WW-III China and Russia now Becoming Closer- Thanks to Obama

[Moonglow]

Until the Ruskies try to expand into Chinese territory...

where were the wackadoodles when putin invaded georgia in 2008?

i guess that was just fine because baby bush was president and they didn't have to faux rage all over the place.

It's election season, so the rwer's are desperate, depressed and deranged..

 

[tinydancer]

Until the Ruskies try to expand into Chinese territory...

where were the wackadoodles when putin invaded georgia in 2008?

i guess that was just fine because baby bush was president and they didn't have to faux rage all over the place.

Liar.

You are a lying douche bag.

 

[tinydancer]

Until the Ruskies try to expand into Chinese territory...

where were the wackadoodles when putin invaded georgia in 2008?

i guess that was just fine because baby bush was president and they didn't have to faux rage all over the place.

It's election season, so the rwer's are desperate, depressed and deranged..[/QUOTE ] I'm working boards across Europe. Do you really think you are the one?

Give me a break.

You really do believe in yourself dont you?

 

[beagle9]

They will treat us as liberators

They did at first, but the undermining came quickly and sadly from our own countrymen, and that turned the situation on us instead of Sadam and his hinchmen that we liberated the place from.

Bush so badly bungled the occupation that he allowed the country to fall into a Civil War.........largest blunder in recent history

You say this as if no one knows what took place all along the way be it here and there...wow

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm personally not getting the desire for WWIII.

You keep pushing Putin, you will get your wish.

Putin can't beat NATO, he knows it

He lets loose. Who cares?

Keep pushing.

Now Putin may be your idea of a real great guy, but most of the world sees him as trying to re-establish the Russian Empire. And we can easily whip Russia outside of Russian Territory. The American Military is the strongest in the world, bar none.

However, we do not need a nuclear war. And we can eliminate Russia as a power through extended economic measures. And that is exactly what our President's strategy is. Avoid military conflict, and inflict damage that Russia cannot afford. As one that was in uniform and on base when we stopped the Soviet ships off of Cuba, I hope never to have a day again where I am wondering if I will even see the flash of the bomb that kills me.

 

[Londoner]

Since Obama's apology tour, I can see things sure are going smoothly throughout the world

-Geaux

Martin Armstrong Fears World War III Is On The Horizon

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,

Russia and China are becoming closer thanks to Obama and his insane policies behind the NSA that have left America trying to find friends in a dark hour. The sanctions being imposed on Russia have sent China into its camp. The USA is finding it increasingly more difficult to be the bully in the school-yard.

No former administration has ever acted with such arrogance and blind stupidity than the Obama Administration. The net result is to empower Russia and to inspire a new dynamic-duo of Russia-China against the USA.

China supported Russia, when Western countries launched an anti-Russian campaign. With both of their economies turning down, this is by no means the proper time to impose sanctions.

All this policy is doing is re-enforcing Putin and placing him in the position where he must become more aggressive or seem weak in the shadow of Obama.

Martin Armstrong Fears World War III Is On The Horizon | Zero Hedge

The Blog suggests that Obama's policies have been too tough on Russia, which has driven Putin closer to China (another Rightwing demon, despite being the place where so many of our capitalists get their products manufactured).

Specifically, the OP referenced a blog that suggests Obama has wrongly isolated Russia economically, partly by influencing the WTO to place restrictions on Russian goods.

What is interesting is that the Republican party has been pushing for even greater economic isolation coupled with aggression, whereas the blog seems to suggest the exact opposite is needed, namely trusting Russia and accepting them into the global economy... which is the best way to remove their incentive for aggression.

The OPs thread, because it is anti-Obama, is going to attract low information Republican voters. These are the kinds of voters who don't realize what Armstrong is saying, namely that Russia is not dangerous and should be embraced by the US and the West. In other words, Romney was insane for saying Russia was a threat. Moreover, treating them like a threat merely ensures that they will become one.

