IN THE COMMENTS: Jake quotes text that appears at the linked AP article...
"Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply stabilizing," Obama said in a hastily arranged statement.He snarks:
Deeply stabilizing?ADDED: Here's video of Obama's statement. He said "Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply destabilizing."
Hastily arranged indeed.
पोस्ट्स
१८७ टिप्पण्या:
Cost? Of course military excursions are expensive.
Deep concern. It's too late to express concern. It's happening and we have no credible way to stop it. The time to have done something was in the past five years when we could have been confirming some credibility to our concern. But that line of thinking was before the reset button.
Sarah Palin warned against this possibility years ago, and was mocked.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/10/22/russia_might_invade_ukraine_if_obama_wins_palin_warns
"'Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply stabilizing,' Obama said in a hastily arranged statement "
Deeply stabilizing?
Hastily arranged indeed.*
*I'm sure it was the AP writer's typo.
I hope he didn't say, "Any violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be deeply stabilizing."
Russia better watch their step or Obama will threaten to boycott the Sochi Olympics.
No more red lines. Obama has moved from geometry to finance. There will be cost$.
OK, enough of this foreign policy stuff. Fore on the green!
Crap!! Putin has managed to hack into the teleprompter!! Now we're totally screwed!!
Next thing you know, the President will be making wild claims about what his health care program will do!
Remember, it's possible the other presidential candidates might've been more feckless than the current one. So the votes of 2008 and 2012 are ok, as compared to some hypothesized even worse scenario.
Also, I denounce myself for noting Obama's fecklessness. Clearly I do not appreciate the smart diplomacy.
Inga?
Garage mahal?
The anti-Palinites will probably use Chomsky's excuse regarding Cambodia, that she was right for the wrong reasons, so there.
Look at the bright side. Obama was finally able to learn about a current event having to read about it in the newspaper.
Strong letter to follow.
....would be deeply stabilizing
Maybe the progressives have moved on from Saul Alinsky to Leo Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing? Or, maybe it's just a Mike Kinsley gaffe?
Ah, remember the reset button thingy that Hillary trotted out with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov? Working about as well as the 3AM Benghazi phone call. Smartest woman on the planet.
PS: The reset button was labeled Reset/Peregruzka. Peregruzka translated to overcharge. Maybe that's what Obama meant that there will be costs.
The real background in the Ukraine crisis involves Poland .
It also showed that Poland, for years dismissed as a poor relation in the European Union, has a place at the top table of European decision-makers, enjoying the confidence of EU powerhouse Germany, especially over policy in the east.
The events in Kiev offer clues about the future shape of the European Union, and the shifting balance of power that has seen "old Europe", notably EU co-founder France, lose ground to the faster-growing states that joined the bloc after 2004.
Poland is no friend of Obama and seems to be filling the vacuum he is leaving. 1914 comes to mind.
Cold War chessboard.
Obama should have concluded the speech as follows:
"Therefore, effective immediately, I have appointed George W. Bush as acting Commander in Chief of all US armed forces. Mr. Bush is here with me, and I request, President Bush, that you share with the American people your plans to deal with this crisis."
Bush: "Thank you Mr. President. I would like to remind the American people, and the leaders of the USSR -- I mean the leaders of Russia (it's easy to get those confused these days -- of the stirring words of a predecessor of President Obama and of me (and of my dad, too): 'The bombing begins in 5 minutes.' Thanks Barry and I've got to get over to the Pentagon real fast.
"By the way: Heck of a job Barry!"
Sometime please tell our Diversity Hire that Russia has already deeply crossed his little red line.
@Michael K
I was wondering what was going on with Poland.
Unmentioned by the article is that, while the Polish military is on paper much smaller than the Russian, Poland's officer class is much better trained, having fought at the side of the Allies through all the years of the Iraqi & Afghan wars.
Poland is in NATO. The Poles know that they can poke the Bear around the edges, knowing that Russian over-escalation runs the risk of drawing NATO into the fray. I also wouldn't discount the fact that the Poles hate the Russians, and would just as soon do them a nasty turn as look at them.
Why the need to keep giving these stern warnings?
I fully support the mockery of Obama's "Red Line" rhetoric. The only ones who deserve to be mocked more are the ones who would act on such rhetoric.
What the hell is a "hastily arranged statement?" How do they know?
Now, if they want to say that Obama is not on top of things, say so. But cut the "hastily arranged" bullshit.
I hope the 101st Chairborne is ready for duty.
Is this what The Won meant about being "flexible" after he'd won re-election, that Putin could wind him around his little finger?
I blame Simon. His Tweet gave Putin the cover he needed.
For the record, by keeping the US's leaden foot out of the Ukrainian crisis Obama has allowed time for a people's revolution to gain legitimacy as the genuine will of the people. Just one week ago there was a pro-Russian government in power that had signed an alliance with Russia to join a Eurasian union, now all swept away. Compare and contrast with Iraq.
That Palin reference comes with video of her predicting just that...at 2:00, saying that Putin would have been emboldened by then Senator Obama's milquetoast response to Russia's invasion of Georgia.
"Compare and contrast with Iraq."
A bit early for comparisons.
ARM, well said.
Historically, we never help Ukraine when they need it. The leftist press is already providing cover for Putin. "Gunmen" appeared at the airports in Crimea. Gunmen. What a fucking whitewash. Even a low-grade moron should be able to suss out that those are Russian Spetsnatz. I am sure Simon will be delighted.
Historically, we never help Ukraine when they need it. The leftist press is already providing cover for Putin. "Gunmen" appeared at the airports in Crimea. Gunmen. What a fucking whitewash. Even a low-grade moron should be able to suss out that those are Russian Spetsnatz. I am sure Simon will be delighted.
@harrowgate,
The only ones who deserve to be mocked more are the ones who would act on such rhetoric.
Ukraine is one country away from the NATO border. If the shit hits the fan, we may be treaty bound to act. If we don't honor our NATO commitments after many of those same nations have honored our request for NATO deployment in Afghanistan, our future treaties won't be worth the paper they're printed on.
"For the record, by keeping the US's leaden foot out of the Ukrainian crisis Obama has allowed time for a people's revolution to gain legitimacy as the genuine will of the people. Just one week ago there was a pro-Russian government in power that had signed an alliance with Russia to join a Eurasian union, now all swept away. Compare and contrast with Iraq."
You are comparing Yanukovich with Saddam Hussein? Who did Ukraine invade? Did it support terrorism?
I think it's better to compare Iraq and Iran. When the revolution in Iran started, Obama disappeared. Once the anti-Islamist revolution was crushed, Obama made a deal with the Islamists. And now, Iran is months away from a nuclear bomb, according to the NYT.
