"Obama Warns Russia - US/EU united" - I must admit I have goose pimples right now...

[Clementine]

All I know is that the 80's called and want us to know that we still need to be tough when it comes to commies.

 

[Avorysuds]

By all means, please explain what Obama should have done by now to stop Putin from taking over Crimea and Ukraine.

Also, I'm not a Democrat and I didn't vote for Obama.

Nothing, zero. Not our problem. Nothing good is coming out of Obama making it our problem.

So................ you're saying that Obama was weak for getting involved in the rest of the world, and he would show America's huge swinging balls by sitting on his ass while Russia begins conquering nations? Please explain.

No you dumb fuck, I already said why he is weak, because HE... OBAMA... ON HIS OWN.... Drew red lines to appear strong/badass... Then he caved. So now he keeps redrawing the lines, kinda like he keeps changing the numbers for Obamacare awhile also pushing out the deadline.

Next is how you claim Russia will begin conquering nation(s)

You win bro! Hell, who can defeat someone who makes BS up as they go along.

 

[Avorysuds]

So................ you're saying that Obama was weak for getting involved in the rest of the world, and he would show America's huge swinging balls by sitting on his ass while Russia begins conquering nations? Please explain.

This has got to be the biggest U turn the world has ever seen. One post "Obama is weak" and the next "he shouldn't make it our problem".

You need to learn to read.

 

[Clementine]

So................ you're saying that Obama was weak for getting involved in the rest of the world, and he would show America's huge swinging balls by sitting on his ass while Russia begins conquering nations? Please explain.

This has got to be the biggest U turn the world has ever seen. One post "Obama is weak" and the next "he shouldn't make it our problem".

Why does Obama bother with his so-called threats? He tells them not to do it after Russian troops were in Ukraine. He looks like an idiot because he acts like he wants to be tough, then quickly backs down. I can't figure out what his stand on this is because of the way he says one thing and does another. And Biden was out there saying the opposite of what Obama was saying at one point. Good grief, they look like fools.

It's just like the time he drew a red line, then did nothing and claimed he never said he drew a red line. There is video of him saying he drew a red line.

It's one thing today and a different thing tomorrow. Sure is obvious that Obama doesn't know what to do and that makes him a poor leader.

 

[Politico]

Liberal progressive fucks will cheer Obama taking us into ANOTHER war, this time one that might nuke back...


Fan-fucking-tastic.

And why does Obama do this? Because he's a arrogant, skinny fuck who never worked a real job in his life and fears looking weak to his base.

That's what all this shit about, not wanting to look weak, and because of that Obama is willing to risk ww3. What is America, I mean "nato" going to do when Putin start fighting back... escalate? And when Putin keeps fighting back? Escalate more? At what point do you think Putin will attack aggressive countries on their home soil...?

Thanks Obama, yet the best!

more then likely it will be a strongly worded letter

demanding the reset (over charge) button back

--LOL

More like a strongly wagging finger.

 

[frigidweirdo]

All I know is that the 80's called and want us to know that we still need to be tough when it comes to commies.

Only they weren't Communists in the USSR, and they certainly aren't Communists now, they're more right wing nationalists and closer to the republican party than the democrat party.

 

[KNB]

Conservatives want to go back to the 1980s? Do you know how the US handled the Soviets in the 80s?

It involved supporting the jihad in Afghanistan.

Conservative Republicans would certainly not have any problem with Obama giving aid to terrorists, right?

 

[Indofred]

By the way, what is the difference between a warning and a threat? And aren't these threats getting old? We all remember how Bush "warned" Putin about kicking Georgian thugs out of South Ossetia after their night terrorist attack on a small nation, and what followed is Americans decided to go with a Kenyan Muslim instead of another chicken hawk. So what is next?
Discuss...

(CNN) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday again called for Russia to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine -- and warned of further isolation and "costs" if Moscow doesn't respond to the West's call for a change of course. Obama: U.S. and Europe united over Ukraine crisis - CNN.com

You have shit all to come on this one.
You engineered and supported a coup but moan about an election.
As for one mind with the EU, you said, "Fuck the EU".

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QxZ8t3V_bk]Listen: Victoria Nuland Says F*CK The E.U. in Leaked Phone Call - YouTube[/ame]

 

[FA_Q2]

Liberal progressive fucks will cheer Obama taking us into ANOTHER war, this time one that might nuke back...


Fan-fucking-tastic.

And why does Obama do this? Because he's a arrogant, skinny fuck who never worked a real job in his life and fears looking weak to his base.

That's what all this shit about, not wanting to look weak, and because of that Obama is willing to risk ww3. What is America, I mean "nato" going to do when Putin start fighting back... escalate? And when Putin keeps fighting back? Escalate more? At what point do you think Putin will attack aggressive countries on their home soil...?

Thanks Obama, yet the best!

So, when Bush went to Iraq, how did you react?

I don't understand how people can support war because "their president" started it, but they oppose war because "the other party's president" started it.

Sure you do – it’s not that complicated. Some people are partisan hacks, period. The only goal here is to be ‘right’ and they can’t see beyond that. No point in really arguing with those people though – they are not really thinking so rational discussion is not possible.

I would like to point out that Iraq and this have nothing in common at all though. Iraq was an asinine move and one of the few things that condemns Bush’s presidency all on its own (the PA is another but that is another thread altogether) but it never really was a real threat to world peace. There were concerns and flexing UN treaty obligations but as far as the ability to spark a world war or a nuclear response – nonexistent.

Russia is another story altogether though. What Obama has done so far is fail and fail miserably against their actions. They are getting more aggressive and have no problem redrawing national lines whenever they deem it necessary. The real problem here is NOT Crimea. That amounts to almost nothing in real terms. It is a territory that was essentially Russian anyway. The real problem is that each victory that Russia manages to effect gives them ever grater reason to do another. This started with georiga. That was a small and helpless nation that gave Russia a plausible reason to try and take territory and it worked. Now they have moved on to COURTIERS THAT WE ARE BOUND WITH BY TREATY. That last part is VERY important.

If we allow that to happen, where does it stop? Will it stop at all?

This idea that the right wants to see war with Russia is asinine and nothing more than the left trying to excuse Obama’s utter failure here so far (as that could change if Europe really gets behind us) and try to oaint the right with an asinine brush. What I expect from Obama is NOT to be a ‘strong’ CinC (whatever that means) or a weak one. I expect that he manage to reunite Ukraine and put Russia back into the cage WITHOUT STARTING A WAR. I expect that the vast majority of the right feels the exact same way.

IF Obama fails to do so it will be a massive failure and make the world a far more dangerous place. If Obama succeeds in getting Ukraine back but only thorough a shooting war then HE HAS STILL FAILED. That is not an acceptable outcome, period.

Lastly, I know what I would do but those posters (such as KNB) demanding what others would do is completely disingenuous. It is not about what we would do – we are not the presedent. What I expect is results. I don’t really care how Obama gets there, he is NOT in office to do ‘what I would do.’ He is there to produce results and he is responsible for those results, end of the story. So far his responsibility is utterly failing.

This is rather sad considering that so far Obama’s FP has been his ONE redeeming quality in office. I disagree with much of it BUT so far he has made improvements to Bush’s asinine invade everyone FP. Now we just bomb everyone. Maybe the next president can end that asshattery too (I know – wishful thinking). This, however, is far more than all the other FP decisions that he has been a part of and if Obama fails here none of that will really matter. He will have failed epically on FP.

For what it is worth, I hope that these ‘sanctions’ that so far have not really materialized get into gear and that it actually works. IF that is the case then I will be the first to state Obama succeeded. However, I don’t see that occurring. I don’t think he really has leaned on the EU enough to make it happen either. Perhaps you can consider that the ‘weakness’ that many see.

 

[pvsi]

By all means, please explain what Obama should have done by now to stop Putin from taking over Crimea and Ukraine.

Also, I'm not a Democrat and I didn't vote for Obama.

Nothing, zero. Not our problem. Nothing good is coming out of Obama making it our problem.

So................ you're saying that Obama was weak for getting involved in the rest of the world, and he would show America's huge swinging balls by sitting on his ass while Russia begins conquering nations? Please explain.