Here is what is more interesting. The OP doesn't provide one shred of evidence in support of the blog's conclusion. Worse, the blog itself simply does not support its claims with evidence. There is a general mention of Obama's policies and sanctions, but we don't see one sentence from an actual sanction or policy. Why can't the OP walk us through a recent history of US policy toward Russia? Why is he merely cutting and pasting the conclusions of a hack who is clearly taking advantage of readers who don't require evidence or argument? It would be nice to see a list of U.S. sanctions toward Russia, including the ones created by Bush in response to Georgia, which were lifted by Obama in 2010.

The OP is encouraged to educate himself on these issues rather than scanning the internet for anti-Obama pot-shots. The world is a very complicated place, but when you narrow your information gathering around demonizing one person, you end up missing a whole lotta context and whole lotta facts. Even worse, you attract the anti-Obama crowd, who accepts the blog's conclusion without even knowing what the blog is claiming - or the degree to which the blog contradicts their own stance on Russia. (This what low information voters do - and it is why the GOP has so aggressively recruited these people)

 

[Indofred]

[

The Blog suggests that Obama's policies have been too tough on Russia, which has driven Putin closer to China (another Rightwing demon, despite being the place where so many of our capitalists get their products manufactured).

and where a bunch of American's jobs have gone.
The right wing have outsourced to China and closed the American factories, putting American workers out of their jobs.

However, these same people push an anti Chinese agenda.

I assume they think Americans are too stupid to see what really going on.
They're clearly correct.

 

[Unkotare]

Since Obama's apology tour, I can see things sure are going smoothly throughout the world

-Geaux

Martin Armstrong Fears World War III Is On The Horizon

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,

Russia and China are becoming closer thanks to Obama and his insane policies behind the NSA that have left America trying to find friends in a dark hour. The sanctions being imposed on Russia have sent China into its camp.

obama is dangerously incompetent, but Russia and China hate each other. Of all the worries we have, that is pretty low on the list.

 

[beagle9]

Putin can't beat NATO, he knows it

He lets loose. Who cares?

Keep pushing.

Now Putin may be your idea of a real great guy, but most of the world sees him as trying to re-establish the Russian Empire. And we can easily whip Russia outside of Russian Territory. The American Military is the strongest in the world, bar none.

However, we do not need a nuclear war. And we can eliminate Russia as a power through extended economic measures. And that is exactly what our President's strategy is. Avoid military conflict, and inflict damage that Russia cannot afford. As one that was in uniform and on base when we stopped the Soviet ships off of Cuba, I hope never to have a day again where I am wondering if I will even see the flash of the bomb that kills me.

So blackmailing or leverage used by economic sanctions as would be applied, ummm that don't start or rather can't start wars in and of itself ? You know something, there actually may be those out there whom can't be bought or intimidated by another like our politicians can right here, and if they (the ones under threat) think the ones that are trying to buy them out (destablize them) or threaten them with economic sanctions (or) is trying to stop others from buying from them in order to hurt them in that way, and that it is the answer always in their minds, then what do you think that will do for a people who are told to be afraid of becoming morally degraded and infested by another in the world if they give in to these things like this, and especially if this is told to them by their leader who will use a nations weakness against the situation in this way ? It is very powerful stuff getting a nation to be afraid of another that may bring about the moral decay of a nations people, if they allow that nation to buy them like a cheap wine.

Immoralism and degradation is in many peoples minds, a far greater threat to people in the world, than simply folding due to the threats of economic sanctions and/or other such threats given. Especially if the threats are in order to make them capitulate and/or to agree (back down), from what they see as a threat to their way of life or culture, and this all due to money or economic threats being laid upon them when they are attempting something else in which they somehow see as important to them. Nations whom think that other nations are subject only to being tied to others out of greed or economic needs, are just foolish, and if they think that they have nothing else going in their lives within a nation no more than that, ummm well I think the one who thinks that sanctions will work like a dream always, might end up regretting that sort of thinking in the end is my opinion.

 

[beagle9]

Since Obama's apology tour, I can see things sure are going smoothly throughout the world

-Geaux

Martin Armstrong Fears World War III Is On The Horizon

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,

Russia and China are becoming closer thanks to Obama and his insane policies behind the NSA that have left America trying to find friends in a dark hour. The sanctions being imposed on Russia have sent China into its camp.

obama is dangerously incompetent, but Russia and China hate each other. Of all the worries we have, that is pretty low on the list.

Best do your history on strange bedfellows during world war two then. It will be an eye opener for sure.

Do you know that Stalin and Hitler had a pact not to attack one another when Hitler went into Polan ? They were to divide Polan up between each other.

 

[Unkotare]

Since Obama's apology tour, I can see things sure are going smoothly throughout the world

-Geaux

Martin Armstrong Fears World War III Is On The Horizon

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,

Russia and China are becoming closer thanks to Obama and his insane policies behind the NSA that have left America trying to find friends in a dark hour. The sanctions being imposed on Russia have sent China into its camp.

obama is dangerously incompetent, but Russia and China hate each other. Of all the worries we have, that is pretty low on the list.

Best do your history on strange bedfellows during world war two then. It will be an eye opener for sure...

You should have kept your eyes open and read a little further on.

 

[beagle9]

obama is dangerously incompetent, but Russia and China hate each other. Of all the worries we have, that is pretty low on the list.

Best do your history on strange bedfellows during world war two then. It will be an eye opener for sure...

You should have kept your eyes open and read a little further on.

I'm here at the furtherest point, so what are you reffering to as further on ?

 

[Unkotare]

Best do your history on strange bedfellows during world war two then. It will be an eye opener for sure...

You should have kept your eyes open and read a little further on.

I'm here at the furtherest point, so what are you reffering to as further on ?

You only mentioned "during world war two [sic]." Is that what you consider "the furtherest [sic] point"?

 

[beagle9]

You should have kept your eyes open and read a little further on.

I'm here at the furtherest point, so what are you reffering to as further on ?

You only mentioned "during world war two [sic]." Is that what you consider "the furtherest [sic] point"?

The furthest here on this thread, but if you have more to add, then a link will be sufficient enough.

 

[KissMy]

Both China and Russia have been pouring money into their military. We are the ones making the reductions. Democrats think that all we need are gays and Chicago homies.

LOL - China's Navy is stretched beyond it's limit & forced to accept assistance searching for the missing Malaysian flight MH370. Yet the scared queers over here are peeing their panties. If China presses hard they will not have a navy capable of protecting its strategic interests in its Asia Pacific region any sooner than 2050. At least until then the USA will continue to protect their region for them.

 

[Geaux4it]

David Brooks: Obama Has A 'Manhood Problem' In Middle East

The New York Times

New York Times columnist David Brooks on Sunday criticized President Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East and toward Russia.

"Let's face it, Obama, whether deservedly or not, does have a (I'll say it crudely) but a manhood problem in the Middle East: Is he tough enough to stand up to somebody like Assad, somebody like Putin?" Brooks said on NBC's "Meet the Press." " I think a lot of the rap is unfair. But certainly in the Middle East, there's an assumption he's not tough."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/david-brooks-obama-manhood-problem

 

[Sallow]

Since Obama's apology tour, I can see things sure are going smoothly throughout the world

-Geaux

Martin Armstrong Fears World War III Is On The Horizon

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics blog,

Russia and China are becoming closer thanks to Obama and his insane policies behind the NSA that have left America trying to find friends in a dark hour. The sanctions being imposed on Russia have sent China into its camp. The USA is finding it increasingly more difficult to be the bully in the school-yard.

No former administration has ever acted with such arrogance and blind stupidity than the Obama Administration. The net result is to empower Russia and to inspire a new dynamic-duo of Russia-China against the USA.

China supported Russia, when Western countries launched an anti-Russian campaign. With both of their economies turning down, this is by no means the proper time to impose sanctions.

All this policy is doing is re-enforcing Putin and placing him in the position where he must become more aggressive or seem weak in the shadow of Obama.

Martin Armstrong Fears World War III Is On The Horizon | Zero Hedge

Thanks to Obama?