As Krauthammer said of John Kerry's pronouncements, this of Obama's "carries the weight of a feather."
YH:
I see your point. Speaking of money and paper, the Afghanistan and Iraq, let's throw good money after bad.
Email from BHO to Sec'y of Defense Chuck Hagel: "Hey Chuck, this would be a good week to announce significant defense cuts. It would show my Russian friend we are sincere about peace in our time."
Ahhhh as inevitable as the rising of the sun, a commenter on the boards turns to Krauthammer. Kraut has been embarrassingly wrong about all things foreign policy and yet he remains a " brilliant guy" and a " foreign policy expert" to many. It is very sad.
In a sane society every time Kraut or William Kristol tried to weigh in on something they would be derided off the stage.
@harrowgate,
Speaking of money and paper, the Afghanistan and Iraq, let's throw good money after bad.
The 21st c histories of those two countries has not yet been written. Don't be too certain that our interventions will be for naught. The Iraqi & Afghan peoples have been given a second chance to rejoin the family of nations. What they will make of it, only time will tell.
It was never written in stone that South Korea, Germany, & Japan would turn out as well as they did, either.
Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are modern day prophets. In reverse.
In the words of an Irishman:
want to understand what is going on?
read Applebaum, who is married to the Polish Foreign Minister, who is the brains behind the EU position in the ukraine.
YoungHegelian said...
@harrowgate,
The Iraqi & Afghan peoples have been given a second chance to rejoin the family of nations.
Iraq perhaps. There is no Afghanistan, only a collection of tribes without a common language
It is easier I guess to keep the adventurist dream alive against all evidence, legal, moral, emotional, theoretical, economic or practical. Keep doing the same dumb thing and shouting "let history say if we are fucking things up!" And " They hate us for our freedom!"
Easier to do that than to face what's been done and change for the better I guess .
Scary how these developments mirror Tom Clancy's last opus 'Command Authority'. It's as if he wrote the script.
Deeply stabilizing? Okay, that tops "Don't call my bluff" for idiocy.
@Drill,
There is no Afghanistan, only a collection of tribes without a common language
The Afghans are united in the fact that they detest outsiders, and that there hasn't been a movement in Afghanistan to ever consider partitioning along tribal borders. They are a dysfunctional, bickering-until-violence family, but a family nonetheless. As for common language, the same could have been said of India until the Raj, and yet a nation was forged out of those 1500 languages.
National consciousness can take many strange forms.
Well the election has been over for a while and BO does have the 'flexibility' he promised Putin.
@harrowgate,
Easier to do that than to face what's been done and change for the better I guess .
Are you referring to South Korea, Japan, or Germany? However much you think you know how Iraq & Afghanistan will turn out you don't, because that's the human condition.
Step outside the Media Matters talking points, and take a broader view of history.
I haven't a clue how this will end, but after listening to Obama's speech a second time, it appears the red line has evolved into a green light for Putin.
*sigh*
Is it too much to hope that at least our President would refrain from drawing lines that have *already* been crossed?
Does anyone seriously believe that the forces that seized the Crimean airport weren't Russian special forces?
Convenient for you that "take a broader view of history " in this context means, let's keep doing the same shit.
He said it late on a Friday. Is anyone paying attention?
Putin's just re-filling that Cold War footprint to the best of his ability.
He's like a mob-boss, or an autocrat, or a former KGB guy running the former Soviet empire, or a guy with many interests opposed to U.S. interests, with which we might be able to find some common ground like with Islamists, but it's tough.
Ukraine's economy is a mess. It's deeply divided and complicated, ethnically and historically. The Euros are deeply divided and have conflicting aims.
So what do we do?
I think Obama's further Left, peace base attached to liberal internationalist policymakers is past due for an accounting.
He's withdrawing and making a power vacuum and telegraphing his intentions everywhere.
The Lefties and progressives and odd socialist on here will say full speed ahead with more human rights, U.N. proclamations, democracy promotion, and withdrawal. Peace is next. Corporations are bad, military industrial complex blah, blah
But where is the leadership in Congress, or in the foreign policy establishment?
Most Americans don't have an appetite for anything close to even tough rhetoric, let alone military intervention, even though Obama is further out there than Carter.
Pro-military folks, neo-cons, pro-Iraq and Afpak conservatives and interventionists, Cold warriors
What should we do?
Use strong rhetoric? Beat Putin back? Make alliances and clever diplomacy to undermine Moscow and entice Ukraine closer to the West and threaten some force at the same time?
What will actually work with Ukraine?
@harrowgate,
As opposed to "not doing the same old shit" means just letting other malevolent forces do their will around the world without fear of US intervention?
All of the places in the 20th century where governments closed their borders & murdered their own citizens by the millions did so because they had no fear of US intervention. In those places where they fear cruise missiles coming down the stove pipe to kill the ruling class & their families, they keep their murders down to the thousands.
That's progress, after a fashion.
Of course the West isn't going to intervene militarily in the Ukraine. Which is exactly why Bark's stern warnings incite mockery. When everyone knows you're not serious it's better to keep your mouth shut.
I saw old Obama on the TV with his mad face on. It is now laughable to see. Because he can be spitting mad, really mad mad, and not one thing will be done. Toothless.
I saw old Obama on the TV with his mad face on. It is now laughable to see. Because he can be spitting mad, really mad mad, and not one thing will be done. Toothless.
Michael sagely whines " oh nose nothing will be done!"
But what, Michael, ought the US to do? Specifically?
I'd like to see a redoubling of Western interests around a liberalism that is less tolerant of its further Left elements (authoritarian, totalitarian etc), but that's tough with the current progressive admin in charge and looking around Europe and the Anglosphere.
Or maybe just a more conservative foreign policy for America, but that's going to be tough too, and it's not clear where the leadership will come from and which ideas to pursue.
A conservatism with a more nuanced view of the world is tougher to come by.
Let's have a lot of them. Let's intervene everywhere. It's all going so well. History either tells us so. Or will tell us so. Therefore there is no way we can ever be proven wrong so let's intervene militarily on the grandest scale possible. By God they will all be signing American song with a Coke in their hand one day! History will record this one day you can't prove it won't.
Is there anything more American than America?
Skyler said...
"Deep concern. It's too late to express concern. It's happening and we have no credible way to stop it."
Why would we stop it? We should be supporting them! What Obama should have said was "What is happening in the Ukraine, the overthrow of a democratically-elected government by a violent mob, is unacceptable; we share Russia's concerns, and I want to thank President Putin for intervening to hold this incipient revolution. The United States will help in any way it can, and will immediately be sending aid to the Ukraine as soon as President Yanukovich is returned to his lawful office." The only thing for which I fault Putin is waiting too long. This should have happened the day that the Kiev putsch took place.
