As Russian-backed armed forces effectively seized control of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula on Saturday, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia requested — and received — authorization from the Russian Senate to use military force in Ukraine.Oh, pointedly, eh? What counts as pointedness here? Are points different from those lines Obama has been drawing? I don't see how there is anything Obama could have said that would have changed the imperative — from Putin's perspective — to invade Ukraine. This all looks so perfectly predictable in retrospect.
The actions signaled publicly for the first time the Kremlin’s readiness to intervene militarily in Ukraine, and it served as a blunt response to President Obama, who just hours earlier pointedly warned Russia to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.
But the NYT tells us that this is "the first time" the Kremlin "signaled" "publicly" its "readiness to intervene militarily," but Obama had to have known it would play out like this.
The blunt response overcomes the pointed warning. I note the metaphor of relative sharpness, which reads like a desperate effort to give Obama the edge. Obama embodies the crazy academic dream of operating in the realm of words, words envisioned as weapons, words that might be blunt or pointed.
But Putin's "blunt response" to Obama's "pointed warning" is no verbal riposte. And however sharp, Obama cannot get a word in edgewise in the conversation Putin is starting.
Posts
289 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 289 of 289Simon, let's play just a little while I can stand you. Obviously you buy into Russ is getting a Near Abroad sphere influence, i.e. a ring of slave states (please don't pretend they're anything else). How far out can they grab? When should they stop? Turkey? Italy? Brittany?
"There are other places with serious discussions and real information."
Writes the guy who's been offering up links to *Powerline* as his source for "serious discussions" and "real information." Verily you cannot make these things up.
I've been looking over our agreement and there's not much there in the real world. Signed by Clinton and Yeltsen? And for defending a week-old government?
Nah, I can't see anybody acting on it,...
Nichevo said...
granting their limits, which are cosmic, yes, Russia is maximizing their outcomes as best they know how.
I know a small set of Russians so my impressions are no doubt biased but they combine monumental arrogance (not necessarily a bad thing) with a kind of medieval paranoia. They do not always seem fully modern in the way we understand the term. It is unrelated to communism. I know a lot of Chinese and the seem completely modern, more so than most westerners. Fully and sometimes frightening well adapted to deal with our current era.
Fen said...
"So I find you objection irrelevant. We simply would have found another excuse to betray the them."
My apologies; I thought that your point was that we had promised to defend their territorial integrity. If that was not your point, I withdraw my objection.
So Crack, the Ukrainians shouldn't be upset. It's not like someone promised then 40 acres and a mule or something.
Nichevo, your assumption is that I support Russian attempts to regain control of the Near Abroad. That is not my position. My position is that someone has to either put down or at very least punish the putsch in Ukraine, and Russia is the only power able and willing to do so. Russian imperial aspirations over the near abroad are simply not as important as the existential imperative to teaching a lesson to would-be revolutionaries.
AReasonableMan,
"I know a small set of Russians so my impressions are no doubt biased but they combine monumental arrogance (not necessarily a bad thing) with a kind of medieval paranoia."
It's all The Fireman's Ball.
If I am to pretend to take you seriously, I have to tell you that this anti-revolutionary fetish of yours blinds you to reality. Again, you were fine with revolution in Egypt. Why not revolt against Yanukovich? He's pretty revolting himself. What is the principle here? When is it ok or not ok? I must tell you I have nothing but contempt for the lawful neutral, but go on.
Do you dream that Putin shares your fervor? You really think Putin might, even in a dream, act other than to maximize the Russian geopolitical outcome under all circumstances? Revolution is just all right with Vladimir. He certainly supported enough of it in the third world in his KGB time.
The well deserved, long due revolt of all the Near Abroad against Russia is, what's the word, overdetermined. Russia should be pushed back into a rump state and all the Russians abroad should be sent back by third class freight.
Nichevo said…
So Crack, the Ukrainians shouldn't be upset. It's not like someone promised then 40 acres and a mule or something.
Upset, sure, but you're somehow equating (confusing?) an "agreement" with a government that didn't exist, as being equal to the crime of America lying and working to destroy her own citizens for hundreds of years.
How you can get there is beyond me,...
Crack, what is the etymology of the word "slave?"
I'll answer that for you:
Slav
Nichevo said...
Crack, what is the etymology of the word "slave?"
I'll answer that for you:
Slav
Yeah, and I'm an AMERICAN.
You seem to be confused about that point, too,...
LOL ARM you are depriving me of the usual pleasure of disagreeing with you 😆
harrogate: "Writes the guy who's been offering up links to *Powerline* as his source for "serious discussions" and "real information." Verily you cannot make these things up."
LOL
What a delightfully unaware thing to write!!
Let's start with "Verily you cannot make these things up."
Hey remember what WAS made up: The hilariously inept Killian/Bush National Guard forgeries.
