PDA

View Full Version : The U.N./Russia



sandsjames
03-03-2014, 11:29 PM
Great report I heard,

The U.N. is unable to vote on any actions against Russia in Ukraine because Russia has veto power. Talk about your major loopholes for all the countries with the veto.

raider8169
03-04-2014, 12:26 AM
veto power in the UN? How does that make any sense?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-04-2014, 12:09 PM
What I find funny is that Obama is going to put economic sactions on a country that supples the EU with 30% of its oil. Has the primary oil supply for India and China, and Obama really thinks he can sanction them. If he really wants to drain their economy, he should run for president of the new USSR and drag them down like he is trying to do for the US.

Greg
03-05-2014, 05:48 PM
What I find funny is that Obama is going to put economic sactions on a country that supples the EU with 30% of its oil. Has the primary oil supply for India and China, and Obama really thinks he can sanction them. If he really wants to drain their economy, he should run for president of the new USSR and drag them down like he is trying to do for the US.

Natural gas.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-05-2014, 06:27 PM
Natural gas.

Yeah, sorry. You're right. Although, they do provide oil and gasoline as well. Just dont know the percentage.

I find it sad that mostly anyone that has been interviewed about what Obama is doing says that it is weak and really wont affect Russia at all.

AJBIGJ
03-05-2014, 07:04 PM
I find it sad that mostly anyone that has been interviewed about what Obama is doing says that it is weak and really wont affect Russia at all.

It's an interesting discussion, of course people are very quick to criticize, but as independent thinkers people need to ask themselves "what can we do" and "what should we do?"

Yeah, yeah Romney predicted this or Sarah Palin predicted that, pretty irrelevant that people on the campaign trail who were not face-to-face with Putin were able to rattle a saber or two, it's a bit different when you're placed in the position of "taking action" because afterwards someone will have to ask what "actions" precisely will we take?

We have all sorts of "options" if you want to call them that, but it boils down to three things basically, rhetorical action, economic action, and military action. Considering who it is we're dealing with what are the reactions we expect from each and are they even worth considering considering "capitulation" on Russia's part is not exactly an outcome I'd consider likely no matter which of the three routes we consider.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 12:24 PM
It's an interesting discussion, of course people are very quick to criticize, but as independent thinkers people need to ask themselves "what can we do" and "what should we do?"Well, these people were high management of the CIA and other intelligent agentcies.


Yeah, yeah Romney predicted this or Sarah Palin predicted that, pretty irrelevant that people on the campaign trail who were not face-to-face with Putin were able to rattle a saber or two, it's a bit different when you're placed in the position of "taking action" because afterwards someone will have to ask what "actions" precisely will we take?Not being a fan of either of them nor could they really have done something different. We have spent 12 years in a pointless war and would be gearing up to stay longer in BOTH Iraq and Afghan if McCain had been elected. We still couldnt fight off Russia. It really shouldnt be up to us IMO. If EU wants to be ruled by Russia, so be it. They can both collapse under economic failures of socialism/communism as they did in the past.


We have all sorts of "options" if you want to call them that, but it boils down to three things basically, rhetorical action, economic action, and military action. Considering who it is we're dealing with what are the reactions we expect from each and are they even worth considering considering "capitulation" on Russia's part is not exactly an outcome I'd consider likely no matter which of the three routes we consider.
We havent heard it yet, but I know China backs Russia, there goes Military action. Rhetorical only makes us look weak. And economic doesnt mean crap when our economy is ran by credit ponzi schemes and food service workers and theirs is being boosted by mining and drilling for their natural resources.

sandsjames
03-06-2014, 01:11 PM
Not being a fan of either of them nor could they really have done something different. We have spent 12 years in a pointless war and would be gearing up to stay longer in BOTH Iraq and Afghan if McCain had been elected. We still couldnt fight off Russia. It really shouldnt be up to us IMO. If EU wants to be ruled by Russia, so be it. They can both collapse under economic failures of socialism/communism as they did in the past.




Exactly. This is a Europe issue. Let them deal with it as they see fit. It reaches them politically, economically, an militarily. We should be pushing no policies.

AJBIGJ
03-06-2014, 01:31 PM
Well, these people were high management of the CIA and other intelligent agentcies.

Not being a fan of either of them nor could they really have done something different. We have spent 12 years in a pointless war and would be gearing up to stay longer in BOTH Iraq and Afghan if McCain had been elected. We still couldnt fight off Russia. It really shouldnt be up to us IMO. If EU wants to be ruled by Russia, so be it. They can both collapse under economic failures of socialism/communism as they did in the past.

We havent heard it yet, but I know China backs Russia, there goes Military action. Rhetorical only makes us look weak. And economic doesnt mean crap when our economy is ran by credit ponzi schemes and food service workers and theirs is being boosted by mining and drilling for their natural resources.


Exactly. This is a Europe issue. Let them deal with it as they see fit. It reaches them politically, economically, an militarily. We should be pushing no policies.

For the record, I agree with both of you in this. I do feel it's important to lay all of our cards on the table though for anyone who feels the US (or the President) is not being "tough enough", and many are (not necessarily in here yet). If anyone does wish to criticize, at least offer an alternative because I for one am tired of saber rattling a toy sword!

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 02:06 PM
Well, these people were high management of the CIA and other intelligent agentcies.

Not being a fan of either of them nor could they really have done something different. We have spent 12 years in a pointless war and would be gearing up to stay longer in BOTH Iraq and Afghan if McCain had been elected. We still couldnt fight off Russia. It really shouldnt be up to us IMO. If EU wants to be ruled by Russia, so be it. They can both collapse under economic failures of socialism/communism as they did in the past.


We havent heard it yet, but I know China backs Russia, there goes Military action. Rhetorical only makes us look weak. And economic doesnt mean crap when our economy is ran by credit ponzi schemes and food service workers and theirs is being boosted by mining and drilling for their natural resources.

There might be a sensible point in this post, but I'm having trouble seeing it.

Try putting a little more effort into your posts. If you want to be taken seriously, clean up the errors and poorly developed sentences.

You might want to remove that stuff about turd sandwiches and those cryptic percentage points about economic left/right from your signature block.

That signature block doesn't do much for your credibility when coupled with a sloppy post like the one above. It conjures an image of an angry old man in a dive bar, who is drunk off his ass on cheap beer.

waveshaper2
03-06-2014, 02:23 PM
Exactly. This is a Europe issue. Let them deal with it as they see fit. It reaches them politically, economically, an militarily. We should be pushing no policies.

What about NATO and all those other entangling Treaties/Alliances/Agreements that normally drag all parties into senseless wars?

sandsjames
03-06-2014, 02:46 PM
What about NATO and all those other entangling Treaties/Alliances/Agreements that normally drag all parties into senseless wars?

Here's the problem. This is going to hurt the economy of the European countries much more than it will hurt ours. Of course we will be there to support NATO, but as far as being unilateral, we need to keep our mouths shut. If we decide to impose sanctions without the approval of Europe and it hurts their economy, we are the ones to blame.

sandsjames
03-06-2014, 02:49 PM
For the record, I agree with both of you in this. I do feel it's important to lay all of our cards on the table though for anyone who feels the US (or the President) is not being "tough enough", and many are (not necessarily in here yet). If anyone does wish to criticize, at least offer an alternative because I for one am tired of saber rattling a toy sword!

If the President had been "less tough" from the beginning we'd be ok. He needs to quit threatening things he knows aren't going to be backed up. His problem is he wants to appear tough while at the same time not appearing to be a war monger, as previous presidents have been referred to. So the best move, in this case, is to stop with the threats and state that we are going to support our NATO allies with whatever they decide to do.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 02:56 PM
I think the prospect of a pan-European war is very low.

In all likelihood, Russia will probably annex part of the Ukraine. They will most likely take the Crimea and no one will stop them. If they move to take the four South Eastern Oblasts that have large ethnic Russian populations, then Ukraine might resist with their military, but be powerless to stop them.

Ultimately, the US and the major European powers know the Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence and aren't going to fight a war over it.

The US and NATO members are obligated to saber rattle and talk tough, but that is all they'll do on this right now.

If Russian troops start seizing land West of the Dnipro River, then it might be time to start getting concerned, because that changes the dynamic. I doubt that will happen.

SomeRandomGuy
03-06-2014, 03:08 PM
If the President had been "less tough" from the beginning we'd be ok. He needs to quit threatening things he knows aren't going to be backed up. His problem is he wants to appear tough while at the same time not appearing to be a war monger, as previous presidents have been referred to. So the best move, in this case, is to stop with the threats and state that we are going to support our NATO allies with whatever they decide to do.