And by the way, that's what Obama should have said as a matter of cynical realpolitik even if he won't say it with conviction. There's nothing we can do to stop Russia, and even if you want to, your only options are to co-opt Russia's response or acquiescence in it.
#WhatWouldMetternichDo
A skirmish or two between NATO and Russian forces would elicit the usual reflexive support for all recent military actions, thereby bolstering Democrat election fortunes. The hawks on here should watch what they wish for. It is an ideal time to wag that dog.
Harrogate, I've adjusted that for you:
'Let's promote human rights, women's freedom and pure democracy everywhere. It's all going so well. History either tells us so. Or will tell us so. Therefore there is no way we can ever be proven wrong so let's promote humanitarianism on the grandest scale possible, Universal Rights and Perpetual Peace.. By God they will all be perfectly free individuals with an abstract set of rights and we'll all be holding hands one day!'
Couldn't you say the exact same thing of a Left-Of-Center political philosophy seeking to advance human rights, peace, and pure democracy?
Until someone ponies up some specifics about what they think the US ought to do about Putin's actions and the Ukraine, then they ought to be roundly told to fuck off every time they complain that Obama "is toothless" or puff out their chests and invoke history and call for US "involvement."
What the fuck do you people think the US ought to do, exactly?
chrisnavin,
Touche. I am not big on forced nation building but I suppose I am guilty of believing in at least some of what you caricature there.
But I wonder about the one-to-one analogy you seem to be drawing, between military intervention and "promotion." Depends on how you define "promotion" I guess.
Either way, I sort of cede your point. And yet am somehow, miraculously, left none the more hawkish for it.
Don't you ever doubt your secular humanitarian ideals and their intellectual roots when they can demonstrably lead to enormous, inefficient, wasteful and easily corrupt bureaucracies at home and abroad?
Even if you still find the ideals compelling, don't you ever step back and take a look at the real world consequences and the threats to liberty as well?
Probably worth thinking about, as this kind of thinking is often the hardest to do.
I don't know if I'm the more hawkish for it either, but I can tell you this:
Separating diplomacy from military force and other options in pursuit of peace, doesn't necessarily lead to more peace.
chrisnavin,
Are you still addressing me? You seem to think you know an *awful lot* about my "ideals" and what I support--it is as though you pulled a hot sheet straight from the Bill O'Reilly script, circa 2004.
Still, as I said previously, I cede your points to an extent and am somehow left no closer to the Cheney's Toy view of our military, than I started. Thank the secular humanitarian gods for it.
We could start by:
> Withdrawing our ambassador.
> Freeze a few Russian assets.
> Give the Russky ambassador (and his wife) the boot.
> Commence talks with Ukraine regarding joining NATO.
there is nothing the US can do about Russia except make unspecified threats of economic sanctions.
Obama and EU dropped the ball last summer when they told Ukraine they would have to pass a austerity budget. The EU required cuts in pensions(average pension is $150.00 per month), heating subsidies, education and devaluation of currency. There is now way the new government will be able to pass these reforms. In one year there will be a pro Russian govt again.
Russia doesn't have to do a damn thing exceptwait for the greedy West to blow it.
What the US should have done, among other things, (its too late now) was to have proceeded to arm the Poles. Cancelling the long range missile defense system in 2009 was a huge mistake.
Add other cases of neglect over the last few years.
Politics of this sort is a matter of implied threats that are designed to create unease in potential opponents. The US government has been very poor at creating a climate of fear in its potential opponents.
What will happen now will happen. Russia is committed.
Let Merkel and the 4th Reich handle it.
Ukraine's mess and they can fix it.
Ukranian tits
Ace of Spades is reporting that US and Britain have a treaty with Ukraine to come to their defense if they are invaded.
This was done in the 1990s to get Ukraine to give up their nukes. If this is true it adds a whole new angle.
Ukrainian tits are fabulous.
As for harrowgate,
I don't see a foreign policy of any sort on your side of things. It is a blank, a nullity. There seems to be no plan or foresight or goal.
Granted that often things happen that the US can do little about. On the other hand US foreign policy since 1945 has been exceptionally good at anticipating problems and keeping them from happening, or mitigating their consequences.
The US HAS been good at keeping the lid on the boiling pot.
The only break in this record was for a few years in the 1970's (leaving a lot of consequences with which we are still dealing)
We no longer seem to have such mojo.
Harrogate:
I don't know your ideals, but you're putting the burden of proof upon those who wish to act, or change from a position of non-action regarding Ukraine.
That's fair, and I've yet to hear any truly compelling reasons why, but that depends on what we mean by action.
It does not follow that Obama's policies nor lack thereof are the proper course. Nor is the course of his coalitions of a further Left peace base rounded-up under the former human rights realpolitikers and liberal internationalists.
Is the world any more peaceful? How's the UN? What about Syria? What about Libya? Have we met our objective in AfPak?
The truth may be we don't get the human rights, nor the time and energy to promote them without much of the force and ability to promote and secure our interests.
That means our military isn't just used to promote democracy and human rights and a secular raft of ideals, but has other aims as well.
As for Bill O'Reilly, f**k it, we'll do it live.
Like Vlad Putin effing cares what Obama has to say? As to "destabilizing," Obama's fecklessness has already destabilized essentially the entire world.
You know, the mainstream press mocked Romney for saying that Russia is our geopolitical foe, and Sarah Palin for suggesting that inaction with respect to Georgia would lead to Russia invading the Ukraine. Both of them right, Obama and Clinton totally wrong, the mainstream press should resign en masse in shame and humiliation.
But they won't.
The fucking 1970s sucked.
And all I read from the Leftists on here is "Yay! The 1970s are back and this time we'll be proven right."
Learn nothing and you'll never have to forget being wrong.
Destabilizing is what every Obama economic policy is.
As for consequences -
One thing leads to another. Dominos really do fall. Let this ride (and we will), and in the back of the mind of someone in China there will be that much less apprehension about, say, handing Taiwan an ultimatum, seizing a Philippine island, getting in Japans face, blockading Vietnam.
This is exactly what happened in the 1930's. Any bad actor that got away with an outrage was the inspiration for another.
What the US government needs to do now (and it won't) is to anticipate the next outrage and work to head it off.
Chrisnavin fair enough. My primary concerns are not how each thing can be used to reflect upon Obama. I am not saying that is your thing either, but I do think it's manifestly clear that a lot of the bluster we are seeing had a lot less conviction to "do something about Russia" than it does to argue that Obama bad. Which if that floats their boat is fine I suppose, though being told to fuck off now and again, and given a fifteen yard penalty for chest puffing, would likely do them some good.