LOL
Hey, remember who first gained acclaim by helping to expose these amateurish forgeries which all the lefties believed and were intended to sway a national election just 1 week out?
John Hinderaker!
Too funny.
Thanks Harrogate. We all needed a good laugh. You never disappoint.
So what, Cracky? Why do you even mention that? What's your point?
Nichevo,
So what, Cracky? Why do you even mention that? What's your point?
What was yours?
Simon: My apologies; I thought that your point was that we had promised to defend their territorial integrity. If that was not your point, I withdraw my objection.
No, you were correct - I meant both.
1) we promised to protect them if they gave up their nukes
2) this is a horrible precendent that will prevent more countries from doing the same.
I understand you're earlier point. I just don't believe that if it was "spelled out in writing" anything would be different. Other than America finding another excuse to do nothing.
Excuse me, Yanukovych is it? Stupid romanization. Do you remember the 2004 election, Simon, when the Russians pumped Yanukovych's rival Yevtushenko full of dioxin? They are patient; they bade their time; now they got their monkey in and who needs elections anymore?
I don't even say that Ukraine post-Y will be sunshine and roses; but Russia and all its works must be opposed. That's like giving something to Sauron. You NEVER give anything to Sauron. And you never give ANYTHING to Russia.
Crack, I knew you would say that instead of answering me. I was going to continue with my point in the very next sentence, but deleted it wanting to see what you would say.
You first please. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
"Writes the guy who's been offering up links to *Powerline* as his source for "serious discussions" and "real information." Verily you cannot make these things up.:
Whereas, you prefer MSNBC.
Powerliner had a pretty good summary of the Arizona AN 1062 case. I can't recall citing them any other time.
I have provided links on Ukraine to serious sources but, of course, you didn't look.
harrowgate, you never cease to amuse.
In sum:
The Crack Emcee has no metrics available by which to measure this president. Therefore, this president cannot fail in his measure. It matters not how horribly wrong things go, as the goal posts will presently be withdrawn.
ARM is even easier to mock. ARM believes that Russia's interests are better judged by ARM than Putin's interests are judged by Putin. And that somehow Putin and Russia can be disaggregated.
Meanwhile, back in reality, I can properly judge how foreign leaders have taken the measure of Obama by their actions. Obama has been found wanting. And at this point the spoils are being divided.
Pointedly? I'll bet that a misprint. The NY Times must have meant "pointlessly".
Nichevo, when did I say that I was "fine with revolution in Egypt"? I don't remember saying anything of the kind. I may have clarified that my objections to the Ukrainian situation applied only on the presupposition of a Republican form of government, and that they did not apply of their own force to the removal of Murbarak, but I certainly never gave my blessing to that.
"I must tell you I have nothing but contempt for the lawful neutral, but go on."
I'm not a "lawful neutral" and said so in that thread. That was someone else's objection to my position, not my own claim.
"Putin shares your fervor? You really think Putin might, even in a dream, act other than to maximize the Russian geopolitical outcome under all circumstances?"
I think that Douthat's column last week was trenchant in assessing the shape and limits of Putin's dreams. Putin dreams of a strong Russia serving as a bulwark against the liberals of western Europe, often with sympathy from western conservatives--much as it did in the 19th century. As to whether that is a viable dream, see Douthat's column.
"Russia should be pushed back into a rump state and all the Russians abroad should be sent back by third class freight."
You realize that you just tipped your hand, right? Your position on this issue, you just confessed, is driven by an anti-Russian chauvinism. What drives that? What's the beef?
This is a good article on the Russian mindset at the moment, albeit somewhat biased, as the author would no doubt admit.
Quote:
"One of the reasons I left my correspondent's post in Moscow was because Russia, despite all the foam on the water, is ultimately a very boring place. Unfortunately, all you really need to do to seem clairvoyant about the place is to be an utter pessimist."
Fen said...
"we promised to protect them if they gave up their nukes"
Did we? We promised to tattle to mom--the United Nations--if the "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used." In any event, that commits us to doing nothing more than tattling, but what is the triggering event? How do we read that clause? It is ambiguous; does it mean that we tattle if the "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression (or an object of a threat of aggression) in which nuclear weapons are used," or does it mean that we should tattle if the "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression (or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used)"?
Given the treaty's focus on nuclear weapons, the former is the more sensible reading, on the face of things, but I'll bet that the revolutionary government in Kiev reads it (conveniently) in the latter sense.
Lest we become too focused on Ukraine, a bit of news about China.
the PLA has been given new task: To be able to conduct a short, sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea, followed by what can only be expected [as] a seizure of the Senkakus, or even the southern Ryukus,” he said.
I'm sure Obama is up to the task.
Drago said...
David: "Anyone who thinks we should oppose Russia militarily in the Crimea, raise your hand."