No no no.....The problem is country music. How can we listen to Toby Keith singing about "sticking a boot up your ass, it's the american way...." If we aren't really going to stick a boot up someone's ass. The world would be a much better place if we would all just calm down and listen to some classical music.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 03:14 PM
There might be a sensible point in this post, but I'm having trouble seeing it.

Try putting a little more effort into your posts. If you want to be taken seriously, clean up the errors and poorly developed sentences.

You might want to remove that stuff about turd sandwiches and those cryptic percentage points about economic left/right from your signature block.

That signature block doesn't do much for your credibility when coupled with a sloppy post like the one above. It conjures an image of an angry old man in a dive bar, who is drunk off his ass on cheap beer.

I am half asleep, excuse me. But it does seem that you were the only one that couldnt figure out what I was saying. Do I really need to break it down for you in to paragraph form to explain the simple statements I made? I can start with the first one. IF John MacCain had been elected over Obama in 2008, we would STILL be in Iraq and Afghanistan deploying even more troops. This would take away from who we could actually send to combat Russia whos military is mostly stationed inside its own borders. Did that make more sense?

The signature block has nothing to do with credibility. The turd sandwich is a reference to the POTUS candidates via south park. Either one was a crappy choice.

There is no "percentages" in my signature block. If you would like to understand the numbers better, go to politicalcompass . com/org and take the test to see where you actually stand in the political spectrum.

Greg
03-06-2014, 03:15 PM
There might be a sensible point in this post, but I'm having trouble seeing it.

Try putting a little more effort into your posts. If you want to be taken seriously, clean up the errors and poorly developed sentences.

You might want to remove that stuff about turd sandwiches and those cryptic percentage points about economic left/right from your signature block.

That signature block doesn't do much for your credibility when coupled with a sloppy post like the one above. It conjures an image of an angry old man in a dive bar, who is drunk off his ass on cheap beer.

What's wrong with angry old men in dive bars?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 03:24 PM
Crimea is set to vote for secession and rejoin Russia on March 16. Does that mean they are racist?

AJBIGJ
03-06-2014, 03:33 PM
If the President had been "less tough" from the beginning we'd be ok. He needs to quit threatening things he knows aren't going to be backed up. His problem is he wants to appear tough while at the same time not appearing to be a war monger, as previous presidents have been referred to. So the best move, in this case, is to stop with the threats and state that we are going to support our NATO allies with whatever they decide to do.

Maybe, maybe not to the last point. It is entirely possible that NATO will get itself unnecessarily involved in some form of boondoggle and I for one don't feel the US is particularly obligated if they do. That's why our Congress is supposed to have the prerogative where declaring war is concerned.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 04:08 PM
No no no.....The problem is country music. How can we listen to Toby Keith singing about "sticking a boot up your ass, it's the american way...." If we aren't really going to stick a boot up someone's ass. The world would be a much better place if we would all just calm down and listen to some classical music.

So very true, I think another contributing factor are all those old cowboy movies where the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys wore black hats. It contributes to an over simplified world view that the USA is always the good guy. That's why we get into so many wars.

Country music and cheap domestic beer are a serious blight on our country, and directly linked to military adventurism. If we are going to declare war on someone, let it be Toby Keith and Budweiser.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 04:13 PM
I am half asleep, excuse me. But it does seem that you were the only one that couldnt figure out what I was saying. Do I really need to break it down for you in to paragraph form to explain the simple statements I made? I can start with the first one. IF John MacCain had been elected over Obama in 2008, we would STILL be in Iraq and Afghanistan deploying even more troops. This would take away from who we could actually send to combat Russia whos military is mostly stationed inside its own borders. Did that make more sense?

The signature block has nothing to do with credibility. The turd sandwich is a reference to the POTUS candidates via south park. Either one was a crappy choice.

There is no "percentages" in my signature block. If you would like to understand the numbers better, go to politicalcompass . com/org and take the test to see where you actually stand in the political spectrum.

No, but you did validate my previous opinion of your post.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 04:19 PM
No, but you did validate my previous opinion of your post.

That you cant refute something so you turn it into a personal attack? Gotcha

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 05:21 PM
That you cant refute something so you turn it into a personal attack? Gotcha

If you mean the hypothetical election of John McCain in 2008 and its relevance to the Ukraine situation, yes.

Why would anyone try refuting that? It didn't happen, so who cares.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 05:44 PM
Here is another reason why the US isn't going to do too much about Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Punish Russia? Why some Pentagon officials would prefer restraint.

Christian Science Monitor

By Anna Mulrine, Staff writer / March 4, 2014

The crisis in Ukraine has elicited tough talk from Capitol Hill, but in the back halls of the Pentagon, some officials are focused on a key supply line to Afghanistan that runs through Russia.

While calls mount on Capitol Hill to robustly punish Russia for its incursion into Crimea, some officials in the back halls of the Pentagon are privately pushing for restraint.

That’s because senior US military officials are well aware that a key supply line in and out of Afghanistan runs through Russia.

That supply line, known as the Northern Distribution Network, or NDN, brings food, water, and building materials that keep US troops in Afghanistan fed and America’s longest war going.

Full story: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/2014/0304/Punish-Russia-Why-some-Pentagon-officials-would-prefer-restraint.-video

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 06:06 PM
If you mean the hypothetical election of John McCain in 2008 and its relevance to the Ukraine situation, yes.

Why would anyone try refuting that? It didn't happen, so who cares.

It was the point that the GOP wasnt any better than the Dems being elected, as the purpose of me using the quote I did. Just because Palin and Romney in 2 seperate years "predicted" that Russia would invade the Ukraine, it wouldnt have mattered.

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 06:22 PM
It was the point that the GOP wasnt any better than the Dems being elected, as the purpose of me using the quote I did. Just because Palin and Romney in 2 seperate years "predicted" that Russia would invade the Ukraine, it wouldnt have mattered.

Which is exactly why I compared your post to the ramblings of an angry drunk in a dive bar. Good grief, you talk about Palin, Romney, the GOP or Obama in damn near every thread.

Who didn't win the 2008 election has nothing to do with what's going on in the Ukraine, but that is all you ever talk about.

BENDER56
03-06-2014, 06:48 PM
Huh. Three pages of comments about the US should do this and Russia's gonna do that and China and Europe and Palin and Romney and Toby Keith ...

Doesn't anybody think maybe the people of Ukraine have a say in this?

Absinthe Anecdote
03-06-2014, 06:52 PM
Huh. Three pages of comments about the US should do this and Russia's gonna do that and China and Europe and Palin and Romney and Toby Keith ...

Doesn't anybody think maybe the people of Ukraine have a say in this?

Unfortunately, their options are extremely limited.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 06:56 PM
Which is exactly why I compared your post to the ramblings of an angry drunk in a dive bar. Good grief, you talk about Palin, Romney, the GOP or Obama in damn near every thread.

Who didn't win the 2008 election has nothing to do with what's going on in the Ukraine, but that is all you ever talk about.

I never talk about Palin or McCain. I didnt want Romney. Your comparison is way off and I wasnt bringing them up, I was responding to someone else. Please get with the program.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-06-2014, 06:58 PM
Huh. Three pages of comments about the US should do this and Russia's gonna do that and China and Europe and Palin and Romney and Toby Keith ...

Doesn't anybody think maybe the people of Ukraine have a say in this?

I already mentioned them. Crimea is holding a vote to secede next week and try to join Russia. And not to mention, I feel the US should stay out of it. Obama trying to act tough is rediculous since he has nothing to threaten Russia with. Ukraine is probably going to split in two.

garhkal
03-06-2014, 07:40 PM
We havent heard it yet, but I know China backs Russia, there goes Military action. Rhetorical only makes us look weak. And economic doesnt mean crap when our economy is ran by credit ponzi schemes and food service workers and theirs is being boosted by mining and drilling for their natural resources.

So pretty much we are damned if we do, damned if we don't.


If the President had been "less tough" from the beginning we'd be ok. He needs to quit threatening things he knows aren't going to be backed up. His problem is he wants to appear tough while at the same time not appearing to be a war monger, as previous presidents have been referred to. So the best move, in this case, is to stop with the threats and state that we are going to support our NATO allies with whatever they decide to do.

Exactly. Our president is like a parent who promises a spanking, but never follows through. Do that often enough and there is no more weight behind the threat.

sandsjames
03-07-2014, 06:09 PM
Obama told Putin to pull out. Putin said "No, I'm just getting you loosened up."

Absinthe Anecdote
04-15-2014, 02:37 PM
I think the prospect of a pan-European war is very low.

In all likelihood, Russia will probably annex part of the Ukraine. They will most likely take the Crimea and no one will stop them. If they move to take the four South Eastern Oblasts that have large ethnic Russian populations, then Ukraine might resist with their military, but be powerless to stop them.