As for ole Bill. Well if we did it live, his show would be worth watching chrisnavin.
buwaya,
Great point to make. China's watching, and so are many others.
We are electing to project weakness, confusion, and a lack of coherent strategy and consequences.
In addition to the role we filled in keeping a lid on the Middle East, this will make things harder everywhere else.
This can easily lead to less 'peace.'
"Unmentioned by the article is that, while the Polish military is on paper much smaller than the Russian, Poland's officer class is much better trained,"
There was an opportunity for Georgia to derail the Russians when they invaded. I think Ralph Peters pointed it out at the time.
Nonetheless, the abysmal performance of Russian pilots has been on display for all the world to see (although, once again, the media don’t understand what they’re witnessing). While the Russians are certainly not above terror-bombing civilians, many of the air strikes on apartment buildings and other civilian targets are the result of inadequate training, Russian pilots flying scared—or both. Precision weapons delivered by top-of-the-line aircraft demand skilled pilots emotionally prepared for combat—which, frankly, Russia doesn’t appear to have.
Michael Totten also had good observations on te invasion.
"Compare and contrast with Iraq."
You mean the 12 years between Gulf War I and Gulf War II ?
Dope.
Harrogate,
I take your point as to the politics of the thing as valid. Some people have it out for Obama, just like there were many for whom Bush could do no right.
But there's a world out there, and some bad actors in it. It's dangerous, and it doesn't necessarily care what our internal debates are.
That can mean a more likely East Asia war in which we get sucked in without really thinking twice.
That means a lot of young troops going off to fight that war.
harrogate said...Until someone ponies up some specifics about what they think the US ought to do about Putin's actions and the Ukraine, then they ought to be roundly told to fuck off every time they complain that Obama "is toothless" or puff out their chests and invoke history and call for US "involvement." What the fuck do you people think the US ought to do, exactly?
Some specifics:
"Start with a declaration of full-throated American support for Ukraine’s revolution. Follow that with a serious loan/aid package — say, replacing Moscow’s $15 billion [Putin has withdrawn Russia's aid package] — to get Ukraine through its immediate financial crisis (the announcement of a $1 billion pledge of U.S. loan guarantees is a good first step). Then join with the E.U. to extend a longer substitute package, preferably through the International Monetary Fund."
Michael K said...
Dope.
Senile old fool.
Bill, the Budapest Memorandum would not seem relevant. Yes, Russia undertook "to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine" and to not use weapons "against Ukraine," but that isn't what seems to be happening. The Ukrainian government has been overthrown; Russian intervention to restore the legitimate government to power is in no way "against" the Ukraine.
And what America and Britain undertook was "to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." Even if, dubitante, we stipulate that Russia's actions are "aggression" (to the contrary, Russia is "provid[ing] assistance "!), this hardly commits us to war.
Lydia,
Not bad, but Ukraine's problems are much deeper than an aid package. She may be a bride we don't necessarily want, but really don't want Putin to have either.
Lydia said...
"Start with a declaration of full-throated American support for Ukraine’s revolution."
While I understand why our lefty President would find revolution appealing, it is mystifying why anyone else would. This is a rip that must be stopped.
"Let's have a lot of them. Let's intervene everywhere. It's all going so well. History either tells us so. Or will tell us so. "
Do you even read what you write ?
You would have been right at home in the 1930s when appeasement worked out so well. We don't have to attack or invade if we just avoid looking stupid.
Cancelling the anti-missile sites. The "Reset button." Ignoring hundreds of thousands of Iranians begging for recognition.
I'm sure you never read it but some of us remember. Even the left acknowledges the effect Reagan;s rhetoric had on Soviet dissidents.
Andrei Zorin was practicing his English that memorable day back in 1983, listening to the forbidden BBC World Service on the shortwave radio when President Ronald Reagan made his declaration that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire" that must be defeated.
Zorin, a dissident-minded literary scholar, was so stunned that he risked speaking openly on the telephone to his friends to tell them about Reagan's forceful words. "I jumped out of my chair and started calling," he recalled Sunday. "Of course, to us it was no surprise that the Soviet Union was such an empire, but the idea that somebody would say it from the podium, out loud, was a revelation."
Of course the Koch brothers must be behind that.
"What the fuck do you people think the US ought to do, exactly? "
See above. Not looking stupid would be a start.
"What the US should have done, among other things, (its too late now) was to have proceeded to arm the Poles. Cancelling the long range missile defense system in 2009 was a huge mistake."
Yes and the Ukraine has potentially huge oil and gas deposits that are amenable to fracking. I know fracking is against harrogate and Obama's religion but it i still a useful lever.
"Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Michael K said...
Dope.
Senile old fool."
Thank you. To be called a fool by a fool is a complement.
Michael K said...
Not looking stupid would be a start.
Like invading a country looking for non-existent WMDs? Hard to look much stupider than that.
Michael K said...
To be called a fool by a fool is a complement.
You forgot the senile bit. But then your memory isn't what it used to be.
"Like invading a country looking for non-existent WMDs? Hard to look much stupider than that."
Try not to look more the fool. The original resolution to invade Iraq had a long list of reasons. WMD was added later to pacify the Labour Party of Tony Blair.
Michael K said...
WMD was added later to pacify the Labour Party of Tony Blair.
And thus we entered the Twilight Zone.
Michael K. it's not like we don't remember the 24/7 media blitz chant of "WMD, WMD!" Hell, that's how it became an acronym in every household. Your revisionist bullshit re the Brits and the Labour Party as the center of the WMD chant is laughable.
But damn it Jim, Michael K. is a *medical doctor!* and has lots of snark to share.
ARM. The dumbest motherfucker ever, GWB, tricked the entire world into thinking there were WMDs in Iraq when he, the dumbest motherfucker ever born, knew there were not. The dumbest motherfucker on the planet gulled the Senate and the Congress anf the UfuckingN that there were WMD when he knew there were none.
Who was stupid here, ARM, which party, which nation, which individuals (excepting you, of course) was not scamed by the dumbest motherfucker on earth?
AReasonableMan said:
"Michael K said...
Dope.
Senile old fool."
Excuse me ARM, but Michael K. is a surgeon.
There he goes putting down his red lines again.im sure the Russians are so scared!
I wasn't scammed by the dumbest motherfucker on the planet. Dirty hippies, right yet again.
maybe Obama should ask Russia to step in and help with our Russian problem. I'm sure Russia will get Russia to tow the line.
It wasn't "the dumbest motherfucker on the planet" it was the President trading in bullshit acting tough and it was media making money hand over fist drumming the WMD meme into the American discourse at a time when the public was especially vulnerable to this bullshit.
Fixed it for Michael K. who, damn it, is a * medical doctor*!!!