Now this, ladies and gentlemen, is what I would term a very loose question.
Quick clarification: Are we limited by theater of operations?
Are clandestine activities included in your "military" descriptor?
Have at it, Drago. Any or all of the above. But I want to see someone who has a proposal for action rather than just bitching that Obama has done nothing.
Just tell me what you think he (which means we but not you or me) should do.
All you have to do is look at a map to see why we can't exactly intervene on behalf of the Ukrainian rebels.
Since that is out, what else do you recommend?
Lovely. After Obama's speech Putin sends in the helicopters with troops. Then Obama blows off a meeting of his National Security Council. Couldn't he at least pretend to be concerned with the situation?
As to Simon, he's going to have to figure out the difference between Putsch pushed through by a small extreme element and a genuine uprising by the people.
All you have to do is look at a map to see why we can't exactly intervene on behalf of the Ukrainian rebels.
What's wrong with your map?
As for actions, for starters we've got a Marine Expiditionary Unit within range. Drop them in.
Ooh, tipped my hand, yes, I would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids! Russians speak strongly and have no reason or right to fear or resent those who do the same.
Russians should be deported because their presence and existence serves, and is intended to serve, as a provocation to enable Russian meddling in those areas anytime something happens that Russia doesn't quite like. In other words Russian communities abroad are all in effect fifth columns and should be dealt with as the threats they are.
As for third class, fuck them. Russians are third class. Who else drags "paramilitaries" around with them on adventures like this and Georgia? They steal the fucking toilets out of people's houses. What shit is that? Fucking peasants. Third class is just about right.
The reason Russia should stop fearing the West is not because we conceal or don't conceal our well justified contempt, but because to their south and east they have real enemies who will fuck, kill, eat and wear the skins of Russia, the very first chance they get.
Michael K: "The PLA has been given new task: To be able to conduct a short, sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea, followed by what can only be expected [as] a seizure of the Senkakus, or even the southern Ryukus,” he said."
The Chinese already have the correlation of forces necessary to perform the task of a short sharp effort (it would be war but it wouldn't be drawn out) to destroy Japanese forces in the East China Sea.
Their surface to surface missile technology is outstanding and given their numbers it will prove to be a very difficult task to roll that offensive capability back, not without significant US Naval forces losses.
Particularly if an action such as that were initiated in concert with another large scale regional action.
We have scaled our forces back sufficiently to make quite problematic our ability to handle more than 1 crisis anywhere in the world.
The most likely and feared scenario? NKorea takes out Seoul and heads south with the Chinese executing a simultaneous East China Sea clearing action leading to potential amphibious assaults on Taiwan.
I say "potential because without significant in place assets in Taiwan any incursion onto Taiwan would be extremely problematic for the Chinese.
Unless the Chinese decided that a truly decapitated Taiwan was acceptable to reclaim it.
The world is watching patiently as the west continues it's voluntary withdrawal from the world stage.
"smart diplomacy".
What I find odd about the right-wing blather regarding Russian is that by any reasonable criteria the county has been spectacularly poorly managed for decades. Yet, by some magical alchemy, this leaden country is turned into a gold in the eyes of the right-wingers whenever it comes to a discussion of its geo-political maneuverings. Without fail however, these maneuvers ultimately prove to be missteps leading to a further irreversible decline in Russian prestige and relevance.
Ok Fen what is the order of battle? I'm in your side but I'm not up on it. What could we do? You know that's a Russian lake, right? Do we have forces that could interdict those Russian flotillas waiting offshore for an invitation?
The thing is I would expect Ukraine does. Remember who sold Georgia the SAMs that made Russia look so stupid for a while. surely they have some AShM assets? But is the Ukrainian military both unified behind the new government and up to speed?
If need be I'd rather drop crates of weapons and comms to Ukrainian partisans than drop regiments of paras among them. Maybe some teams, but I'd rather be sly than go toe to toe. Ideally those ships would all blow up "accidentally" due to "negligence" or some such.
Big Mike: "As to Simon, he's going to have to figure out the difference between Putsch pushed through by a small extreme element and a genuine uprising by the people"
Not really.
You see, understanding what's happening is not Simon's or any of the lefties objectives.
The objective is to provide cover for obama.
Once you understand that fully, everything the lefties are saying makes perfect sense.
hey ARM, Russia's best and only exports, aside from its escaping people, are vodka, oil, whores, weapons, and death. As Neal Stephenson once said, get a Russian to make you a pair of shoes, they'll look like the box the shoes come in; ask him for a gadget to kill Germans with, he turns into Thomas fucking Edison. International intrigue is their best and only dance move.
And it's not decades, ARM, it's centuries, if not millenia.
LOL
Gotta love ARM's doubling down/changing the subject.
Can't blame him really. What else does he have?