Ultimately, the US and the major European powers know the Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence and aren't going to fight a war over it.

The US and NATO members are obligated to saber rattle and talk tough, but that is all they'll do on this right now.

If Russian troops start seizing land West of the Dnipro River, then it might be time to start getting concerned, because that changes the dynamic. I doubt that will happen.

I would apologize for quoting my own post, but I have no shame.

I think the situation is getting worse, and the chances for this escalating is getting greater. If the Russians want those territories that have a large ethnic Russian population, the UN will not stop them.

The point where it will get dangerous is if the start grabbing territory West of the Dnipro river, I hope that doesn't happen.

garhkal
04-15-2014, 09:52 PM
And yet again No spine Obama whines "please stop or else i will rant, rave and cry, cause i am too much of a pussy to do anything else"..

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 12:07 PM
And yet again No spine Obama whines "please stop or else i will rant, rave and cry, cause i am too much of a pussy to do anything else"..

Would you rather he take military action against Russia on behalf of Ukraine?

I can tell you, that would not happen, no matter which president we had in office.

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2014, 02:09 PM
Would you rather he take military action against Russia on behalf of Ukraine?

I can tell you, that would not happen, no matter which president we had in office.

This always seems to be the go-to position............would we go to war for these distant people? It isn't as simple as that when taking in the world view.

Let me ask the opposing question. What happens if Putin is left unchecked?

Any of this vaguely familiar?

Gonzo432
04-16-2014, 02:52 PM
This always seems to be the go-to position............would we go to war for these distant people? It isn't as simple as that when taking in the world view.

Let me ask the opposing question. What happens if Putin is left unchecked?

Any of this vaguely familiar?

I don't think we'll see "peace in our time", and I wouldn't say vaguely familiar, more like deja vu all over again (props to Yogi Berra).

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 04:08 PM
This always seems to be the go-to position............would we go to war for these distant people? It isn't as simple as that when taking in the world view.

Let me ask the opposing question. What happens if Putin is left unchecked?

Any of this vaguely familiar?

I don't think Putin is being left unchecked, but the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are certainly not the tripping point for a military response from NATO, the UN, and especially the US.

If Putin moves to take land West of the Dnipro River, the situation becomes immensely more complex, but I don't think even that would draw armed intervention.

Like it or not, Ukraine is within the Russian sphere of influence and there isn't much more we can do, right now, than apply economic sanctions.

I'm no fan of Obama, but calling him spineless over this situation is absurd.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 04:32 PM
On a side note, I don't think Putin's goal in Eastern Ukraine is the same as in Crimea. I think he is trying to destabilize the new government in Kiev, more than annex additional territory like he did with Crimea.

Remember, Russia does not recognize the current government as legitimate; we will have to wait and see how this plays out, but I hope it calms down soon.

TJMAC77SP
04-16-2014, 04:41 PM
On a side note, I don't think Putin's goal in Eastern Ukraine is the same as in Crimea. I think he is trying to destabilize the new government in Kiev, more than annex additional territory like he did with Crimea.

Remember, Russia does not recognize the current government as legitimate; we will have to wait and see how this plays out, but I hope it calms down soon.

You raise good points and I wasn't the one to call Obama spineless (I know you didn't say I did) but I do think his weakest area is foreign policy. He seems convinced that being popular overseas is the way to go. While the exact opposite is equally stupid both tracks are nonetheless stupid.

I am not as comfortable in stating Putin's long range plans that include restraint as you. I think he is a demagogue and is prone to push the limits as long as he is making gains. He is certainly doing that and I think this is very, very dangerous.

I also think that saying Putin is being checked is akin to saying a child being counted to (1....2.....3) is being disciplined.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 05:00 PM
You raise good points and I wasn't the one to call Obama spineless (I know you didn't say I did) but I do think his weakest area is foreign policy. He seems convinced that being popular overseas is the way to go. While the exact opposite is equally stupid both tracks are nonetheless stupid.

I am not as comfortable in stating Putin's long range plans that include restraint as you. I think he is a demagogue and is prone to push the limits as long as he is making gains. He is certainly doing that and I think this is very, very dangerous.

I also think that saying Putin is being checked is akin to saying a child being counted to (1....2.....3) is being disciplined.

The US, NATO, and the UN don't have much leverage on what is happening in the Ukraine, I'll admit that, I actually said as much in my previous posts.

However, that is not to say, Putin is unchecked when it comes to the Baltics, or Poland, who are members of NATO.

There was a very good segment on NPR this morning with a panel made up of former ambassadors to Russia, and foreign policy experts, plus a few journalists that have covered Russia for a couple of decades.

If you are interested in learning more about what is going on over there, I recommend giving it a listen, I'm sure they will have the audio segment on their website later this afternoon.

garhkal
04-16-2014, 10:09 PM
Would you rather he take military action against Russia on behalf of Ukraine?

I can tell you, that would not happen, no matter which president we had in office.

YES. Otherwise every other tin pot dickhead out there will know that they can push us, and never suffer for it, cause we are weak.
What's the point in making threats, redlines and other forms of ultimatums if you can't (or won't) back them up?

Measure Man
04-16-2014, 10:38 PM
YES. Otherwise every other tin pot dickhead out there will know that they can push us, and never suffer for it, cause we are weak.

Until we kick their ass and they realize, "oh, it was just Russia they didn't want to tangle with."


What's the point in making threats, redlines and other forms of ultimatums if you can't (or won't) back them up?

Agree...don't make threats you are not prepared to carry out.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-16-2014, 10:46 PM
YES. Otherwise every other tin pot dickhead out there will know that they can push us, and never suffer for it, cause we are weak.
What's the point in making threats, redlines and other forms of ultimatums if you can't (or won't) back them up?

How is what Russia doing in Ukraine pushing us around?

Please tell me exactly what kind of threat or ultimatum have we issued to Russia on their actions in Ukraine?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian history is limited.

I suggest that you go read up on it a bit before commenting further, but in the meanwhile, I'll tell you that Russia has a hell of a lot more interest in what goes on in Ukraine than the United States does.

CYBERFX1024
04-17-2014, 02:25 AM
How is what Russia doing in Ukraine pushing us around?
Please tell me exactly what kind of threat or ultimatum have we issued to Russia on their actions in Ukraine?
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your knowledge of Russian and Ukrainian history is limited.
I suggest that you go read up on it a bit before commenting further, but in the meanwhile, I'll tell you that Russia has a hell of a lot more interest in what goes on in Ukraine than the United States does.

I can see where you are coming but quite frankly I think Putin is just getting started. He has stated before that he wants Russia to have the power of the Soviet Union of old and the territory. What doesn't help is Obama keeps making these declarations about sanction this or sanction that. But he doesn't do anything else. I think that we need to stop him now or else he will keep testing Obama before it will become WW3. Just like what Chamberlin did to Hitler, that's what I think Obama is doing now. He is spineless with no courage to do anything but talk about racism and pay inequality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605578/Edward-Lucas-I-hope-Im-wrong-historians-look-say-start-World-War-III.html

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 04:52 AM
I can see where you are coming but quite frankly I think Putin is just getting started. He has stated before that he wants Russia to have the power of the Soviet Union of old and the territory. What doesn't help is Obama keeps making these declarations about sanction this or sanction that. But he doesn't do anything else. I think that we need to stop him now or else he will keep testing Obama before it will become WW3. Just like what Chamberlin did to Hitler, that's what I think Obama is doing now. He is spineless with no courage to do anything but talk about racism and pay inequality.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605578/Edward-Lucas-I-hope-Im-wrong-historians-look-say-start-World-War-III.html

I've got a few problems with that article you linked to, namely it is exaggerated to promote the author's new book, titled the New Cold War, and it puts the Baltic states on the same level as Ukraine.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are NATO members, Ukraine is not. However, I think it was a big mistake to admit the three Baltic republics into NATO in the first place, none of those countries are strategically important to our security.

Read the article below, it gives a much better perspective on what has happened since 1991 and why we shouldn't be trying to protect Ukraine.

It isn't in our security interest to do so and the Chamberlin/Hitler analogy isn't applicable to what is going on over there, it is different than what precipitated WWII in many ways.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/washington-should-not-defend-ukraine-or-expand-nato-us-should-shift

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 02:53 PM
I've got a few problems with that article you linked to, namely it is exaggerated to promote the author's new book, titled the New Cold War, and it puts the Baltic states on the same level as Ukraine.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are NATO members, Ukraine is not. However, I think it was a big mistake to admit the three Baltic republics into NATO in the first place, none of those countries are strategically important to our security.

Read the article below, it gives a much better perspective on what has happened since 1991 and why we shouldn't be trying to protect Ukraine.