Anyway, back to the issue at hand. So far I haven't seen much in the way of specific recommendations of what the US should do. Lots of Obama bashing though. A few little "send money support revolution Obama bad????" uptalky rhetoric but that's about it.
Talk about toothless. You "hawks" have got less than nothing.
Me, sure, on this issue I've got nothing. But as the great line went, sometimes that can be a real cool hand.
ARM said: "Like invading a country looking for non-existent WMDs? Hard to look much stupider than that."
Have you spoken to any Kurds lately who survived after being gassed by Saddam Hussein?
Its not a "cool hand".
There is a real world and real problems. This is a problem. This can't be fixed at this point, but it could have been prevented. There will be other problems, several of them are visible on the horizon. After this none of us can have any confidence that they will be addressed effectively or in time.
It is interesting that no one has mentioned the Russky warship docked in Cuba. The Vladiator giving the Big O the other finger.
Oh wait, maybe it's there to pick all detainees from the Gitmo closing in 2009.
ARM wrote:
ARM said: "Like invading a country looking for non-existent WMDs? Hard to look much stupider than that."
and yet Clinton sanctioned Iraq, bombed Iraq, contained Iraq and passed the Iraq liberation Act for the same non existent WMD. He also contained Iraq for his entire presidency which was two terms. And the UN passed 15 resolutions during that same time also for the same WMD's.
The personal stuff is interesting, of course, but does not encourage serious discussion. I tried to provide a little with the link to the Poland role in Ukraine.
I hope you will pardon me when I go elsewhere for serious discussion, such as Chicago Boyz where I usually hang out. Or at Michael Totten.
You keep talking about old rock musicians.
The ship in Cuba doesn't matter. It is a trifling gesture.
The only significant threat that relationship could hold is if the Russians were in a position to subsidize the Cuban government. They aren't.
For all that they are doing in the Ukraine the Russians are in reality weak. They can annoy their neighbors and support other troublemakers in a minor way but that is all. The real danger here is the psychological effect of this act (seizing the Crimea) on other players, and THEIR perception of risk.
The defense of this miserable president is not even a defense of this president.
Read the above and despair!
So far there has been a call of chickenhawk.
And a claim that George W. Bush was... something or another.
And a claim of US impotence so Obama being impotent is ok
For fuck's sake you Leftists are miserable shits.
God dammit!
Just when Obama has eliminated all fear of American military action, Putin calls our bluff with no fear at all.It'd The Sudetenland roll over of an ally redux.
Obama has finished us off.
Garage. How cool is it that you knew what no one else knew. More than the CIA, the French, the English and the dozens of other countries that fell for it.
Awesome on you.
Do you think our President knows there has already been a disastrous Crimean War? I bet "no".
Birkel, I bet there are some tutoring services for reading skills where you live. For your mental health's sake I recommend you take advantage of these services.
----They hate us for our freedom!" ----
At the other end of the imbecilic scale from "poverty causes terrorism.
"The ship in Cuba doesn't matter. It is a trifling gesture.
The only significant threat that relationship could hold is if the Russians were in a position to subsidize the Cuban government. They aren't."
I am coming from a purely psychological perspective. Not military, not economic. It's Putin's way sticking his thumb in the O's eyeball, knowing he can do it with impunity.
@Michael
WMD was never a reason to go war in Iraq, even if they had them. Lots of countries have real WMD and we don't invade them.
Sorry to interrupt the snark but there may be one or two who are interested in what is actually happening in Ukraine.
The Party of Regions has become eviscerated; it and the Communist Party are still represented in Parliament, but both must rethink the retrograde Soviet values that inspired them in order to survive. Propelling that rethinking is the fact that democratic Ukraine intends to try the top 25 regime representatives for crimes against humanity. If and when Yanukovych, who heads the list, is captured and put on trial, the full extent of the regime’s criminality will come to light and discourage Regionnaire holdouts from attempting a comeback. The democratic authorities are also planning a “lustration” similar to investigations of criminal wrongdoing by regime collaborators in Central Europe and South Africa.
A key part of the repudiation of the Soviet past is the continued toppling of Ukraine’s approximately 1,300 remaining Lenin statues and the renaming of streets, squares, and the like. Twenty-five Lenins met their end in just two days last week. In a foretaste of things to come, the eastern Ukrainian city of Dnipropetrovsk renamed Lenin Square “Heroes of the Maidan Square,” in honor of the demonstrators shot and killed by Yanukovych’s hirelings on Kyiv’s Independence Square. The Soviet star adorning the Parliament has also been removed.
Poland is assuming the role we might have done. It's an interesting world. Unless of course you are Libertarian. I include large L to signify the absence of interest in the world.
ARM, I would add that senility in the young is even sadder.
anyone here dig up the text of the Budapest memorandum?
anyone remember when Romney was mocked for his 1980's foreign policy?
good times. good times.
buwaya, bringing his Bill Kristol D-Game, lets drip from his keyboard:
"There will be other problems, several of them are visible on the horizon"
If they are so very visible, what are they and what do you want the US to do about them?
Note: "Obama bad" will not be credited in your answer. So show your work, and give examples.
Or spare us with the preening, for fuck's sake.
Blogger garage mahal said...
@Michael
"WMD was never a reason to go war in Iraq, even if they had them. Lots of countries have real WMD and we don't invade them."
I don't know who this was directed to but I will answer.
The WMD was not a good reason. The reason was because Saddam had been violating the truce terms for 12 years. After 9/11, Bush was faced with a dilemma. The Saudis wanted our troops out. Female soldiers were driving and going without veils. Had we left after 9/11 it would have looked like we were run out.
Maybe we could have gotten out of Saudi; we moved our headquarters to Qattar the next year, and maybe the loss of face would not have mattered.
We are seeing now what happens when the US has no credibility. Maybe it will work out without us.
What if it doesn't ? Are you content to see nuclear war between Iran and Israel or China and Taiwan and not intervene ?
We are there now. Soon, we will be impotent in international affairs. Is that satisfactory? I'm serious.
This is how major wars happen.
So Russia is seeking access to 8 countries' ports, eh? Some in central & South America? Good times ahead!
Cold War board. Not the world I wanted for my kids.
Michael K said...
"[The new government of] Ukraine intends to try the top 25 regime representatives for crimes against humanity. If and when Yanukovych, who heads the list, is captured and put on trial, the full extent of the regime’s criminality will come to light and discourage Regionnaire holdouts from attempting a comeback."
Oh. Yeah, that's great, that's really encouraging. Having violently ousted the elected government and installing their own regime, now they propose to put members of the ousted regime on trial.