ARM: "What I find odd about the right-wing blather regarding Russian is that by any reasonable criteria the county has been spectacularly poorly managed for decades."
LOL
The left TOLD us for decades that we had to come to grips with an ascendant Soviet Union.
It was Reagan who pushed back hard against that idea. And the left hated him for it.
Naturally.
You should look up the letter that Teddy Kennedy sent to the Soviet leadership after Reagan was elected letting them know how happy he would be to work with them to contain Reagan.
I'm sure garage will have nothing to say about that display of heroic patriotism.
ARM: "Yet, by some magical alchemy, this leaden country is turned into a gold in the eyes of the right-wingers whenever it comes to a discussion of its geo-political maneuverings."
LOL
You don't have to be geo-political genius to outmaneuver one Barack Obama.
Which is our point.
Which you are avoiding.
'Cuz, what are you gonna say?
LOL
ARM: "Without fail however, these maneuvers ultimately prove to be missteps leading to a further irreversible decline in Russian prestige and relevance."
These maneuvers ultimately prove to be "missteps" when western leaders, like a Reagan, or a Thatcher or a Pope JP decide to exert REAL pressure in multiple theaters causing these "missteps" to actually become missteps.
Something tells me the days of US leaders pushing back hard against the Sovie....er Russians are far in the past.
Putin sees this.
EVERYONE sees this.
Remember all the folks who constantly wanted the US to refer all international matters to the UN. They are mostly the same people who are bending over backwards to explain how Russia and China have the right to do whatever they want to do to their neighbors. Because, they have interests in the area or something.
On the other hand, the same people also deny the US has any right to secure its border with Mexico. Because, apparently, it's all our fault, or something.
They are consistent in one thing. They believe firmly in international law only in those cases where it might hurt the US.
Trash +eleventy11111!1!111
ARM. Describe how the Syrian gambit was a misstep for Russia. And how is the leader of a country declining in prestige and relevance named the most powerful man in the world?
It is pretty to think that the ambitions of others track the ambitions, or lack thereof, of ourselves. But they do not.
Trashhauler: "They are mostly the same people who are bending over backwards to explain how Russia and China have the right to do whatever they want to do to their neighbors."
Well, we certainly don't see any of our leftist brethren complaining much about Maduros Cuban-secret police trained thug militias zipping about on their motorcycles shooting up protestors with their ACTUAL assualt rifles.
But why would the left complain?
Maduro's one of them.
And he's only doing what they dream of doing.
ARM. Describe how the Syrian gambit was a misstep for Russia. And how is the leader of a country declining in prestige and relevance named the most powerful man in the world?
It is pretty to think that the ambitions of others track the ambitions, or lack thereof, of ourselves. But they do not.
I just read the Budapest Memorandum. It's a quadrilateral agreement between the UK, USA, Russia and the Ukraine, necessitated largely as a result of the presence and control in the Ukraine of nuclear weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
There is the usual statement that the borders of the Ukraine should not be violated. Russia, UK and the USA all said so. But there's no explicit agreement by the US or UK to assist Ukraine in the event of a violation of its borders by Russia or anyone else.
Some of the discussion in this thread seems to equate this document with a bilateral security agreement between the US and the Ukraine. That's absurd. We would be fools to pledge to intervene militarily if Russia moved into Ukraine. This is true mainly because we lack the military capacity to do so without beginning an all out war on multiple fronts with Russia.
We did not have that power even in 1994, and we surely do not have it now.
Again, what would you have us do, other than the usual economic pressures?
Is it really in our national interest to draw a "red line" on the borders of the Ukraine?
You have to know when, where and how you should fight. It's valid to criticize Obama for not having a clear view on this. If he does, I do not know what it is. But the notion, implicit in many of these comments, that we should be using other than diplomatic or economic power against Russia in this particular situation is mindless, without some suggestion of what that action might be.
Do you really think our war fighters would agree that this would he a good idea?
Fen said...
All you have to do is look at a map to see why we can't exactly intervene on behalf of the Ukrainian rebels.
What's wrong with your map?
As for actions, for starters we've got a Marine Expiditionary Unit within range. Drop them in.
And then try to resupply them, Fen. Good luck with that and the air support.
Jesus.
Let's keep in mind that Ukraine is about the size of Texas. Nobody is just going to roll in and take over the whole place. That said, Crimea might be thought a reasonable mouthful for the bear to bite off. The question is how many teeth it can be made to cost them.
Michael said...
And how is the leader of a country declining in prestige and relevance named the most powerful man in the world?
Is your argument that Russian has shrewdly played its hand over the last three decades and is now a significantly stronger and more powerful country that it was at the time of the break-up of the USSR? Can you provide some metrics to support this assertion? Compare and contrast with Germany and China's advances over the same time period.
but yeah, Fen, the Black Sea is a Russian Lake and they are at the very foot of their supply lines while we would be at the very end of ours. Incidentally, we're also depending on the Russia for transport in and out of Afghanistan, so a stand up fight is a little tricky.