It isn't in our security interest to do so and the Chamberlin/Hitler analogy isn't applicable to what is going on over there, it is different than what precipitated WWII in many ways.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/washington-should-not-defend-ukraine-or-expand-nato-us-should-shift


Well the cited article is an opinion piece by a fellow at the CATO institute which is libertarian and therefore generally isolationist. The author certainly raises good points but as an opinion piece is a little lacking on objectivity.

While Edward Lucas may be hawking a book he works for The Economist which is by far a better and more in touch publication than anything offered elsewhere (in my opinion and experience).

How isn't the "Chamberlin/Hitler analogy" applicable and exactly what is different than say the Czechoslovak Republic in 1938-1939?

CYBERFX1024
04-17-2014, 04:33 PM
I've got a few problems with that article you linked to, namely it is exaggerated to promote the author's new book, titled the New Cold War, and it puts the Baltic states on the same level as Ukraine.
Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are NATO members, Ukraine is not. However, I think it was a big mistake to admit the three Baltic republics into NATO in the first place, none of those countries are strategically important to our security.
Read the article below, it gives a much better perspective on what has happened since 1991 and why we shouldn't be trying to protect Ukraine.
It isn't in our security interest to do so and the Chamberlin/Hitler analogy isn't applicable to what is going on over there, it is different than what precipitated WWII in many ways.

The Chamberlin/Hitler analogy is very much applicable to what is happening today in our day and age. Putin is just going to keep pushing and pushing us until we push back. What we are doing now is the same thing a bad parent does their bad child. We are just scolding them and telling them not to do it, it only works for so long until the child learns that the parent won't do anything. This what Putin is doing now, he is finally reached the end of the rope with Obama Now knowing Obama is a coward and won't do anything he will keep doing what he wants to do. That's why the former Soviet bloc states are scared right now, they are all wondering "Who is next".

Another thing I have noticed is that Putin is doing this to the countries that won't keel/bend over to his demands. Look at what happened to Georgia in 2008, Crimea, and now Ukraine. While the countries that are bending to his rule (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan) are actually getting favorable treatment, trade, and money from Moscow.

Capt Alfredo
04-17-2014, 04:43 PM
Hmm, seems the Russian economy is already taking a hit...from this morning's FP Morning Brief:

Signs show that the Russian economy, already suffering from stagflation, has reacted poorly to the annexation of Crimea and growing uncertainty, even before sanctions have had time to make their mark. The main stock market dropped 10 percent in March, and some estimate as much as $70 billion in capital has left the country this year.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 05:27 PM
This what Putin is doing now, he is finally reached the end of the rope with Obama Now knowing Obama is a coward and won't do anything he will keep doing what he wants to do.

We're not just holding Obama to this standard, are we?

We've had two proxy wars - Korea and Vietnam - because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union. Hell, even Bush Jr got bitch-slapped throughout both of his terms by Kim Jong-Il.

But Obama is the coward...

CYBERFX1024
04-17-2014, 05:55 PM
Hmm, seems the Russian economy is already taking a hit...from this morning's FP Morning Brief:
Signs show that the Russian economy, already suffering from stagflation, has reacted poorly to the annexation of Crimea and growing uncertainty, even before sanctions have had time to make their mark. The main stock market dropped 10 percent in March, and some estimate as much as $70 billion in capital has left the country this year.

You do know that the "sanctions" are on only about 10 people in the country right? So they don't really affect the whole country as a whole. Also the capital flight was already happening before but it has now since sped up.

waveshaper2
04-17-2014, 06:10 PM
I am not a President Obama fan but I will admit President Bush did get seriously slapped in Georgia. He was trying to help bring Georgia into NATO and in July/August of 2008 the US/Georgia conducted its largest joint military (immediate response) exercise. The Russian invaded Georgia "FIVE" days after the exercise ended and we all witnessed the US response, ouch.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 06:41 PM
Or how about the time when there were talks of us putting a base in Azerbaijan, and Putin warned of military action against the US if we put anymore bases former Soviet Republics, after the ones in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Bush Jr backed off with his tail between his legs. No base in Azerbaijan.

Talking the big talk and not backing it up is one thing. But being told to step the fuck off, and actually doing it... that's a whole new level of cowardice.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 06:43 PM
Well the cited article is an opinion piece by a fellow at the CATO institute which is libertarian and therefore generally isolationist. The author certainly raises good points but as an opinion piece is a little lacking on objectivity.

While Edward Lucas may be hawking a book he works for The Economist which is by far a better and more in touch publication than anything offered elsewhere (in my opinion and experience).

They are both opinion pieces, while Lucas takes a hawkish stance he does so from the aspect of having studied in Poland and reported from Moscow for a sizable chunk of his career, plus, he has a European centric view.

The Cato Institute article is looking at the issue more from what are truly the strategic interests of the United States. Libertarian views on foreign policy are often mischaracterized as isolationist by detractors who try paint all libertarian voices with the same brush.

The gist of the Cato article maintains that it is foolish for the US to go to war over countries that have no strategic value to the US.

A good example would be the invasion of the Georgia Republic in 2008. The US did not, nor should not have gone to war for Georgia. It isn't strategically important to our interests, and the truth of the matter is that Russia has legitimate concerns with that country, far beyond any the the US can claim.

The same goes for Ukraine and that is exactly why we should not, and will not get involved beyond diplomacy and economic sanctions.

No matter which party (Republican or Democrat) holds the White House, the other side would call their response weak. While in reality, both sides would/will follow a course of action closer to what is advocated by the Cato Institute.




How isn't the "Chamberlin/Hitler analogy" applicable and exactly what is different than say the Czechoslovak Republic in 1938-1939?




The Chamberlin/Hitler analogy is very much applicable to what is happening today in our day and age. Putin is just going to keep pushing and pushing us until we push back. What we are doing now is the same thing a bad parent does their bad child. We are just scolding them and telling them not to do it, it only works for so long until the child learns that the parent won't do anything. This what Putin is doing now, he is finally reached the end of the rope with Obama Now knowing Obama is a coward and won't do anything he will keep doing what he wants to do. That's why the former Soviet bloc states are scared right now, they are all wondering "Who is next".

Another thing I have noticed is that Putin is doing this to the countries that won't keel/bend over to his demands. Look at what happened to Georgia in 2008, Crimea, and now Ukraine.

Look boys, don't try to maneuver me into a position where it sounds as if I am defending Hitler or Putin.

I am not.

However, Hitler did have legitimate claims in Czechoslovakia and Putin does have legitimate claims in Ukraine.

If there is any similarity, that is it. What makes them different is Hitler went on to invade Poland, France and Russia.

Do you honestly think that is where Putin is headed? If he starts encroaching on Poland, I say we fight, but remember we risk a nuclear exchange if that happens. All the more reason for a sane and measured approach to our foreign policy.



While the countries that are bending to his rule (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan) are actually getting favorable treatment, trade, and money from Moscow.

So what, all those countries have a relationship with Russia that predates the Soviet Union and goes back to the Czars.

Give me a good reason why we should consider fighting for them.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 06:46 PM
You do know that the "sanctions" are on only about 10 people in the country right? So they don't really affect the whole country as a whole. Also the capital flight was already happening before but it has now since sped up.

Those 10 people are in Putin's inner circle and the hope is that they will put pressure on him. I'm not sure it will work, but that is the strategy.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 06:52 PM
Or how about the time when there were talks of us putting a base in Azerbaijan, and Putin warned of military action against the US if we put anymore bases former Soviet Republics, after the ones in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Bush Jr backed off with his tail between his legs. No base in Azerbaijan.

Talking the big talk and not backing it up is one thing. But being told to step the fuck off, and actually doing it... that's a whole new level of cowardice.

Putin offered us shared access to a radar site in Azerbaijan that the Russians still operate. It is a radar site that is used for their ballistic missile detection system and it was offered as part of a compromise for making an ABM Shield geared at Iranian missiles. We turned him down.

Not too sure what you are talking about.

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 06:57 PM
We're not just holding Obama to this standard, are we?

We've had two proxy wars - Korea and Vietnam - because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union. Hell, even Bush Jr got bitch-slapped throughout both of his terms by Kim Jong-Il.

But Obama is the coward...

I wouldn't say that first part to either a Korea or Vietnam vet. Do you know what a proxy war is because based on your statement you don't.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 07:01 PM
Putin offered us shared access to a radar site in Azerbaijan that the Russians still operate. It is a radar site that is used for their ballistic missile detection system and it was offered as part of a compromise for making an ABM Shield geared at Iranian missiles. We turned him down.

Not too sure what you are talking about.

I had to re-look at what I was referring to. It was the proposed missile shield in Poland that Putin was warning the US against. My bad.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 07:08 PM
I wouldn't say that first part to either a Korea or Vietnam vet.

I would. I'm not scared. I'd post a picture of my balls, but the mods probably wouldn't like that very much.


Do you know what a proxy war is because based on your statement you don't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proxy+war?s=t


proxy war

noun
a war instigated by a major power that does not itself participate

Very fitting, don't you think?

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 07:08 PM
They are both opinion pieces, while Lucas takes a hawkish stance his does so from the aspect of having studied in Poland and reported from Moscow for a sizable chunk of his career, plus, he has a European centric view.

The Cato Institute article is looking at the issue more from what are truly the strategic interests of the United States. Libertarian views on foreign policy are often mischaracterized as isolationist by detractors who try paint all libertarian voices with the same brush.

The gist of the Cato article maintains that it is foolish for the US to go to war over countries that have no strategic value to the US.

A good example would be the invasion of the Georgia Republic in 2008. The US did not, nor should not have gone to war for Georgia. It isn't strategically important to our interests, and the truth of the matter is that Russia has legitimate concerns with that country, far beyond any the the US can claim.

The same goes for Ukraine and that is exactly why we should not, and will not get involved beyond diplomacy and economic sanctions.

No matter which party (Republican or Democrat) holds the White House, the other side would call their response weak. While in reality, both sides would/will follow a course of action closer to what is advocated by the Cato Institute.








Look boys, don't try to maneuver me into a position where it sounds as if I am defending Hitler or Putin.

I am not.

However, Hitler did have legitimate claims in Czechoslovakia and Putin does have legitimate claims in Ukraine.

If there is any similarity, that is it. What makes them different is Hitler went on to invade Poland, France and Russia.

Do you honestly think that is where Putin is headed? If he starts encroaching on Poland, I say we fight, but remember we risk a nuclear exchange if that happens. All the more reason for a sane and measured approach to our foreign policy.




So what, all those countries have a relationship with Russia that predates the Soviet Union and goes back to the Czars.

Give me a good reason why we should consider fighting for them.

I wasn't trying to paint any group with the same exclusive brush but one has to define what exactly is "truly (in) the strategic interests of the United States" because the Libertarian view is a bit more narrow (hemispheric) and I for one don't agree with that.

I also wasn't trying to imply that you condone Putin's actions and in the same vein I am not advocating we go to war but we can't say that certain things are off the table and expect negotiations to proceed in an equitable manner and while the Ukraine may or may not be of immediate strategic interest of the US (and I don't necessarily agree with that) if you look regionally I would say your line in the sand is too far west.

How do you define legitimate claims? Majority of an ethnic population of a particular region of a country? Are you prepared to cede CA, AZ or NM in the future? Ukraine and Czechoslovak Republic (of the 30's) are (were) sovereign nations recognized by the current world political body. Certainly you aren't saying that lone political leaders get to decide which sovereignty to ignore and when?

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 07:16 PM
I would. I'm not scared. I'd post a picture of my balls, but the mods probably wouldn't like that very much.

Aren't you special?


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proxy+war?s=t



Very fitting, don't you think?

Tell me............at any point does it ever dawn on you how wrong your posts are? Did you actually read this or just cut and paste?

Do this.............think about participants in both Korea (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat-usfk.htm)and Vietnam (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37721)............I gave you some hints...............then reread the entire definition of what a proxy war is.

Then............come back and repeat what you said to AA (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597760-The-U-N-Russia&p=672595#post672595).

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 07:25 PM
Aren't you special?



Tell me............at any point does it ever dawn on you how wrong your posts are?

If you believe that my post is wrong, why don't you do more than just say that? Why don't you counter it with information that you believe to be correct?

Ah! I know why! Because you don't have such information!


Did you actually read this or just cut and paste?

Do this.............think about participants in both Korea (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-orbat-usfk.htm)and Vietnam (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37721)............I gave you some hints...............then reread the entire definition of what a proxy war is.

Then............come back and repeat what you said to AA (http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php?1597760-The-U-N-Russia&p=672595#post672595).

Seems to me that you're trying to get into a semantics debate on what a proxy war is, and I'm not interested. Furthermore, I don't give two shits what a veteran in either war says. Asking a veteran who fought either war about this, is no different from asking a McDonald's fry cook about the information on the corporation's financial statements. Desert Storm veterans can't even seem to agree on whether or not the war was about oil.

I really don't know what you're trying to do here... deny that Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars?

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 07:53 PM
If you believe that my post is wrong, why don't you do more than just say that? Why don't you counter it with information that you believe to be correct?

Ah! I know why! Because you don't have such information!



Seems to me that you're trying to get into a semantics debate on what a proxy war is, and I'm not interested. Furthermore, I don't give two shits what a veteran in either war says. Asking a veteran who fought either war about this, is no different from asking a McDonald's fry cook about the information on the corporation's financial statements. Desert Storm veterans can't even seem to agree on whether or not the war was about oil.

I really don't know what you're trying to do here... deny that Korea and Vietnam were proxy wars?

There is no debate. You couldn't be more wrong..................again.

Pay close attention.

"a war instigated by a major power that does not itself participate"

Now, if that isn't clear, take your MBA and tear it into shreds and mail it back to the institution who gave it to you. While you're at it, do the same with your undergraduate degree and high school diploma.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 08:22 PM
There is no debate. You couldn't be more wrong..................again.

No, you couldn't be. Again, you're not countering it with information that you believe to be correct. All you're doing it shouting "your wrong, your wrong."

Well, back up your claims to me being wrong then! You still have yet to do that!


Pay close attention.

"a war instigated by a major power that does not itself participate"

Now, if that isn't clear, take your MBA and tear it into shreds and mail it back to the institution who gave it to you. While you're at it, do the same with your undergraduate degree and high school diploma.

Seeing as how the Soviet Union (and China), was providing support to Ho Chi Minh to assume power upon the exit of the French; at the expense of Saigon (which was the legitimate government at the time)... and, neither fought in Vietnam themselves, this was a proxy war.

Seriously dude, you haven't proven shit... except your ability to shout "you're wrong, you're wrong."

Weak sauce, bud. Come with something stronger.

AJBIGJ
04-17-2014, 08:29 PM
No, you couldn't be. Again, you're not countering it with information that you believe to be correct. All you're doing it shouting "your wrong, your wrong."

Well, back up your claims to me being wrong then! You still have yet to do that!


Seeing as how the Soviet Union (and China), was providing support to Ho Chi Minh to assume power upon the exit of the French; at the expense of Saigon (which was the legitimate government at the time)... and, neither fought in Vietnam themselves, this was a proxy war.

Seriously dude, you haven't proven shit... except your ability to shout "you're wrong, you're wrong."

Weak sauce, bud. Come with something stronger.

I think you both are seeing it from different angles, unless I am mistaken. If I read things right you are looking at it from the Soviet Union's level of involvement in these wars, they could be referred to as proxy wars definitely. I think he is looking at it from the perspective of the US involvements, which would not be considered a "proxy war" from that side because there were American boots on the ground in both conflicts. Am I reading you both correctly?

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 08:33 PM
Correction: I see that China and the Soviet Union had some involvement in Vietname, but insignificant and probably not relevant (Soviet Union, for example, only lost 16 personnel). Of course, we can argue semantics on "proxy war" all day; but Chinese and Soviet losses are insignificant enough for historians and authors of peer reviewed literature on the subject to refer to it as a proxy war.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 08:35 PM
I think you both are seeing it from different angles, unless I am mistaken. If I read things right you are looking at it from the Soviet Union's level of involvement in these wars, they could be referred to as proxy wars definitely. I think he is looking at it from the perspective of the US involvements, which would not be considered a "proxy war" from that side because there were American boots on the ground in both conflicts. Am I reading you both correctly?

The US did not instigate war, though. For it to be a proxy war, the instigating power is the only one that doesn't have to be involved. Again, government of Saigon was the legitimate government at the time; and the Soviet Union upset that by supporting Hanoi.

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 08:42 PM
Let's look at the original post.


We're not just holding Obama to this standard, are we?

We've had two proxy wars - Korea and Vietnam - because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union. Hell, even Bush Jr got bitch-slapped throughout both of his terms by Kim Jong-Il.

But Obama is the coward...

The inference is that the US had, as in started, two proxy wars, Korea and Vietnam. Wrong. Now Rusty is trying to infer that he meant the USSR and China were the instigators in which case the other part of his original post "Because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union". This is both contradictory and makes no fucking sense.

Given his dearth of integrity, I will stick with my assertion that Rusty had no fucking idea what a proxy war was and now does but of course can't just stand up and admit it. He would rather show his balls to veterans.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 08:50 PM
Let's look at the original post.