If America had any "swinging balls" to show, it would not take shit from Israel, a country of which all people have universal health care paid for by US tax dollars, while "our" politicians at home keep debating about how to fund a joke that they call "Obama care"

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure you do – it’s not that complicated. Some people are partisan hacks, period. The only goal here is to be ‘right’ and they can’t see beyond that. No point in really arguing with those people though – they are not really thinking so rational discussion is not possible.

I would like to point out that Iraq and this have nothing in common at all though. Iraq was an asinine move and one of the few things that condemns Bush’s presidency all on its own (the PA is another but that is another thread altogether) but it never really was a real threat to world peace. There were concerns and flexing UN treaty obligations but as far as the ability to spark a world war or a nuclear response – nonexistent.

Russia is another story altogether though. What Obama has done so far is fail and fail miserably against their actions. They are getting more aggressive and have no problem redrawing national lines whenever they deem it necessary. The real problem here is NOT Crimea. That amounts to almost nothing in real terms. It is a territory that was essentially Russian anyway. The real problem is that each victory that Russia manages to effect gives them ever grater reason to do another. This started with georiga. That was a small and helpless nation that gave Russia a plausible reason to try and take territory and it worked. Now they have moved on to COURTIERS THAT WE ARE BOUND WITH BY TREATY. That last part is VERY important.

If we allow that to happen, where does it stop? Will it stop at all?

This idea that the right wants to see war with Russia is asinine and nothing more than the left trying to excuse Obama’s utter failure here so far (as that could change if Europe really gets behind us) and try to oaint the right with an asinine brush. What I expect from Obama is NOT to be a ‘strong’ CinC (whatever that means) or a weak one. I expect that he manage to reunite Ukraine and put Russia back into the cage WITHOUT STARTING A WAR. I expect that the vast majority of the right feels the exact same way.

IF Obama fails to do so it will be a massive failure and make the world a far more dangerous place. If Obama succeeds in getting Ukraine back but only thorough a shooting war then HE HAS STILL FAILED. That is not an acceptable outcome, period.

Lastly, I know what I would do but those posters (such as KNB) demanding what others would do is completely disingenuous. It is not about what we would do – we are not the presedent. What I expect is results. I don’t really care how Obama gets there, he is NOT in office to do ‘what I would do.’ He is there to produce results and he is responsible for those results, end of the story. So far his responsibility is utterly failing.

This is rather sad considering that so far Obama’s FP has been his ONE redeeming quality in office. I disagree with much of it BUT so far he has made improvements to Bush’s asinine invade everyone FP. Now we just bomb everyone. Maybe the next president can end that asshattery too (I know – wishful thinking). This, however, is far more than all the other FP decisions that he has been a part of and if Obama fails here none of that will really matter. He will have failed epically on FP.

For what it is worth, I hope that these ‘sanctions’ that so far have not really materialized get into gear and that it actually works. IF that is the case then I will be the first to state Obama succeeded. However, I don’t see that occurring. I don’t think he really has leaned on the EU enough to make it happen either. Perhaps you can consider that the ‘weakness’ that many see.

Well, I can see they do this, I don't understand the "thought process" if there is one.

It's not that Iraq and this situation are connected per se, however I'm looking at how people react to two different situations. I could compare these to say, Rwanda where no one gave a damn, but I think Iraq under a Republican president compared to Ukraine or Libya under a Democrat president can show this difference in how people react.

Has Obama failed? I think in foreign affairs he has taken a stance, which is reducing the role of the US in interfering in other countries. Libya was an exception and I'm not sire why he did it, but possibly because of pressure from the right, and that showed some weakness.
However apart from Libya, I'd say his view on the Ukraine and Russia is consistent with keep away, however he's getting under pressure from the right again and maybe is trying to appease all sides.

I'm not suggesting the right want a war with Russia. However they want to make a stance where the US "wins" and Russia "loses". This could end up in war, I doubt it, but you never know.

My view is that Obama should have come out and said "we'll support the referendum in the Ukraine as long as there is one in Chechnya and other such places too", but this doesn't seem to have even been considered.

Yes, Obama is there to produce results. However the results will appear long after he has left office. It's tough. How will this affect world affairs in the future? It might have a positive effect in the future when seemingly negative in the present. It's a tough one.