ARM 8:32. Duh! Would you say otherwise?
Boy, it was stupid for Ukraine to give up its nukes. I wonder why they did that. I wouldn't have done that for anything less than ironclad guarantees of territorial integrity, plus treats.
ARM. As you have no idea of what you are talking about I wont bother to school you on the contrast in the Russian economy over the stated period. You can do that yourself if you have any real interest. No one was comparing Russia with Germany or China except you in trying to divert the discussion. Russia has ambitions that you do not wish to acknowledge. Cant help you there either, pal.
You might count the client states of Russia today versus eight years ago and compare and contrast those with our own. Net gains?
ARM says "What I find odd about the right-wing blather regarding Russian is that by any reasonable criteria the county has been spectacularly poorly managed for decades."
Hitler and Germany were essentially bankrupt when they began WWII. It is well known in history (to those who read history) that tyrants often seek foreign adventure to distract from domestic failurel
Nichevo said...
Boy, it was stupid for Ukraine to give up its nukes. I wonder why they did that.
Good question. It did postpone the invasion for 20 years. My guess is that they were going to lose the nukes one way or another.
Fen - "What's wrong with your map?
As for actions, for starters we've got a Marine Expiditionary Unit within range. Drop them in."
Got it! Then old Nazi invasion maps in hand, the "Heroes with Boots on the Ground" will need the entire Black Sea Fleet destroyed to be able to get in ad land, then resupplied. Then the bombing of multiple Russian airfields within range of Crimea or in Crimea would have to happen.
Then the "Heroes" can go toe to toe with Russian marine forces stationed there to protect the Fleet from ground attack and as a side mission protect the 70% Russian population....which are as unlikely to welcome the "Hero Americans" as liberators as the Afghans or Sunni Iraqis.
OF course, we can also warn the Russians to refrain from attacking our ships in retaliation, or hitting American assets in Europe and E Asia with cruise missiles and bombers...
Such a splendid war the Neocons and their lackeys could have!!
Fen - "Just call me a tactical genius". One of the premium saber rattling blowhards at Althouse when it comes to how to specify starting a reckless Neocon adventure!
Maps: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/27/world/europe/ukraine-divisions-crimea.html?_r=0
One of them shows why fracking may bet more popular in Europe in a quick hurry.
Nichevo said...
Let's keep in mind that Ukraine is about the size of Texas.
And if you think parts of Texas are right wing . . .
David said...
One of them shows why fracking may bet more popular in Europe in a quick hurry.
Yes I also saw this map. Scottish independence is looking a lot more practical right at this moment.
Fen - "Just call me a tactical genius".
Thanks. But the MEU would be allowed to land unopposed. Russian troops would avoid engaging them because to do so would risk everything Russsia already has.
Putin's a bully. If you think he's going to start a nuclear war by killing our MEU, you're a bigger moron than I took you for.
Also, a coward.
Drago said...
"You see, understanding what's happening is not Simon's or any of the lefties objectives. The objective is to provide cover for obama."
I don't know what the lefties are up to, but for my part, I have no brief to give Obama cover; moreover, since my comments here are critical of both his general stance vis-a-vis Russia and his specific response to this crisis, it borders on irrational to say that I'm "covering" him.
And then try to resupply them, Fen. Good luck with that and the air support.
I forgot, you people don't even know what a MEU is. They're a speed bump. Cross them and Moscow dies.
What's your brilliant plan? So afraid of war that you'll let them march into the Ruhr valley? How did that work out for us?
Big Mike said...
" As to Simon, he's going to have to figure out the difference between Putsch pushed through by a small extreme element and a genuine uprising by the people."
If such a thing exists, it isn't what happened in the Ukraine. What happened in the Ukraine is analogous, as I've said, to the Democrats losing the next election and ousting the legitimate Republican President by violence. The losing side of an election can't "withdraw the consent of the governed," as someone put it the other day. If such a withdrawal can ever be legitimate, it cannot be divided down partisan lines.
Russia is NOT the bigger threat here. The bigger threat here is licensing the overthrow of elected governments, because that way lies chaos and revolution. I hope that President Obama realizes that.
"Scottish independence is looking a lot more practical right at this moment. "
Will they be using the GBP or the Euro? LOL.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was not, strictly speaking, Kennedy's fault. But it was Kennedy's inexperience that caused Kruschev to gamble on putting the missiles there. None of the Ukranian situation is in any way Obama's fault, but Obama's ineffectuality may cause Putin to go too far......I think if Saddam had it to do over again, he would probably decide that cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors would be the smarter move. Saddam was playing games, and Bush was playing for keeps. It's easy to misread the other guy's head feints.......It's early in this crisis. Putin could easily provoke an armed uprising. Obama could easily be pressured to supplying arms to the Ukrainian opposition. One step at a time until you're over the cliff.