The inference is that the US had, as in started, two proxy wars, Korea and Vietnam. Wrong. Now Rusty is trying to infer that he meant the USSR and China were the instigators in which case the other part of his original post "Because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union". This is both contradictory and makes no fucking sense.

I never stated that the US started these wars. But, of course, the US attacking the Soviet Union could have preventing these proxy wars from even taking place, would you not agree?


Given his dearth of integrity, I will stick with my assertion that Rusty had no fucking idea what a proxy war was and now does but of course can't just stand up and admit it. He would rather show his balls to veterans.

You mad, bro?

I know what a proxy war is. Your problem is your lack of reading comprehension ability. Oh, and your apparent desire to look for things in my posts so that you can say "Aha! You're WRONG!"

Even if it's not there.

Tsk, tsk.

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 09:01 PM
I never stated that the US started these wars. But, of course, the US attacking the Soviet Union could have preventing these proxy wars from even taking place, would you not agree?



You mad, bro?

I know what a proxy war is. Your problem is your lack of reading comprehension ability. Oh, and your apparent desire to look for things in my posts so that you can say "Aha! You're WRONG!"

Even if it's not there.

Tsk, tsk.

Yeah, the problem is MY reading comprehension.

So if you meant all along to cite China and the USSR as the perpetrators of these proxy wars (and they were btw) explain to me your comment "because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union"? Since the presidents involved in those conflicts did indeed commit troops to the conflicts and therefore confront the instigators how does your tripe make any sense whatsoever?

waveshaper2
04-17-2014, 09:09 PM
How do you define legitimate claims? Majority of an ethnic population of a particular region of a country? Are you prepared to cede CA, AZ or NM in the future? Ukraine and Czechoslovak Republic (of the 30's) are (were) sovereign nations recognized by the current world political body. Certainly you aren't saying that lone political leaders get to decide which sovereignty to ignore and when?

I don't believe the totality of what we know today as the Ukraine become a sovereign recognized state until 1991 (at least not in the last 300 years). In the 1930's the central/eastern portion of Ukraine fell under USSR sovereignty, western Ukraine fell under the sovereignty of Poland, and a small portion of southwestern Ukraine fell under the sovereignty of Romania. This land divide was a result of the treaty signed after the 1919 Polish/Ukrainian war ended. In 1939, Hitler and Stalin, cut a deal to invade and divide Poland and western Ukraine. The Germans invaded Poland and annexed western Poland while simultaneously the USSR invaded western Ukraine and eastern Poland annexing both parts. This event officially started WWII but the USSR and Germany where still good buddies until the Germans kicked off Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 09:10 PM
Yeah, the problem is MY reading comprehension.

So if you meant all along to cite China and the USSR as the perpetrators of these proxy wars (and they were btw) explain to me your comment "because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union"? Since the presidents involved in those conflicts did indeed commit troops to the conflicts and therefore confront the instigators how does your tripe make any sense whatsoever?

Did I not clarify that the US, instead of taking action against the Soviet Union and/or China, participated in these wars?

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 09:16 PM
I don't believe the totality of what we know today as the Ukraine become a sovereign recognized state until 1991 (at least not in the last 300 years). In the 1930's the central/eastern portion of Ukraine fell under USSR sovereignty, western Ukraine fell under the sovereignty of Poland, and a small portion of southwestern Ukraine fell under the sovereignty of Romania. This land divide was a result of the treaty signed after the 1919 Polish/Ukrainian war ended. In 1939, Hitler and Stalin, cut a deal to invade and divide Poland and western Ukraine. The Germans invaded Poland and annexed western Poland while simultaneously the USSR invaded western Ukraine and eastern Poland annexing both parts. This event officially started WWII but the USSR and Germany where still good buddies until the Germans kicked off Operation Barbarossa in 1941.

I wouldn't call a non-agression pact as indicative of these two countries being "good buddies." Mein Kampf was published in 1925 where he made his feelings known about Slavic people (and Stalin was fully aware of this), so it's not like Hitler woke up one morning in 1941 and decided that he wasn't going to be friends with Stalin anymore.

Russian dislike for Germans went back centuries, as Czar Nicholas II and as well as others before him were not trusted by the Russian people, because of their German blood.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 09:17 PM
Yeah, the problem is MY reading comprehension.

So if you meant all along to cite China and the USSR as the perpetrators of these proxy wars (and they were btw) explain to me your comment "because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union"? Since the presidents involved in those conflicts did indeed commit troops to the conflicts and therefore confront the instigators how does your tripe make any sense whatsoever?

Was not General MacArthur fired for publicly advocating using nukes on China to end the war on the Korean Peninsula?

I guess one could argue that Truman was too chicken shit to nuke China; however, since China was already participating in the Korean War at that point it was no longer a proxy way.

Hmmm, I wonder if we could consider the Rep Wars a proxy war? People were creating alt accounts and using them as a proxy to inflict insults and neg rep others. Plus, there was that stupid Sith Lord group that turned my rep all red for awhile, bastards.

Rusty Jones
04-17-2014, 09:25 PM
I guess one could argue that Truman was too chicken shit to nuke China; however, since China was already participating in the Korean War at that point it was no longer a proxy way.

Yeah, but then there's still the Soviet Union.

To this day, the level involvenment in these two countries poking and prodding Kim Il-Sung to attack South Korea is still debated among historians.


Hmmm, I wonder if we could consider the Rep Wars a proxy war? People were creating alt accounts and using them as a proxy to inflict insults and neg rep others. Plus, there was that stupid Sith Lord group that turned my rep all red for awhile, bastards.

Nah. The instigating accounts were still participating.

waveshaper2
04-17-2014, 09:32 PM
I wouldn't call a non-agression pact as indicative of these two countries being "good buddies." Mein Kampf was published in 1925 where he made his feelings known about Slavic people (and Stalin was fully aware of this), so it's not like Hitler woke up one morning in 1941 and decided that he wasn't going to be friends with Stalin anymore.
"Good Buddies" = Sarcasm.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 09:32 PM
How do you define legitimate claims? Majority of an ethnic population of a particular region of a country? Are you prepared to cede CA, AZ or NM in the future? Ukraine and Czechoslovak Republic (of the 30's) are (were) sovereign nations recognized by the current world political body. Certainly you aren't saying that lone political leaders get to decide which sovereignty to ignore and when?

If they are powerful enough to impose their will on another country and no one stops them, they do.

I am not commenting on the legality or if that is right or wrong, but that is what happens.

What is the difference if it is a lone leader or a collection of leaders that imposes their will on another nation?

My statement about Russia having legitimate claims in Ukraine and Georgia was to contrast their involvement in the dispute to our own.

We have no claims or vested interest in either place other than playing global cop.

And no, we should not give back California or Arizona to Mexico. Would you like it if Russia started giving military aid to Mexico and demanded that we hand over California?

AJBIGJ
04-17-2014, 09:33 PM
The US did not instigate war, though. For it to be a proxy war, the instigating power is the only one that doesn't have to be involved. Again, government of Saigon was the legitimate government at the time; and the Soviet Union upset that by supporting Hanoi.

If you mean before it entered the war when it was just the CIA I can buy into that. After boots are on the ground it is no longer a "proxy war", it's just a plain old "war".

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure if I even understand your meaning, are you saying the Korean/Vietnam Wars were or were not proxy wars from the perspective of the US?

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 09:48 PM
If they are powerful enough to impose their will on another country and no one stops them, they do.

I am not commenting on the legality or if that is right or wrong, but that is what happens.

What is the difference if it is a lone leader or a collection of leaders that imposes their will on another nation?

My statement about Russia having legitimate claims in Ukraine and Georgia was to contrast their involvement in the dispute to our own.

We have no claims or vested interest in either place other than playing global cop.

And no, we should not give back California or Arizona to Mexico. Would you like it if Russia started giving military aid to Mexico and demanded that we hand over California?


Your point is spot on until your analogy. Could you explain since both the Crimea and California are part of sovereign nations? I think the better analogy would be if Mexico started overt influence over the citizens of CA to cede from the US. That scenario just makes me chuckle.

CYBERFX1024
04-17-2014, 09:48 PM
I had to re-look at what I was referring to. It was the proposed missile shield in Poland that Putin was warning the US against. My bad.

It was actually Obama that made us take away the missile shield from Poland not Bush. I remember because I read this years ago and I was just thinking "Gosh this guy is an idiot".

I am not saying that Bush was far better in this regarding Georgia at all. The Georgians got their ass handed to them and we just sat there and let it happen. All the while we had Marine Advisers actually in the country as well. Though in reality I believe he did that for the very fact that he was in his last year of office and didn't care anymore.