Don't you see it? This is REVOLUTION. THIS is the threat--not neurotic fear of a Soviet Union that hasn't existed in twenty years! What is wrong with y'all that you can't see it? Why can't you see that this primal, contagious evil is far more dangerous than any aspirations Putin has to empire. If Ukraine's opposition gets away with it, what makes you think that the losers in Romania's next elections won't feel that they too can force out the winners? If Ukraine, why not Romania? And then Italy. And then Spain. Where next? Do you really think--are you so naive--that it couldn't happen here?
It is 2017, and Democrats, incandescently furious at the election of President Cruz, conclude that the only reason that the Madison protests failed is that they didn't get violent. For months, they occupy DC (with the full support of the district, because, of course, like Yanukovich, Cruz is a President living and working in a profoundly hostile city in a part of the country that's hostile to his agenda, a city that voted all-but unanimously for his opponent). They torch the place. Ultimately, the slow-motion putsch forces President Cruz to agree to suspend the Constitution, call early elections, and flee the country. Senior Congressional Democrats install Nancy Pelosi as President, and she announces her intention to try the top 25 members of the Cruz administration for crimes against humanity, and that "when Cruz is captured and put on trial, the full extent of his regime’s criminality will come to light and discourage Republican holdouts from attempting a comeback." This is precisely what has happened in the Ukraine, and if you don't denounce it now, you will have no basis for denouncing it as it spreads.
RecChief said...
"anyone here dig up the text of the Budapest memorandum?"
Yes; my comment above quotes the relevant portions and Wikisource has the full text.
" This is precisely what has happened in the Ukraine, and if you don't denounce it now, you will have no basis for denouncing it as it spreads."
No, actually it isn't but I doubt you will respond to reasons.
Russia has deep roots in Crimea. A substantial ethic Russian population near 60% and Russian rule since to was reclaimed from the Turks 230 years ago, before the US existed. It was transferred from the status of autonomous Soviet Oblast to the Soviet Ukraine SSR as an administrative convenience in 1954. But Moscow obviously still called the shots. After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was kept by the new Ukraine Republic on condition the rights of Russian citizens and the Russian Navy Southern Fleet, which has been home to that force for 230 years except when invading Turks, Brits, French - and later Nazi Germany - warred with Russia.
1/3rd of all trade and goods to Russia go through the hundreds years old ports the Russians built.
To deny the area is within the Russian sphere of interest is foolish.
Yet we hear from the usual right wing crazies and sly neocons about our duty to save the "noble Freedom Lovers" of the Ukraine. The idiot John McCain met with militant Ukrainian nationalists that wish to purge the Crimea of Russian influence..and called for NATO to accept the Ukrainians, just as he was yelling roughly 5 years ago "We are all Georgians now" and trying to push Bush to get Georgia into NATO.
We don't need to be as stupid as McCain and add more tripwires to NATO going to war, or same such in Asia and the Middle East.
"No more Munichs!" is the repetitive old trash rhetoric Neocons think works to get less elite Americans to send their kids off as cannonfodder while the Neocon's kids are left free of "career-limiting" military service.
Doubt, Mike? You're far too kind. Simon? How much are they paying you? Whatever it is, it's not enough.
Michael K said...
ARM, I would add that senility in the young is even sadder.
I have little doubt it was early onset in your case. Tragic.
Mr. President, Putin knows there will be costs, he does have to pay his troops after all. I am certain the international community can affirm the accounting reality that wars are not free.
It doesn't matter what the trip wires are, Cedarford, you won't honor them.
Simon- sorry, I didn't scroll through all teh comments first
Imagine it's two years from now. This war has escalated slowly. But in two years, the number of dead is in the tens of thousands of people. Armies are marching, battles are being fought, people are dying.
Scott Walker wins the Republican Primary.
Does he show the video of Hillary and her stupid reset button? Or is that "Beyond the pale" and we have to play by different rules?
Eric, it won't matter, because if Walker wins, Ukraine shows the Democrats that they can simply overturn the results and force President Walker out of office, try him for crimes against humanity, and everyone's cool with it. That is what's at stake here--are we for the rule of law or are we for revolution, and some people are so traumatized by the Soviet era, so unable to acknowledge that we actually WON the cold war and that it's over, that they'd rather open the door to revolution than support the rule of law if Russia's the one to enforce it. That is maladaptive, I think.
Michael K said...
"No, actually it isn't but I doubt you will respond to reasons."
Line 'em up.
Cedarford said...
"Russia has deep roots in Crimea. ... To deny the area is within the Russian sphere of interest is foolish."
You only have to look at the map.
Breaking down percentages to quartiles is absurd. Means a little more than nothing.
What rule of law, Simon? Those days are over unless one is part of the great unwashed mass.
Simon, it's already happening here. Keep counting votes until one gets the results one wants.
My hope is Obama just shuts up and goes back to the golf course. Nothing more embarrassing than a pussy trying to act tough. He's fooling no one and looks more like a puss.
--Eric, it won't matter, because if Walker wins, Ukraine shows the Democrats that they can simply overturn the results and force President Walker out of office,----
Yep, its already happening here. What do you think the months of thuggery around the Wisconsin capital was?
I do admire the passion shown for the established order-- when the order is lefty oppression. To leftists here the people have no say because Ukraine was a Russian puppet government so definitely legitimate and reflecting the will of the people.
Not so much..
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/2014/02/28/protesters-in-ukraine-and-venezuela-seek-the-rule-of-law-n1801841?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Every Lenin statue heading towards the Smelter says this was people staring in the face of tyranny and Russian interference and saying we want Freedom.
It wasnt that long ago that we were selling the countries missile defense systems despite it angering Russia. When did we become such limp wristed caricatures.
Russia is not the USSR. Yet they are able to exert influence all around the world? Why though are we such impotent fucks?
Be ause of leadership, but also because of counsellors that think like ARM on the left and Cedarford on the right.
Bush and the Neocons were fond of saying "No more Munichs" as pretext for military adventurism and the unlimited wealth and resources of America backing dozens of "police actions"/"rescue of Noble Freedom Lovers".
A faction of the Democrats, led mainly by females who never served in the military, saw it as our duty as well to invade and thus rescue people in distant lands from slaughter and oppression. "Only America can do this" they brayed self-righteously. "No more Rwandas" Hillary, Rice and Powers chanted. They fell right into Bush's idiotic maxim that there is nothing worse than a regime that kills it's own people.....conveniently forgetting about Lincoln and the Union's aggressive war on Southern dissidents.