Simon said...
I don't know what the lefties are up to,
For future reference a 'leftie', or libtard as they are known in the trade, is anyone who disagrees with the views of men of a certain age and privilege. Not to be confused with RINOs, for which you now carry the mark of shame.
I don't know much about Ukrainian history, but it seems to me that they've got as much reason to resent the Russians as the Irish do to resent the English and Crack has to resent white people.
ARM: For future reference a 'leftie', or libtard as they are known in the trade, is -
No. Lefties want to overthrow America and replace it with their marxist statist "utopia"
Libtards are those who are too stupid to reason beyond a facebook meme.
Its possible to be both. Note that while Liberals can also be Libtards, they are considered "useful idiots" by Lefties.
Fen - "Just call me a tactical genius".
Thanks. But the MEU would be allowed to land unopposed. Russian troops would avoid engaging them because to do so would risk everything Russsia already has.
Putin's a bully. If you think he's going to start a nuclear war by killing our MEU, you're a bigger moron than I took you for.
==============
Ah, Fen the military tactical genius responds!
Why, Fen thinks the move is brilliant because unlike landing the Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs or the Heroes that were supposed to be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and also unopposed the neocons said as Noble Afghan Freedom Lovers laid rose petals at their feet....
This time it would be different! The Russians would allow Americans to invade unopposed, because unlike the Cubans or Vietnamese or Iraqis or Afghan Freedom LOvers that kill Americans defending their homeland...Russians would not defend a critical strategic part of Russia or the Russian population because we would nuke Russia and "end Russia" says Fen, the armchair general.
You can see why the Neocons had such faith in the guillability of their dumber flock and thought they would run US policy for decades instead of the few short post 9/11 years of merry subversion of US foreign policy they had.
ARM: "For future reference a 'leftie', or libtard as they are known in the trade, is anyone who disagrees with the views of men of a certain age and privilege"
LOL
ARM pops in with a "privilege" gambit.
Nice little marxist rhetoric you've got going on there.
LOL
"privilege"
Too funny.
The Crack Emcee said...
I like how if I come in racially, I get dumped on, but if I don't - I get dumped on.
So they guy who turned every discussion for a month into accusations of racism on the part of all whites is whining about people turning the topic to race.
Too funny. Shocking people react to baseless accusations of racism. It's so unfair to hold such accusations against the accuser.
Cedarford: "..the Heroes that were supposed to be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and also unopposed the neocons said as Noble Afghan Freedom Lovers laid rose petals at their feet....."
Whoa whoa whoa there buddy.
In the "remove saddam from power" phase of the operation (prior to the change in mission) American troops in many areas of Iraq WERE welcomed as liberators. And yes, some had flowers given to them/thrown to them. Anyone who says otherwise is utterly uninformed or simply full of beans.
As for the "unopposed" BS, I'll need to see a few links before I believe anyone was so stupid as to think we would be "unopposed".
So, you know, don't hold back Cedarford. Lets see those links to people claiming we would be unopposed.
This should be good.
Crack... Let's continue... I've had a dinner with my sons, and now I can talk again..
"I like you. We don't agree but you're not crazy. "
That disarmed me. A'ight, I will try to lower the temperature. A black man who says this to a Russian Jew cannot be all that bad. To be continued.
Drago, did you actually READ my post that quoted Fen as stating we would land unopposed??
"As for the "unopposed" BS, I'll need to see a few links before I believe anyone was so stupid as to think we would be "unopposed".
So, you know, don't hold back Cedarford. Lets see those links to people claiming we would be unopposed."
OK, so you are agreeing with me that "tactical genius" Fen really is that stupid. That is a start.
"I'm a Republican, and my party's behavior towards race, racism, white supremacy and a whole host of other issues is atrocious. I don't have to defend that position - they've admitted it. If anything, I'm trying to you guys a favor. "
Nope. I am a republican too, and no, republicans are not racists - no more than democrats or liberals or any other group. And no, "they" did not admit being racist.
"Didn't you say you're from Russia? Dude, it's a family argument, long overdue. I'm not saying you're not in the family, but get the facts before you take sides, if it needs anymore fleshing out than the obvious."
Family arguments tend to me most angry. Anyway, I am not saying we should not argue - I am just saying you are totally wrong.
Simon, let's play just a little while I can stand you. Obviously you buy into Russ is getting a Near Abroad sphere influence, i.e. a ring of slave states (please don't pretend they're anything else). How far out can they grab? When should they stop? Turkey? Italy? Brittany
================
You act like the "Near Abroad" is Russian expansionism into regions they never had influence in before. When in fact the "Near Abroad" has been around for 700 years and has mostly been a welcome partnership with Russia, largely acting as a protector of Christian populations against the violence and oppression of the Turks and their Muslim vassals like the Tatar slavers and Albanians. A relationship unlike China has with its present and former (and hoped to be reclaimed soon thanks to Walmart dollars) tribute states.
During the Cold War, of course, neither side respected "spheres of influence" in diplomatic concept. We were stirring up anti-Russian sentiments in Muslim regions in and adjacent to Russia as early as the late 40s as part of "containment", and fostering nationalism. And Russia of course felt their interests and advancing communist revolution made every nation on the globe a legit target.
After the Cold War, you can say that the US perhaps pushed Russia too far under Clinton and Bush. A lot of US meddling in the Near Far, for the "Freedom-loving Chechens", war in what Russia considered its Protectorate - the Balkans. Then the US attempted grab of Central Asian resources following 9/11, which led to Russia and China joining forces to largely oust the Americans from their backyards.
The result in recent years is a Russia a lot more hostile to America than need be...especially since none of the US economic, political, and military intervention in the Russian sphere can truly be characterized as being in the US vital interests.
Trashhauler said...
"If you're a Muslim slave, in a Muslim world, following Muslim custom, that's vastly different than being carted off by force across the ocean to labor under the whip of crazy white people until you die."
And we know this how?
Study. Research. Education. Stuff like that.
(It's a generalization. As in all generalizations there are exceptions to the rule. But it's basically correct.)
David @ 8:10am just broke my stupid meter.
The irony meter will need some readjustments but is still operable.
Hyphenated American,
No, "they" did not admit being racist.
Notice the slight-of-hand you did there? I never said anyone admitted to BEING racist - few Americans will regardless - why'd you change it?
I'm telling you, you don't understand the game you're playing,...
Wait, wait, we all missed the obvious gag here.
If you were Putin, wouldn't you invade the Ukraine?
If I were Putin, I'd be too busy invading Anna Chapman!
A question worth pondering (LOL): Gee, why would a lifelong KGB murderous thug who has basically turned the former Soviet Union into a KGB run kleptocracy with significant residual marxist/bolshevik beliefs (uh, ARM, that's not a good thing), want to NOT align with a Western alliance that represents a more open and free philosophy?
Re-read his post. He wasn't specific about Putin doing those things for Russia, but perhaps a better leader with that frame of reference.
Crack, this is bizarre...
You write: "No, "they" did not admit being racist.
Notice the slight-of-hand you did there? I never said anyone admitted to BEING racist - few Americans will regardless - why'd you change it?"
Prior to that, you yourself wrote:
""I'm a Republican, and my party's behavior towards race, racism, white supremacy and a whole host of other issues is atrocious. I don't have to defend that position - they've admitted it. If anything, I'm trying to you guys a favor. "
A'ight, now explain what you meant when you said "they admitted that". Admitted what?
I act like everybody in the Near Abroad hates Russia and wants them to die except for the usual coterie of toadies, lackeys, flunkies and lickspittles, plus the migrant Rus populations that Russia deploys all over as tripwires with great success, just as you mock Fen for suggesting we do with the MEU.
The Grand Turk is gone. The Vikings are gone. The Western threat axis is gone. Germans like all of Western Europe want to fuck, eat and watch TV, if they bafflingly should want anything from Russia they send for it.
After "After the Cold War" you simply make no sense.
Hyphenated American,
A'ight, now explain what you meant when you said "they admitted that". Admitted what?
A racial problem. Which doesn't mean the Republican Party is racist, otherwise I wouldn't be in it, but that it hasn't come to terms with the bargain it's struck, to let racists hide behind it's skirts.
You really don't get this stuff, do you? And, if not, why the desire to lecture me?
"A racial problem. Which doesn't mean the Republican Party is racist, otherwise I wouldn't be in it, but that it hasn't come to terms with the bargain it's struck, to let racists hide behind it's skirts.
You really don't get this stuff, do you? And, if not, why the desire to lecture me?"
Oh, don't you worry about me, I got it.
Are you saying that republicans admitted that have a "racial problem", but they are not racists? Who said it? What the hell is "racial problem" if they are not racists? And how that have to do with "party's behavior towards race, racism, white supremacy and a whole host of other issues"? And what does it mean "behavior towards race"? What the hell does it even mean?
Crack, I am an engineer by training and trade, I dig deep - I have to, otherwise things don't work.
Crack, I am an engineer by training and trade, I dig deep - I have to, otherwise things don't work.
But you're not. You're asking what, to me, seem like really (pardon me) dumb questions about elementary American issues and behaviors.
White Americans, by law, enslaved and disenfranchised black Americans, and then decided that's the end of it. No serious redress. No looking at the history or the scope of the thing - which is why whites are so clumsy when attempting to discuss it. Much of it was hidden from them as well. Can't have your wedding with the plantation setting, if all they want to talk about is slavery, now can you? Of course not.
Meanwhile, from the beginning of this country's founding, whites have held another idea. One that says blacks should wait for whites to make up their minds before we can move in areas we find important. This was the point of MLK's Letter From A Birmingham Jail.
We don't wait.
And now there are books to be balanced,...
The Crack Emcee said...
White Americans, by law, enslaved and disenfranchised black Americans, and then decided that's the end of it...
We don't wait.
And now there are books to be balanced,...
Meade,
Are you still pretending Crack's racism is just an effort to refer to whites as a group? It seems clear he thinks the whites he's ready to "balance the books" against are guilty of enslavement.
"But you're not. You're asking what, to me, seem like really (pardon me) dumb questions about elementary American issues and behaviors. "
As they say in Mother Russia, "there are no dumb questions, there are only dumb people". And my questions are not dumb, you will understand that when you start answering them...
Remember when I quoted you and asked...
""I'm a Republican, and my party's behavior towards race, racism, white supremacy and a whole host of other issues is atrocious. I don't have to defend that position - they've admitted it."
Who admitted what? I know you want to talk about slavery - and sure, I can talk about it with you, but again, who admitted what? Can you be a little bit more specific?
Crack, since you refuse to answer my questions, well, sure, I can discuss slavery with you, given that you prefer to debate things from 150 years ago.... But still, everyone agrees that slavery was wrong - but that's hardly an argument for today's policies, particularly if you distort the history of slavery...
"White Americans, by law, enslaved and disenfranchised black Americans, and then decided that's the end of it."
That's a tad simplistic view of what happened. For one, White Americans did not "enslave" black Americans. They purchased black slaves from black African slave-owners, your black brothers, if I may say so, and brought them to America. At the time, as we both know, slavery was as customary in 90% of the world as iphones today - not everyone could afford one, but it was popular to have slaves. And surely you know, it ain't the whites who invented slavery either.
Secondly, it were the whites who first ended slavery - with no help from the African blacks, who happily kept slavery for a long time after that. Apparently, no one in the African continent thought twice about it....
And thirdly, whites fought other whites to end slavery, a rather astonishing thing. I don't know of any civil wars in Africa between people from the same tribe or racial groups to free slaves from another race altogether. Only white people did that. History.
"No serious redress."
Well, you did not get any "I am sorries" from the African blacks who captured your grandparents and sold them to the whites either. But that is not a biggie, I presume, right?
And moreover, yap, 150 years ago after a war which took the lives of 600,000 people, people did not do much to pay back the slaves, although I think the families of the white soldiers who died to give freedom to your grandparents may say they helped enough.
"No looking at the history or the scope of the thing - which is why whites are so clumsy when attempting to discuss it."
No, that's not it. Many of them are clumsy because they are ashamed of slavery. Chinese or Mexicans, who are far more racist than American Whites are not clumsy at all. Oh, and KKK folks are not clumsy either....
"Much of it was hidden from them as well."
What specifically that was so important - and yet hidden from you. That slavery was wrong? That millions of people were mistreated? Heck, get in line, comrade. I am a Russian Jew, I can tell you plenty of stories myself, if you care to compare victimhood. The question is - why? For what purpose?
Continued...
"Can't have your wedding with the plantation setting, if all they want to talk about is slavery, now can you? Of course not."
Well, you can't go to the big city and not discuss the black thugs either, right? I mean, the crime rate, 70% out-of-bedlock rate, dependence on welfare, victimhood. How can we discuss education policy and ignore "affirmative action", the fact that my children, who had no black slaves will be discriminated against to give way to your kids. I mean, we should not ignore that, right, if we want to be honest. Do you want to be honest? I don't believe that limiting discussion to the events 150 years ago, and ignore the history of the last 50 years is very productive. We cannot undo slavery, but we can stop anti-White and anti-Asian government discrimination now, right?
"Meanwhile, from the beginning of this country's founding, whites have held another idea. One that says blacks should wait for whites to make up their minds before we can move in areas we find important."
But whites are the majority - and you are now debating exactly what? That the combined voices of 200 million people are heavier than the voices of 40 million people? You are debating arithmetic now, not a smart move.
"We don't wait. "
Oh, you are not waiting to end slavery? Dude, slavery is gone 150 years ago. And until you start thinking about today, and by "you", I mean blacks in general, you will be stuck in ghettos, you will disproportionally uneducated, criminal and poor. You are the ones who are screwing you, not the whites or Asians.
"And now there are books to be balanced,..."
Sure - go to Europe and buy white slaves there. Who is stopping you?
You are the one who is having "Race problems", not republicans. The worst thing you can say about Republicans is that they are too timid to stand up and tell you - "hey, until you guys stop whining, nothing good will happen to you. " Cause that's the truth, brother.
Post a Comment