But when the whole world is pretty much going to sh*t and Obama want's to make campaign speeches about not repealing Obamacare and Income Inequality. Then there is something drastically wrong with him and his administration. There are tons of other issues both domestically and internationally that he could talk about and try to deal with. Instead he only choose those two.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 09:49 PM
Yeah, but then there's still the Soviet Union.

To this day, the level involvenment in these two countries poking and prodding Kim Il-Sung to attack South Korea is still debated among historians.



Nah. The instigating accounts were still participating.

The Soviets definitely trained the NK Air Force and provided aircraft and equipment. There are conflicting accounts that Soviet pilots were at the controls of NK planes in some of the dog fights that occurred in Mig Alley.

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 09:50 PM
Did I not clarify that the US, instead of taking action against the Soviet Union and/or China, participated in these wars?

So the presidents were "chicken shit" for not attacking the USSR and China over Korea and Vietnam? Is that your explanation?

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 09:52 PM
Was not General MacArthur fired for publicly advocating using nukes on China to end the war on the Korean Peninsula?

I guess one could argue that Truman was too chicken shit to nuke China; however, since China was already participating in the Korean War at that point it was no longer a proxy way.

Hmmm, I wonder if we could consider the Rep Wars a proxy war? People were creating alt accounts and using them as a proxy to inflict insults and neg rep others. Plus, there was that stupid Sith Lord group that turned my rep all red for awhile, bastards.

More the insubordination of contradicting his Commander in Chief but I missed the point of the reference.

Well, the chicken shit part would certainly apply to the Rep Wars and alt accounts.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 09:54 PM
Your point is spot on until your analogy. Could you explain since both the Crimea and California are part of sovereign nations? I think the better analogy would be if Mexico started overt influence over the citizens of CA to cede from the US. That scenario just makes me chuckle.

How dare you criticize my analogy!

I demand a complete and total apology or I'm going to increase my font size!

CYBERFX1024
04-17-2014, 09:54 PM
However, Hitler did have legitimate claims in Czechoslovakia and Putin does have legitimate claims in Ukraine.

WTF Over??????????? He did not have legitimate claims in Czechoslovakia. So the Sudetentland had a majority population of Germans, so that gave him the right to march in there and annex it? He then turned around and invaded all over Czechoslovakia. How did he have a legitimate claim to anything? At that point in time there were ethnic Germans spread around Europe in different countries. So my question to you is this: Did this give him a "legitimate claim" to invade Europe so that he unite them all together? If that is the case then do you think we should give back the SW states to Mexico?

Absinthe Anecdote
04-17-2014, 10:09 PM
WTF Over??????????? He did not have legitimate claims in Czechoslovakia. So the Sudetentland had a majority population of Germans, so that gave him the right to march in there and annex it? He then turned around and invaded all over Czechoslovakia. How did he have a legitimate claim to anything? At that point in time there were ethnic Germans spread around Europe in different countries. So my question to you is this: Did this give him a "legitimate claim" to invade Europe so that he unite them all together? If that is the case then do you think we should give back the SW states to Mexico?

I am not saying that Hitler didn't take it too far after Chamberlin negotiated the initial annexation of the area called Sudetenland, but only pointing out that there was a dispute and that there was some legitimacy to some of Hitler's claims.

These date back to the aftermath of WWI... From Wiki:

After World War I, Austria-Hungary broke apart. Late in October 1918, an independent Czechoslovak state, consisting of the lands of the Bohemian kingdom and areas belonging to the Kingdom of Hungary, was proclaimed. The German deputies of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia in the Imperial Council (Reichsrat) referred to the Fourteen Points of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and the right proposed therein to self-determination, and attempted to negotiate the union of the German-speaking territories with the new Republic of German Austria, which itself aimed at joining Weimar Germany.

The German-speaking parts of the former Lands of the Bohemian Crown remained in a newly created Czechoslovakia, a multiethnic state of several nations: Czechs, Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles and Ruthenians. On 20 September 1918, the Prague government asked the United States's opinion for the Sudetenland. President Woodrow Wilson sent Ambassador Archibald Coolidge into Czechoslovakia. After Coolidge became witness of German Bohemian demonstrations,[2] Coolidge suggested the possibility of ceding certain German-speaking parts of Bohemia to Germany (Cheb) and Austria (South Moravia and South Bohemia). He also insisted that the German-inhabited regions of West and North Bohemia remain within Czechoslovakia. The American delegation at the Paris talks, with Allen Dulles as the American's chief diplomat in the Czechoslovak Commission who emphasized preserving the unity of the Czech lands, decided not to follow Coolidge's proposal.[3]

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 10:14 PM
How dare you criticize my analogy!

I demand a complete and total apology or I'm going to increase my font size!

Well, we can't have that can we?

I would be forced to write a multi-paragraph plea for peace and love among the MTF members.

TJMAC77SP
04-17-2014, 10:16 PM
I am not saying that Hitler didn't take it too far after Chamberlin negotiated the initial annexation of the area called Sudetenland, but only pointing out that there was a dispute and that there was some legitimacy to some of Hitler's claims.

These date back to the aftermath of WWI... From Wiki:

After World War I, Austria-Hungary broke apart. Late in October 1918, an independent Czechoslovak state, consisting of the lands of the Bohemian kingdom and areas belonging to the Kingdom of Hungary, was proclaimed. The German deputies of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia in the Imperial Council (Reichsrat) referred to the Fourteen Points of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and the right proposed therein to self-determination, and attempted to negotiate the union of the German-speaking territories with the new Republic of German Austria, which itself aimed at joining Weimar Germany.

The German-speaking parts of the former Lands of the Bohemian Crown remained in a newly created Czechoslovakia, a multiethnic state of several nations: Czechs, Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles and Ruthenians. On 20 September 1918, the Prague government asked the United States's opinion for the Sudetenland. President Woodrow Wilson sent Ambassador Archibald Coolidge into Czechoslovakia. After Coolidge became witness of German Bohemian demonstrations,[2] Coolidge suggested the possibility of ceding certain German-speaking parts of Bohemia to Germany (Cheb) and Austria (South Moravia and South Bohemia). He also insisted that the German-inhabited regions of West and North Bohemia remain within Czechoslovakia. The American delegation at the Paris talks, with Allen Dulles as the American's chief diplomat in the Czechoslovak Commission who emphasized preserving the unity of the Czech lands, decided not to follow Coolidge's proposal.[3]

Post deleted

garhkal
04-18-2014, 06:23 AM
Your point is spot on until your analogy. Could you explain since both the Crimea and California are part of sovereign nations? I think the better analogy would be if Mexico started overt influence over the citizens of CA to cede from the US. That scenario just makes me chuckle.

Well with all the illegal immigrants there and how moddy coddling of them the CA govt seems to be, it wouldn't surprise me one big if eventually they push for that to happen.

TJMAC77SP
04-19-2014, 06:24 PM
Deleted..........wrong thread.

What is wrong with the delete function?

Mjölnir
04-19-2014, 07:41 PM
Deleted..........wrong thread.

What is wrong with the delete function?

are you unable to delete a post?

TJMAC77SP
04-19-2014, 08:31 PM
are you unable to delete a post?

Yes

Absinthe Anecdote
04-20-2014, 12:19 AM
So..............you explain his post..........the entire post, not the cherry picked versions.

Dude, I was just taking a jab at you for chucks, I don't want to pick up Rusty's argument.

However, I will go at it with you on the point that he was right for the wrong reasons. Why in the hell, should you make that a point of contention?

Can't you shoot holes in the main substance of his argument and let his usage of the term proxy war go?

TJMAC77SP
04-20-2014, 12:39 AM
Dude, I was just taking a jab at you for chucks, I don't want to pick up Rusty's argument.

However, I will go at it with you on the point that he was right for the wrong reasons. Why in the hell, should you make that a point of contention?

Can't you shoot holes in the main substance of his argument and let his usage of the term proxy war go?

As I said, I get your humor. It's the obtuse stuff I was addressing. And by engaging in that you were picking up his argument. You know that.

I would have let the use of "proxy war" go (as with a lot of things with Rusty) if he would either refrain from the hyperbolic bullshit and/or just admit when he misspeaks. In that regard he is completely like Corny. What should I ignore when something is an integral part of a bullshit statement?

Absinthe Anecdote
04-20-2014, 12:59 AM
As I said, I get your humor. It's the obtuse stuff I was addressing. And by engaging in that you were picking up his argument. You know that.

I would have let the use of "proxy war" go (as with a lot of things with Rusty) if he would either refrain from the hyperbolic bullshit and/or just admit when he misspeaks. In that regard he is completely like Corny. What should I ignore when something is an integral part of a bullshit statement?

Well, during the Cold War both superpowers did engage in proxy wars, in part, because it was too dangerous for them to fight each other directly.

However, the main point being argued was that Rusty objected to someone calling Obama a coward for not taking substantial and direct action on Ukraine.

On that issue, I agree that it is absurd to call Obama a coward on that point. I can't see that any US president would commit combat troops on behalf of the Ukraine at this point.

I also agree that it would be absurd to call Truman, LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan cowards for not going to war with the Soviets.

TJMAC77SP
04-20-2014, 01:16 AM
Well, during the Cold War both superpowers did engage in proxy wars, in part, because it was too dangerous for them to fight each other directly.

However, the main point being argued was that Rusty objected to someone calling Obama a coward for not taking substantial and direct action on Ukraine.

On that issue, I agree that it is absurd to call Obama a coward on that point. I can't see that any US president would commit combat troops on behalf of the Ukraine at this point.

I also agree that it would be absurd to call Truman, LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan cowards for not going to war with the Soviets.

Fair and succinct ..............and no one was called chicken-shit or accused of getting bitch-slapped.

I understand why you mentioned it but it dawned on me as I posted this that it seems the reference to proxy wars is sticking out there, not really related to the point of Obama being a coward or not.

Rusty Jones
04-22-2014, 01:31 PM
Dude, I was just taking a jab at you for chucks, I don't want to pick up Rusty's argument.

However, I will go at it with you on the point that he was right for the wrong reasons. Why in the hell, should you make that a point of contention?

Can't you shoot holes in the main substance of his argument and let his usage of the term proxy war go?

Right for the wrong reasons? I thought we clarified that I did not state that the US started Korea or Vietnam.

But, with TJ being purely obsessed... it seems clear to me that you're throwing TJ a bone. Hopefully, it'll keep him at bay. Well... me posting here has probably fucked that up. My apologies.


As I said, I get your humor. It's the obtuse stuff I was addressing. And by engaging in that you were picking up his argument. You know that.

I would have let the use of "proxy war" go (as with a lot of things with Rusty) if he would either refrain from the hyperbolic bullshit

No... I won't. It pisses you off, so I'm gonna continue to do it.


and/or just admit when he misspeaks.

And I have no problem doing it. Did I not do so a few days ago when AA called me out on my claim that Bush backed off of putting a base in Azerbaijan when Putin warned him not to, when it was really about the missile shield in Poland?

But, in your case... you only seem to be scrutinizing my posts in order to obtain a self-gratifying "A HA" moment. Whether I'm right or wrong, why in the FUCK should I help jack you off?


In that regard he is completely like Corny. What should I ignore when something is an integral part of a bullshit statement?

Nothing. You've gotta keep stroking it!


Well, during the Cold War both superpowers did engage in proxy wars, in part, because it was too dangerous for them to fight each other directly.

However, the main point being argued was that Rusty objected to someone calling Obama a coward for not taking substantial and direct action on Ukraine.

On that issue, I agree that it is absurd to call Obama a coward on that point. I can't see that any US president would commit combat troops on behalf of the Ukraine at this point.

I also agree that it would be absurd to call Truman, LBJ, Nixon, or Reagan cowards for not going to war with the Soviets.


Fair and succinct ..............and no one was called chicken-shit or accused of getting bitch-slapped.

I understand why you mentioned it but it dawned on me as I posted this that it seems the reference to proxy wars is sticking out there, not really related to the point of Obama being a coward or not.

I don't actually BELIEVE that anyone mentioned is "chicken-shit," but if we're going to call Obama out on something, then let's call everyone out who did the SAME thing. Let's hold everyone to the same standard.

Kinda like the "Obamaphone." Started by Reagan, added onto by Clinton and Bush Jr, and doesn't even get TOUCHED by Obama... yet it's the "Obamaphone."

Something is really strange here, when Obama is being held to a higher standard than any president before him.

To show that TJ is targeting my posts, notice what he's saying, and also notice that he didn't call CYBERFX. He came at ME. And I also notice that, days later - even in other threads besides this one that I've seen over the weekend, TJ is STILL talking about this shit.

I think he ought to seek some professional help.

Mjölnir
04-22-2014, 02:07 PM
Whether I'm right or wrong, why in the FUCK should I help jack you off?

Please refer to the Community Guidelines



Graphic sexual language and images

Graphic sexual language and images are not acceptable. Find another site for that. Posts will be removed with posting privileges suspended should your word choice and/or photos become too graphic. Social norms are the accepted guideline here, but as with all things in these forums, we have the final say.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but you need to adhere to the guidelines when making it.

TJMAC77SP
04-22-2014, 02:12 PM
No... I won't. It pisses you off, so I'm gonna continue to do it.


But, in your case... you only seem to be scrutinizing my posts in order to obtain a self-gratifying "A HA" moment. Whether I'm right or wrong, why in the FUCK should I help jack you off?

Nothing. You've gotta keep stroking it!

Interesting………….so your continued lack of integrity is purposeful? Solely to piss me off. Again, interesting.

I also notice you have gone to your old standard of homoerotic nonsense.


I don't actually BELIEVE that anyone mentioned is "chicken-shit," but if we're going to call Obama out on something, then let's call everyone out who did the SAME thing. Let's hold everyone to the same standard.

So despite saying this…………………………


We're not just holding Obama to this standard, are we?

We've had two proxy wars - Korea and Vietnam - because presidents in the past were too chicken shit to fuck with the Soviet Union. Hell, even Bush Jr got bitch-slapped throughout both of his terms by Kim Jong-Il.
But Obama is the coward...

……………You don’t actually BELIEVE any of that but said exactly that for what………..? To make some point about how Obama is being held to an unfair standard?
That (in keeping to your character) is disingenuous to say the very least. I don’t suppose you see that.


Something is really strange here, when Obama is being held to a higher standard than any president before him.

I have a flash of reality for you………….every president gets held to a higher standard by those who oppose him. Do you not remember the bullshit said about Bush in this very forum? Of course you do, you spewed some of it.


To show that TJ is targeting my posts, notice what he's saying, and also notice that he didn't call CYBERFX. He came at ME. And I also notice that, days later - even in other threads besides this one that I've seen over the weekend, TJ is STILL talking about this shit.

So, just to be clear, you feel I am targeting your posts (because you posted them as opposed to ‘targeting’ the bullshit in your posts) and yet you are the one who admittedly posts solely in order to piss people off.

And/Or to provide the opportunity to dish homoerotic quips…………but that would be a topic better left to mental health professionals.

Rusty Jones
04-22-2014, 02:34 PM
Interesting………….so your continued lack of integrity is purposeful? Solely to piss me off. Again, interesting.

Haven't we established many months ago with E4Rumor, that I don't consider myself to be bound by any "moral code?" I adapt to every given situation, and I act accordingly. For example, a man who has he will not have sex outside of marriage - and who has integrity - will pass up sex with Mila Kunis if she offered it to him. Me? Fuck that! Literally!


I also notice you have gone to your old standard of homoerotic nonsense.

But it's a fitting description of what you're doing.


So despite saying this…………………………

……………You don’t actually BELIEVE any of that but said exactly that for what………..? To make some point about how Obama is being held to an unfair standard?
That (in keeping to your character) is disingenuous to say the very least. I don’t suppose you see that.

And nobody else does but you. Hell, even my enemies here won't see it until YOU point it out. No one here analyzes shit the way you do.

If you want to claim that what I'm saying is disingenuous, fine... but it's really no different than your claim to not be motivated by jealousy of others getting away with something that you're not, in going on that rant on people that you perceive to be healthy using handicapped parking spaces. At least imnohero was able to admit to that.


I have a flash of reality for you………….every president gets held to a higher standard by those who oppose him.

And just because I know that, doesn't mean that I'm going to let it go unanswered.


Do you not remember the bullshit said about Bush in this very forum? Of course you do, you spewed some of it.

Like what?


So, just to be clear, you feel I am targeting your posts (because you posted them as opposed to ‘targeting’ the bullshit in your posts) and yet you are the one who admittedly posts solely in order to piss people off.

No, I've always posted the way I do. YOU keep bitching about it. But... since you want to keep fucking with me, why should I switch anything up? Even if you stopped posting on MTF, I'd still post the same way. At least no one here would be bitching about "hyperbole."


And/Or to provide the opportunity to dish homoerotic quips…………but that would be a topic better left to mental health professionals.

Do you and your circle of male friends always engage in 100% clean conversation? Or maybe some "erotic" conversation, but always heterosexual?

It was one thing many moons ago when I'd get up here and talk about anal-raping someone, but what I'm saying here is just basic shit that men in general say to each other. Is GoatHerder57, or whatever his name is, your alt account?

Mjölnir
04-22-2014, 02:42 PM
TJMAC77SP
Rusty Jones

Please stay on topic.

The personal back and forth, who is more virtuous etc can stop now.