invested here. More gloom and doom from TB.
from TB's own linked article:"Economists have long mocked his apocalyptic and confrontational vision of global economics but also expressed concern that he appears to have grown in authority in recent months." This is the 'source' of expertise whose threats you feel obliged to put into large type, TB? Pathetic, as always.
The thing is Slick that the quote is genuine (accurate), and when someone starts chest pounding like that (genuine on follow through or not), the person needs to be watched. Remember where this guys served before taking office.
callmeslick wrote:
today's prize-winner for me is Lindsay Graham.
No the real prize winner is Hillary Hillary Clinton Clinton, who compared a foreign head of state to Hitler. This from a potential presidential candidate, who, if she wins will have to deal with Putin while she is in office. If comparing Putin to Hitler is what we can expect from her vast experience as Secretary of State, then I guess we can look forward to ever more countries hating us. No wonder 4 people died under her inept leadership. But what the heck....calling Putin a new Hitler or calling him Mother Theresa, what difference does it make?
I think she knows exactly what to call him. Just look over his Wikipedia page, all of which can be verified. He is doing the very same thing as Hitler and capitalizing on Hitler's one mistake of trying too much too soon. He has taken his sweet time about and seated his self very comfortably now.