What could be worse? Perhaps regimes that invade other countries and kill those people. Not saying the US is anything like the pure conquer, enslave, loot type invaders. Or the imperialists looking for empire and wealth. But intervening in others civil wars or internal matters is ugly business, even with the best of heartfelt thought "saving the advances of socialism" with Soviet tanks rolling into Czechslovakia and Hungary or "helping the noble Vietnamese and the cause of Freedom!! by Americans killing and bombing other Vietnamese populations. It almost never results in the gratitude of the "saved" locals. For Bush's reasons, for Brezhnev's reasons, for Samantha Powers reasons, for ideological reasons, for economic ones.
"It is interesting that no one has mentioned the Russky warship docked in Cuba. The Vladiator giving the Big O the other finger."
Russian/Soviet warships have been docking regularly in Cuba since Castro came to power. And there's nothing surprising about Russian troops in the Crimea. And it's laughable for an American president to feign outrage about it.
Like when Obama flew to Vega$ for a Jay-Z/Beyonce-headlined fundraiser while the consulate in Benghazi still burned:
THIS JUST IN: Russia flying "hundreds" of troops into Crimea.
THIS JUST IN: Obama: This is now officially happy hour with the Democratic Party
Seriously.
Cedarford: Neocon
What he really means is Jew.
I apologize for the delay - social obligations intervened.
Some US options to "keep the lid on". As I said before, the problem is not with Russia specifically, it is to head of any potential miscalculations by anyone else. These are the sorts of things the US would have done between 1945-90. I can think of a thousand of these, I'm sure you can come up with some too.
- Give Poland the equipment for a modern armored brigade - or any other significant military upgrade that would send a similar message.
- Provide credits to Vietnam to purchase a proper air defense system.
- Provide credits to the Philippines to purchase a proper air defense system.
- Send a carrier group or two to cruise around the Senkakus for a couple of weeks as a show of force. Or possibly around the disputed parts of the South China sea.
- Send a fighter wing to Japan on indefinite rotation.
- Provide some decent fighter aircraft, radar and possibly some effective frigates to the Philippines.
- Send a carrier group or two on a port visit to Taipei.
- Commit to a basing agreement (perhaps a pan-Asian one, including Australia and Japan) with the Philippines.
- Arrange for Vietnam, the Philippines, or both, to buy some of the cool new Taiwanese anti-ship missiles.
Here comes the annexation -
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/28/Ukraine-Turmoil-Russian-Legislators-Present-Bill-To-Facilitate-Annexation-Of-Crimea
"Obama says the U.S. is deeply concerned by reports of military movements by Russia inside Ukraine."
Nonsense.
"You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine."
- Kramer, close to victory in Risk, in "The Label Maker"
AvileAndUnreasonableMan (and your cheerleader Harrogate):
We waited more than a decade between the cease-fire after expelling Sadaam from Kuwait, and the resumption of active hostilities (leaving aside all the no-fly-zone song and dance.) All that we gained was a lot of dead Kurds, some dead Marsh Arabs, a lot of environmental destruction along the lower reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates, and some unjustly-enriched French and Russian sanction-evaders.
Telling that you think this is a Good Thing™. All those little brown people just don't amount to anything in your accounting, do they?
So given this little bit of Snowdonia, let's open a pool:
Who is on this payroll? Garage? Simon? ARM? Freder? Me????
Who....?
[Simon, after your 9:39pm agitprop, I vote you for sure; verdict still out on the others]
Michael K,
"Michael Totten also had good observations on te invasion. "
Perhaps this and this perhaps what you're refering to?
And the find of that article quoting Andrei Zorin was brilliant!
The Cracker Emcee quoted and then said:
"It is interesting that no one has mentioned the Russky warship docked in Cuba. The Vladiator giving the Big O the other finger."
Russian/Soviet warships have been docking regularly in Cuba since Castro came to power. And there's nothing surprising about Russian troops in the Crimea. And it's laughable for an American president to feign outrage about it.
My point was the exquisite timing of the Vlad. I can't recall the last time warship ported in Cuba.
So pray tell me, what should Putin be afraid of as for 'cost' that Obama threatens.
Dude!
Drones.
Obama has mad skillz with the drones.
Watch out, Putin!
Drones!
Excuse me ARM, but Michael K. is a surgeon.
priceless.
Every Lenin statue heading towards the Smelter says this was people staring in the face of tyranny and Russian interference and saying we want Freedom.
"We hold these truths" yadda yadda yadda "All men" yadda yadda yadda yadda "Certain" yadda "Rights" yadda yadda yadda,"Life, Liberty" yadda yadda yadda "Happiness"
But only if you're American, bitches!
I don't think pure democracy means what you think it means.
You can tell by his body language and his first three words..
"Good afternoon, everybody..."
It's not...
"My fellow Americans..."
All too casual. He might as well have just said,
"Hey, y'all, how y'all doin?"
Watch his body language. He starts talking before he's come to a stand-still at the podium. There's a lack of formality and dignity. You'd think this was an announcement about the new Asst. Secretary of Agriculture, not a Russian invasion of a neighboring country.
Rusty said...
Excuse me ARM, but Michael K. is a surgeon who apparently drank too freely from the Purple Drank of life.
There will be costs.
By America? No. Don't be silly.
To our credibility since the President is fond of talking big.
Remember when the Left mocked Romney for saying Russia is our top geopolitical opponent?
Man, was there ANYTHING Romney was wrong about in 2012?
Proof that Putin gets what ARM doesn't: After Obama's speech the Russians sent helicopters full of troops into the Crimea.
Let us know when you want to live in the real world, dude.
Rusty said:
"Excuse me ARM, but Michael K. is a surgeon.
priceless."
That was good.
Big Mike said:
"Proof that Putin gets what ARM doesn't: After Obama's speech the Russians sent helicopters full of troops into the Crimea."
One more thing, after Obama's speech, Obama rang the bell to open, as he put it: "it's after 5, time to start the Democrat happy hour".
Fortunately neither the President nor the American people will be panicked into a war by the same chicken littles who panicked us into the Iraq war. One stupid war per generation is enough.
Thanks to the Iraq war we are immune to the stupidity on display here, at least for a while.
Why don't you go and bask in the wonderful successes of the Iraq war a little longer? Drag out Cheney to tell us how it advanced long-term US interests.
Big Mike said...
Proof that Putin gets what ARM doesn't: After Obama's speech the Russians sent helicopters full of troops into the Crimea.
Let us know when you want to live in the real world, dude.
===================
Good on Putin. Fair warning has been given to Ukrainian militants and the smattering of warhawks in the West that Russia will protect the vital strategic interests of Russia in Crimea, and it's Russian majority population.