Sino-Russian Military Maneuvers: A Threat to U.S. Interests inEurasia

Peace Mission 2005, the unprecedented Sino-Rus*sian joint military exercises held on August 18-25, should raise concerns in Washington. The war games are a logical outcome of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Good Neighborly Friendship and Cooperation, signed in 2001, and the shared worldview and grow*ing economic ties between the two giant powers.

Moscow and Beijing view U.S. predominance in the post-Cold War world as a threat to their power. The steadily improving Sino-Russian partnership is limiting and may significantly diminish the U.S. stra*tegic presence in the Eurasian landmass from the Pacific Ocean to the Baltic Sea.

Hmm..2001? Who was President back then?

And who was pissing off both countries?

Hainan Island incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But in Moscow today Mr. Putin, while saying that the decision was not unexpected, repeated in a nationwide television address Russia's oft-stated position that the treaty is a cornerstone of world security. He said the decision to withdraw was "an erroneous one."

"As is well known, Russia and the U.S., unlike other nuclear powers, have for a long time possessed effective means to overcome missile defenses," he said.

"Therefore I fully believe that the decision taken by the president of the United States does not pose a threat to the national security of the Russian Federation."

Other Russian officials acknowledged that under the terms of the treaty, the United States had the right to withdraw after giving six months' notice. But the head of Russia's armed forces, Gen. Anatoly Kvashnin, said the pullout "will alter the nature of the international strategic balance in freeing the hands of a series of countries to restart an arms buildup."

In Beijing, China used muted language today to register its displeasure with the Bush announcement.
Bush Pulls Out of ABM Treaty - Putin Calls Move a Mistake - NYTimes.com

It's astonishing how much you've seem to forgotten..

 

[Geaux4it]

Meanwhile- Obama's disdain for the constitution is up for review
His failure to act in Ukraine is part of his hope & change mantra

-Geaux

Liberal Law Professor Strongly Warns of the Dangers of Obama’s Disdain for the Constitution

As I understand it, George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley is not exactly a ‘conservative’ type by any measure. So his statements this week on Barack Obama’s habitual unConstitutional ways is really saying something…

[youtube]41kij0HuOmw[/youtube]

 

[Sallow]

Meanwhile- Obama's disdain for the constitution is up for review
His failure to act in Ukraine is part of his hope & change mantra

-Geaux

Liberal Law Professor Strongly Warns of the Dangers of Obama’s Disdain for the Constitution

As I understand it, George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley is not exactly a ‘conservative’ type by any measure. So his statements this week on Barack Obama’s habitual unConstitutional ways is really saying something…

[youtube]41kij0HuOmw[/youtube]

Why was that cut off at 1:24?

 

[Sallow]

Hmm..

The conceptual thread running through many of the issues taken on by Turley is that they involve claims of Executive Privilege. For example, he said, "the president’s claim of executive authority based on Article II would put our system on a slippery slope."[32] He has argued against national security exceptions to fundamental constitutional rights.[27][33]

He is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues.[34][35] as well as tort reform legislation.[1]

Turley has testified in Congress against President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program and was lead counsel in a case challenging it. In regard to warrantless wiretaps he noted that, "Judge Anna Diggs Taylor chastised the government for a flagrant abuse of the Constitution and, in a direct message to the president, observed that there are no hereditary kings in America."[36]

When Congressional Democrats asked the justice department to investigate the CIA's destruction of terrorist interrogation tapes Turley said, "these are very serious allegations, that raise as many as six identifiable crimes ranging from contempt of Congress, to contempt of Justice, to perjury, to false statements."[37]

In October 2006, in an interview by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, he expressed strong disapproval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.[20]

When the U. S. Senate was about to vote on Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general, Turley said, "The attorney general nominee's evasive remarks on 'water-boarding' should disqualify him from the job."[19] On the treatment of terrorism suspect José Padilla Turley says, "The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11...This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances." Professor Turley considers the case of great import on the grounds that "Padilla's treatment by the military could happen to others."[17]

Turley, in his capacity as a constitutional scholar,[38] testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[29][39] He was extensively quoted by congressman James Rogan during the Impeachment of Bill Clinton[40]
Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia