Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Reasons:

#1. The US, an outside irritant, has no standing claiming that nations need to respect sovereignty. We violate sovereignty every second of every day in hundreds of ways.

#2. It's right next door to his country. How would we act if, all of a sudden, Venezuela started gathering warships off San Diego?

#3. Putin is misunderstood and not as powerful as the world thinks he is.

#4. Crimea is a region in which there are no American interests and is nothing but an opportunity to fill red, white and blue body bags should things go South.

#5. This is a political dick-measuring contest. Conks are pushing Obama to be "tough" with Putin when there is, in reality, nothing the US can do about the situation. Conks want nothing more than Obama to stub his toe and use that as a rallying cry for upcoming elections.


********

Number 1 is most important. We've painted ourselves into a corner with our wars of aggression and no one is listening to our doublespeak. We lost the moral high ground with Vietnam and later reinforced that loss with Iraq (among many other examples in between).

Discuss.

Wrong. We painted ourselves into a corner with Obama's Oscar-winning performance as a spineless jellyfish who's empty threats make him the butt of every joke in countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

"There will be costs...."
"There are very serious repercussions that can come from this...."
"A red line on the use and movement of chemical weapons..."

Empty words from an empty-suit administration. There's only ONE reason why Russia isn't afraid of repercussions or costs.

AZGrizFan wrote:Wrong. We painted ourselves into a corner with Obama's Oscar-winning performance as a spineless jellyfish who's empty threats make him the butt of every joke in countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

"There will be costs...."
"There are very serious repercussions that can come from this...."
"A red line on the use and movement of chemical weapons..."

Empty words from an empty-suit administration. There's only ONE reason why Russia isn't afraid of repercussions or costs.

We haven't backed shit up for decades, you Conk blowhard - Reagan, Bush and Obama included. The hurtful truth to the matter is that we CAN'T do anything, Mort. Tyring to picture what President Palin or Romney would do……..Nothing, either.

AZGrizFan wrote:Wrong. We painted ourselves into a corner with Obama's Oscar-winning performance as a spineless jellyfish who's empty threats make him the butt of every joke in countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

"There will be costs...."
"There are very serious repercussions that can come from this...."
"A red line on the use and movement of chemical weapons..."

Empty words from an empty-suit administration. There's only ONE reason why Russia isn't afraid of repercussions or costs.

C'mon, Z, I'm with Cappy on most of this one. But, you are correct about Obama being a weak, punk regarding foreign policy though. Funny how weak cowboy Obushma is when he is facing a formidable opponent instead of some goat herders. But, the truth is that we wouldn't be able to do anything about Russia anyway...it is simply not in our best interest to go to war over any area that doesn't directly threaten our borders. Hell, we were running out of missiles when we helped attack Libya...how the hell are we going to sustain any effort in Crimea or the Ukraine?

The only ones who will profit from this are the arms dealers. "Hey, Obama, you looked like the weak azz punk you are...let's build another 100,000 cruise missiles and ramp up the F-5700 (at $7B a pop) so we don't look weak again."

The US has NO real interest in Crimea, or the Ukraine...except it would be just another market for useless crap from the same business interests that control the rest of our foreign (and most of our domestic) policy. I have no interest in wrecking our economy, profiting the defense industry, and putting any of our freeloading troops in danger, just so European and US business interest can gain a foothold in the Ukraine.

Regardless of who occupies the White House, Conk, Donk, black, white, male, female, the simple fact of the matter is that the US is impotent in all of this shit.

HOWEVER, if you think about it, the other big players are rather limited, as well, IMO. The EU has a natural gas and minerals noose around its neck. China, as with the US, has no interests there and, sensibly, will likely stay out and allow Russia to do their business as they see fit, choosing rhetoric ahead of gunpowder. Russia, too, is somewhat limited in the fact that they can't go too far and risk economic wrath at a time when they want to rise from the economic morass that was their country for 70+ years.

In the end, it's all bluster and a tempest in a teapot looking back on it in a year.


Tell me, now, what President Romney would do……..

What did Bush do when Russia invaded Georgia?

Absolutely nothing.

dbackjon wrote:What did Bush do when Russia invaded Georgia?

Absolutely nothing.

He didn't do nothing.

He did call the Georgian president and the conversation went something like this:

"Don't shoot at the Russians, Vasily."

dbackjon wrote:What did Bush do when Russia invaded Georgia?

Absolutely nothing.

WTF does that have to do with the current situation? When your current boyfriend doesn't let you have access to his backyard drilling rights, does it make you feel good to criticize his previous boyfriend's negotiations about such drilling rights?

Cluck U wrote:

dbackjon wrote:What did Bush do when Russia invaded Georgia?

Absolutely nothing.

WTF does that have to do with the current situation? When your current boyfriend doesn't let you have access to his backyard drilling rights, does it make you feel good to criticize his previous boyfriend's negotiations about such drilling rights?

LOL

backyard drilling rights


lol

Cluck U wrote:

dbackjon wrote:What did Bush do when Russia invaded Georgia?

Absolutely nothing.

WTF does that have to do with the current situation? When your current boyfriend doesn't let you have access to his backyard drilling rights, does it make you feel good to criticize his previous boyfriend's negotiations about such drilling rights?

The situations are wholly analogous, Cluckie, and jon's question is legit.

Proceed.

dbackjon wrote:What did Bush do when Russia invaded Georgia?

Absolutely nothing.

Which is what should have happened, and what should have happen here. Problem with this situation is Obama issued another empty threat, making him (and by association the US) look weak(er) when nothing is done because nothing can be done. He of all people should know we don’t have the capability to enforce anything here.

The issue isn’t whether to do anything here, it’s how the situation is handled. Instead of releasing some statement about working with the international community to quell the issue, blah blah blah; he refers to consequences and costs that will happen if Russia doesn’t stop. The worst part is he learned absolutely nothing from the Syria “red line” debacle and that is what is most troubling (although unsurprising) to me.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


WTF does that have to do with the current situation? When your current boyfriend doesn't let you have access to his backyard drilling rights, does it make you feel good to criticize his previous boyfriend's negotiations about such drilling rights?

The situations are wholly analogous, Cluckie, and jon's question is legit.

Proceed.

I'm hoping that the Ukies go nuts and start shouting "remember the kulaks!" as they ambush Russkie troops. Will make Chechnya look like a picnic if that happens. Putin may regret this round of assholism and long for the days when he could bang Olga Korbut with impunity.

I disagree with #3......Putin is A-list and the rest of the world leaders are starving actors that would suck a dick to get a career on the big stage.

Other than that you are pretty close to being spot on.......its about time you came over to the side of reason.

Cluck U wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Wrong. We painted ourselves into a corner with Obama's Oscar-winning performance as a spineless jellyfish who's empty threats make him the butt of every joke in countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., etc., etc.

"There will be costs...."
"There are very serious repercussions that can come from this...."
"A red line on the use and movement of chemical weapons..."

Empty words from an empty-suit administration. There's only ONE reason why Russia isn't afraid of repercussions or costs.

C'mon, Z, I'm with Cappy on most of this one. But, you are correct about Obama being a weak, punk regarding foreign policy though. Funny how weak cowboy Obushma is when he is facing a formidable opponent instead of some goat herders. But, the truth is that we wouldn't be able to do anything about Russia anyway...it is simply not in our best interest to go to war over any area that doesn't directly threaten our borders. Hell, we were running out of missiles when we helped attack Libya...how the hell are we going to sustain any effort in Crimea or the Ukraine?

The only ones who will profit from this are the arms dealers. "Hey, Obama, you looked like the weak azz punk you are...let's build another 100,000 cruise missiles and ramp up the F-5700 (at $7B a pop) so we don't look weak again."

The US has NO real interest in Crimea, or the Ukraine...except it would be just another market for useless crap from the same business interests that control the rest of our foreign (and most of our domestic) policy. I have no interest in wrecking our economy, profiting the defense industry, and putting any of our freeloading troops in danger, just so European and US business interest can gain a foothold in the Ukraine.

Let me clarify. I agree with most of what he wrote, just not his logic at the end of his diatribe.

What's interesting about this is that it wasn't all that long ago that it looked possible that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO. NATO turned them down.

Now we can see why they wanted to join.

The US isn't impotent in terms of capability. It's impotent in terms of will.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But the "problem" with the United States with respect to Vietnam and all subsequent major "failures" on the military front has been a lack of will.

JohnStOnge wrote:The US isn't impotent in terms of capability. It's impotent in terms of will.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. But the "problem" with the United States with respect to Vietnam and all subsequent major "failures" on the military front has been a lack of will.

I agree with the concept here. We can employ many things that would cripple Russia and none of them are military. Russia is sitting on an economic precipice - it would take much of a budge from us to push them over it - heck, they might fall into it entirely on their own.

Typical Cappy post

"I'm a pootin' this one"

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


WTF does that have to do with the current situation? When your current boyfriend doesn't let you have access to his backyard drilling rights, does it make you feel good to criticize his previous boyfriend's negotiations about such drilling rights?

The situations are wholly analogous, Cluckie, and jon's question is legit.

Proceed.

No, it isn't legit. What if Dubya had set off a small nuke to deter Russia? Would that allow Obama to do so (Answer: yes, Obama could use nukes even if Dubya had been vilified by the world for nuclear fallout...because Obama is God)? What is Dubya had sent troops into Georgia and incurred 3,000 dead and counting as we were still involved in fighting with Russia backed rebels (Answer: yes, Obama could suffer 3K casualties because he won a Nobel Peace Prize)? What if Dubya had our Navy Seals kill the Russian top government officials (Answer: yes, Obama could do that even if Dubya had an arrest warrant out for him for violating the Geneva convention's rule against assassinating government leaders because Obama is different and could declare Putin & Co. "terrorists" because Obama is the bestest of the best)? What if Dubya took a crap and decided he wasn't going to do anything (Answer: yes, Obama could do nothing and it will be said that he did the right thing even if Bush was said to be exposed as a big talker who could not get Mission Accomplished).

In the end, it doesn't matter what GB did, so Jon's question was simply another attempt by Jon to deflect from Obama's weakness and put some type of negative spin on Bushama.

Obama was a fool to open up his mouth and now it is Obushma, not Bush, that is responsible for his decision regarding what action he takes.

Cluck U wrote:

dbackjon wrote:What did Bush do when Russia invaded Georgia?

Absolutely nothing.

WTF does that have to do with the current situation? When your current boyfriend doesn't let you have access to his backyard drilling rights, does it make you feel good to criticize his previous boyfriend's negotiations about such drilling rights?

I just find the hysterics from the right on this amusing. As if a President Romney/McCain/Reagan would be able to do anything different.

dbackjon wrote:

Cluck U wrote:


WTF does that have to do with the current situation? When your current boyfriend doesn't let you have access to his backyard drilling rights, does it make you feel good to criticize his previous boyfriend's negotiations about such drilling rights?

I just find the hysterics from the right on this amusing. As if a President Romney/McCain/Reagan would be able to do anything different.

But they are not the ones calling the shots on this. You are comparing the actions of what has been done to a hypothetical “what if”. Maybe those others shit themselves like Obama did. Maybe they would be smart enough to keep their mouth shut. Who knows but that doesn’t take away from the fact that Obama got schooled on yet another foreign affairs issue.

The deflection and spin on yet another mishandled issue is pure comedic gold at this point.

Cap'n Cat wrote:
#2. It's right next door to his country. How would we act if, all of a sudden, Venezuela started gathering warships off San Diego?

SDHornet wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

I just find the hysterics from the right on this amusing. As if a President Romney/McCain/Reagan would be able to do anything different.

But they are not the ones calling the shots on this. You are comparing the actions of what has been done to a hypothetical “what if”. Maybe those others shit themselves like Obama did. Maybe they would be smart enough to keep their mouth shut. Who knows but that doesn’t take away from the fact that Obama got schooled on yet another foreign affairs issue.

The deflection and spin on yet another mishandled issue is pure comedic gold at this point.

Why don't we see what really is going to happen before we give a post-mortem. The US has considerable financial clout, and will hopefully use it.

How did Obama shit himself? Because the talking heads want to believe he did?

dbackjon wrote:

SDHornet wrote: But they are not the ones calling the shots on this. You are comparing the actions of what has been done to a hypothetical “what if”. Maybe those others shit themselves like Obama did. Maybe they would be smart enough to keep their mouth shut. Who knows but that doesn’t take away from the fact that Obama got schooled on yet another foreign affairs issue.

The deflection and spin on yet another mishandled issue is pure comedic gold at this point.

Why don't we see what really is going to happen before we give a post-mortem. The US has considerable financial clout, and will hopefully use it.

How did Obama shit himself? Because the talking heads want to believe he did?

He shat himself by not learning anything from the “red line” debacle of Syira. He should have kept his mouth shut then, he should have kept his mouth shut now. If he is going to make mistakes then fine, but making the same mistake over and over is just embarrassing.