Putin knows the area well. He like many northern Russians vacations there...and as President has attended many ceremonies honoring the Russians who died or were wounded fighting off invading Turks, Brits, and Nazis. To Russians, like many WWII battles, the Seige of Sevastopol is prominantly commemorated. The courage of the Russian-Soviet defenders is sort of equated to the Alamo. They lost, but in tying up the 11th Army, prevented the Germans from deploying those resources to Stalingrad, which would have given the Germans victory there - most military historians think. Akin to the Alamo defenders bogging Santa Ana down so Sam Houston could prep for the decisive battle of Sam Jacinto.
The differences of course are a much bigger conflict in WWII, and the Russians having Crimea longer than Texans were in Texas.
Those puffed up saber-rattlers that never served in the US military, but love to talk bellicose and want other Americans blood shed for "Freedon Lovers" in Ukraine that seek to invade and move Crimea out of the Russian sphere will again be sadly disappointed. Their neocon Masters are also despised, even laughed at.
No major war against Iran, Somalia, Libya, no massive conflict to liberate N Korea and have "The Heroes" invade the Congo to save the Congolese from themselves?? The fun of seeing tens of thousands of US casualties fighting in Syria on the side of the Islamists ?? All spoiled!!
No war against Russia McCain wanted because "We are all Georgians now"??
Now the indignity of no war against Russia over a place they have been in longer than the USA has existed.
Oh, the shame of America not to have launched a big war in the last 10 years!!
ARM - "Thanks to the Iraq war we are immune to the stupidity on display here, at least for a while.
Why don't you go and bask in the wonderful successes of the Iraq war a little longer?"
============
The Left and traditional Right meet on this in agreement over the folly of wars of adventure and cultural imperialism - like Iraq.
Actual war fighting is where profound differences persist. The Left fetishizes Geneva and thinks zero casualties of "innocent civilians" (re: enemy noncombatants that send their sons to war and supply the enemy force) are possible and outside that it is murder. They also want 5-Star accomodations for captured enemy and quick release and taxpayers to be soaked with the costs of top lawyers and top medical treatment of held enemy..
The traditional Right wants a return to kill and pillage as a way of war, unrestricted use of force. They fetishize all US soldiers as "Our Heroes" but never manage to state that the enemy on the other side taking equal or greater risk...are not "Brave Heroes". The trad Right has a love for high tech military toys like some women have for little toy dogs. Never saw a military expenditure they didn't like. They have a much different opinion about the "rights" of enemy combatants.
But both are pretty united that while we may aid a side in a war with supplies, money, diplomacy...we only sent American kids in to spill their blood if the vital interests of the US are at stake. And vital interests do not include (1)Our prestige "on the line" as the world's free 911 service; (2) Our moral standing after Munich!!, (3) To enrich a few firms that stand to profit from new wars, (4) Helping any nation that is friends with us that wants us to attack some other nation.
Sort of back to the Powell Doctrine.
*War only when it is in the vital interests of the USA.
*Only after all other reasonable options have been exhausted, and when delay only strengthens the enemy.
*War only with clearly stated goals at the outset. (With no vague BS like shifting goals after Congress authorizes..like staying as long as it takes for the people we invaded to like us)
*Only with a clear exit strategy planned for the sooner the better.
Cedarford wrote:
action of the Democrats, led mainly by females who never served in the military, saw it as our duty as well to invade and thus rescue people in distant lands from slaughter and oppression
there a huge gulf between being completely standoffish and weak and invading a country. How about we do things that are somewhere between those two extremes.
'll note that Russia doesn't share your weakness. And are expanding their influence in the world at our expense because of it.
AReasonableMan wrote:
Why don't you go and bask in the wonderful successes of the Iraq war a little longer?
We would except your guy wrecked it and let it crumble.
jr565 said...
We would except your guy wrecked it and let it crumble.
Not even a majority of the Republican party believes this any more. You guys are the rump of the rump.
ARM quoted and said: jr565 said...
We would except your guy wrecked it and let it crumble.
"Not even a majority of the Republican party believes this any more."
You are definitely incorrect on this statement - not even close.
This was in 2010:
GOP Congressmen Admit Most Republicans Think Iraq War Was a Mistake.
175+ comments...
And not a single comment that argues for the wisdom or pertinence of Obama's "position". In fact I am not sure anybody on the Left can tell anybody else what Obama's plan is.
Come on, Leftists. You can do it. Point to Obama's strategy. Tell us what wisdom you see.
Remember, you're not an opposition party anymore. You must have a positive position not just an oppositional one.
I get so sick of the revisionist BS put out about the Iraq business. Previous posts contain all the normal hoary and untrue lefty talking points:
Bush is stupid
Bush misled the world about WMDs
Our only reason to go into Iraq was WMDs
Iraq was a failed experiment, mission, whatever
Whatever you want to say about the reasons for going into Iraq, we did, we had problems, we adjusted, and we won the conflict in the end. We drove Al Qaeda out, for the most part purged the country of Iranian influence, and won the gratitude of most Iraqis for ridding them of Saddam and giving freedom and democracy a chance in Iraq.
Did we do that out of altruism, or were we trying to gain presence and credibility in the Middle East, or both ?
At any rate, at the end we were victorious and we had HAND in Iraq and the Middle East. We had influence, we had bases in a country that wanted us there, we had a big footprint with which to deter Iran and other players, and we had credibility. We stayed the course through difficult times and saw the conflict through. Our presence and credibility in Iraq was our Big Stick in the Middle East.
And what did Boy Wonder do ? He pissed it all away. Argue all you want about Bush and why we went in and this and that; the fact is that we had presence and credibility at the end. And Obama threw it irretrievably away.
And that is part of the reason nobody in the world today give a tinker's damn about what Obama has to say. As for Kerry, peter principle on steroids, how can anyone in the world take us seriously when Lurch is on the job ?
Harrogate and ARM et al prattle about having no good options at present. The reason we don't have any good options at present is that we have no credibility and no capability; all we have is bluster. Putin knows it, thats for sure.
AReasonableMan: Not even a majority of the Republican party believes this any more.
Besides the fact that its not true, ARMs remark is an interesting tell on what motivates the Left.
Acceptance.
No principles, just an appeal to what everyone else likes. No wonder they so easily "Go Nazi"
http://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
twgin said...
Whatever you want to say about the reasons for going into Iraq, we did, we had problems, we adjusted, and we won the conflict in the end.
No one is saying that Iraq wasn't anything other than a complete success militarily. It was a monumental strategic failure by the civilian leadership.
panicked us into the Iraq war.
That was one hell of a long and deliberate panic. Started back in 1998, even!
EMD said...
That was one hell of a long and deliberate panic.
Tell it to Colin Powell.
EMD,
Actually started back in 1991! Makes it a twelve-year panic.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
Excuse me ARM, but Michael K. is a surgeon who apparently drank too freely from the Purple Drank of life.
And what do you do, genius?
Teach poetry?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा