Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on March 31, 2015, 12:59:21 AM
-
Putin seems to be taking Obama at his word to be more flexible.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2015/03/30/the-bear-and-the-community-organizer-n1977403/page/full#
-
Sadly plausible if unlikely
-
Sadly plausible if unlikely
Not even that unlikely.
We blinked in Georgia.
We blinked in Ukraine.
We're blinking in Iran.
We're blinking at ISIS.
Why would Putin expect any other reaction in the Balkans?
-
But he'll have the excuse that he could not hear his phone ringing because of all the crowd noise.
And I'm sure Putin will be considerate to wait till some time after 3:00 AM EST to kick things off.
And I can get you a screaming deal on oceanfront property in Death Valley.
stay safe.
-
Not even that unlikely.
We blinked in Georgia.
We blinked in Ukraine.
We're blinking in Iran.
We're blinking at ISIS.
Why would Putin expect any other reaction in the Balkans?
We didn't blink, we did it differently. Why do you think oil is bouncing between $45-55? Russia is very dependent upon oil exports for funding, lower oil prices means less income. Less income can lead to civil unrest when government services are reduced. You don't have to drop bombs to win a war.
-
That scenario is frighteningly plausible with this POTUS.
(I did like part about the "United States Military Center of Excellence for Diversity.” )
-
We didn't blink, we did it differently. Why do you think oil is bouncing between $45-55? Russia is very dependent upon oil exports for funding, lower oil prices means less income. Less income can lead to civil unrest when government services are reduced. You don't have to drop bombs to win a war.
Nor do you have to drop them to start a war...
-
We didn't blink, we did it differently. Why do you think oil is bouncing between $45-55? Russia is very dependent upon oil exports for funding, lower oil prices means less income. Less income can lead to civil unrest when government services are reduced. You don't have to drop bombs to win a war.
Except we didn't have a damn thing to do with it, and if Obama had his way the prices would be going up. Other than that, your theory is sound.
-
I actually like Putin. He's a straightforward leader and still uses AKs. You can stuff an AK barrel with mud and it'll still shoot fine. The US could benefit from switching to a design that just works.
-
Putin is a murdering piece of garbage.
-
Putin is a psychopathic mobster.
There is nothing admiral about him as his moral corruption defiles any potentially positive attributes his government controlled media ascribes to him.
-
Not even that unlikely.
We blinked in Georgia.
We blinked in Ukraine.
We're blinking in Iran.
We're blinking at ISIS.
Why would Putin expect any other reaction in the Balkans?
*shrug*
Drop weapons and supplies to the good guys if they exist in the situation, but otherwise, I have no problem with avoiding the privilege of being Team America: World Police. And paying for it.
We dumped oh, a trillion dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from lining some pockets, we made modest gains. Until we adapt a strategic policy of "bomb anyone that pisses us off, then roll over them with Abrams, drop a couple care packages if the locals make nice, leave, repeat as necessary", I don't think we should be looking for additional wars. Should that be universal policy? Nope. But it should be our default. In the last couple decades, the US has a policy of winning wars and then immediately losing the politics afterwards. While dumping billions into corrupt hands with extremely modest results.
-
*shrug*
Drop weapons and supplies to the good guys if they exist in the situation, but otherwise, I have no problem with avoiding the privilege of being Team America: World Police. And paying for it.
We dumped oh, a trillion dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from lining some pockets, we made modest gains. Until we adapt a strategic policy of "bomb anyone that pisses us off, then roll over them with Abrams, drop a couple care packages if the locals make nice, leave, repeat as necessary", I don't think we should be looking for additional wars. Should that be universal policy? Nope. But it should be our default. In the last couple decades, the US has a policy of winning wars and then immediately losing the politics afterwards. While dumping billions into corrupt hands with extremely modest results.
RevDisk for sec state.
-
Quite honestly, if the American people don't have the stomach for what Rev proposed, then we need to do full on empire-building.
There are no half-measures. Either we conquer and then rule the land or we crush the people and leave with a warning that we'll be back if they cross us again.
We don't appear to have the fortitude to do either.
-
Quite honestly, if the American people don't have the stomach for what Rev proposed, then we need to do full on empire-building.
There are no half-measures. Either we conquer and then rule the land or we crush the people and leave with a warning that we'll be back if they cross us again.
We don't appear to have the fortitude to do either.
Conquer and rule isn't a practical option. While I'd be amused to have Kurdistan as our 51st state, we don't have the political structures to actually run an empire. We don't realistically have the structures to create the structures to run an empire. We do the have both the bureaucratic and political structures to blow up entire countries, and then leave.
I agree with ya, just saying, the second option is more viable even if it's less humanitarian and likely more costly.
-
Perhaps ancient history has a lesson to offer - Rome had problems with Carthage for a long time, but after fighting a third Punic War . . . they didn't.
-
Pat Buchanan has been arguing against going too far with the Russians, and I can't say I disagree with him. Every president has chided the Russians for doing what they do, but none have ever taken action that could lead to open warfare between the two countries. It was a given that the Russians would do what they wished in their little part of the world.
The question is whether iEstonia or Chechnya or Georgia or some other small country is worth risking a war with Russia. That's Buchanan's question, and I'd have to say no.
-
Pat Buchanan has been arguing against going too far with the Russians, and I can't say I disagree with him. Every president has chided the Russians for doing what they do, but none have ever taken action that could lead to open warfare between the two countries. It was a given that the Russians would do what they wished in their little part of the world.
The question is whether iEstonia or Chechnya or Georgia or some other small country is worth risking a war with Russia. That's Buchanan's question, and I'd have to say no.
Estonia is a NATO member.
If Putin invades Estonia he is starting war with us whether we choose to show up for it or not.
-
Estonia is a NATO member.
If Putin invades Estonia he is starting war with us whether we choose to show up for it or not.
That was another thing Buchanan thought was a mistake, and for the reason you state.
-
Estonia is a NATO member.
If Putin invades Estonia he is starting war with us whether we choose to show up for it or not.
Making NATO members in the former soviet states was itself risking war - it was done at a time that Russia was in disarray. Now that it isn't, we're stuck with the risk.
More properly the question should be: is the fantasy of pax Americana worth the risk of a less imaginary nuclear holocaust that may or may not destroy our way of life?
-
Perhaps ancient history has a lesson to offer - Rome had problems with Carthage for a long time, but after fighting a third Punic War . . . they didn't.
Rome wasn't fighting enemies who had the capability to obliterate Rome, Alexandria, Palestine and Gaul within hours, even if they were themselves destroyed - we are.
Imperial politics don't work with the nuclear club. People in the know have realised this since 1945, which is why no nuclear power has ever been treated like non-nuclear powers are routinely treated.
-
*shrug*
Drop weapons and supplies to the good guys if they exist in the situation, but otherwise, I have no problem with avoiding the privilege of being Team America: World Police. And paying for it.
We dumped oh, a trillion dollars into Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from lining some pockets, we made modest gains. Until we adapt a strategic policy of "bomb anyone that pisses us off, then roll over them with Abrams, drop a couple care packages if the locals make nice, leave, repeat as necessary", I don't think we should be looking for additional wars. Should that be universal policy? Nope. But it should be our default. In the last couple four decades, the US has a policy of winning wars and then immediately losing the politics afterwards. While dumping billions into corrupt hands with extremely modest results.
FIFY, ever since we left Nam 40 years ago at the end of the month.
-
Conquer and rule isn't a practical option. While I'd be amused to have Kurdistan as our 51st state, we don't have the political structures to actually run an empire. We don't realistically have the structures to create the structures to run an empire. We do the have both the bureaucratic and political structures to blow up entire countries, and then leave.
I agree with ya, just saying, the second option is more viable even if it's less humanitarian and likely more costly.
Very good point. And attempting to create those structures is likely to be even more detrimental to freedom here at home.
(Though we may get there, notwithstanding the current Constitution.)
-
I think the administration is just trying to start a National Emergency. >:D
-
Making NATO members in the former soviet states was itself risking war - it was done at a time that Russia was in disarray. Now that it isn't, we're stuck with the risk.
More properly the question should be: is the fantasy of pax Americana worth the risk of a less imaginary nuclear holocaust that may or may not destroy our way of life?
Yeah, because scrooo'em. They aren't smart enough to have their countries in the West, then they deserve to have the Russians (or Soviets) lord over them.
How many other countries do we throw under the bus, just to prevent nuclear holocaust or no destroy our way of life? And for forty+ years after WWII we did have Pax Americana for the most part. Which, IIRC, resulted in putting one in the WIN column 1989 when the Wall came down. Seems like we have spent the last few years undoing all that we gained that night.
-
Yeah, because scrooo'em. They aren't smart enough to have their countries in the West, then they deserve to have the Russians (or Soviets) lord over them.
How many other countries do we throw under the bus, just to prevent nuclear holocaust or no destroy our way of life? And for forty+ years after WWII we did have Pax Americana for the most part. Which, IIRC, resulted in putting one in the WIN column 1989 when the Wall came down. Seems like we have spent the last few years undoing all that we gained that night.
Gee, now that you point how trivial the consequences of war with Russia might be, I guess I have to change my position on the Baltic States.
Onward freedom at any price! If there are any Americans or people living in modern countries after an all out nuclear war, I'm confident they'd thank us!
-
Gee, now that you point how trivial the consequences of war with Russia might be, I guess I have to change my position on the Baltic States.
Onward freedom at any price! If there are any Americans or people living in modern countries after an all out nuclear war, I'm confident they'd thank us!
We managed to beat the Soviets without firing a shot. So you're saying we can't do that again?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Sadly our modern Chamberlin*, does not understand that concept.
*"Let Vladimir know that after this election, I can be more flexible."- Obama when meeting with Putin's #2 before the 2012 election. Putin took him at his word, and now wants to see how flexible Obama can be. Which the answer seems to be "Pretty damn."
-
We managed to beat the Soviets without firing a shot. So you're saying we can't do that again?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. Sadly our modern Chamberlin*, does not understand that concept.
*"Let Vladimir know that after this election, I can be more flexible."- Obama when meeting with Putin's #2 before the 2012 election. Putin took him at his word, and now wants to see how flexible Obama can be. Which the answer seems to be "Pretty damn."
Beat? Yeah, no. Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev. Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe.
-
Beat? Yeah, no. Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev. Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe.
This sort of attitude irks me. Yep, Reagan's revitalization of America's morale and his steadfast devotion to America were the core of what won the Cold War for the West. Without that revitalized moral component, there is no Western victory.
Sniveling nearly 30 years after the victory that Reagan screwed the pooch for getting some wispy little nuance or shading wrong and that is the cause for current woes is puerile. It is just another sign that our ruling class is decadent, worthless, and needs replacing posthaste.
-
"Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev" from a position of strength, and with resolve, and achieved important aims, regardless of ex post facto quibbles which ignore the gravity and urgency of the time.
The more accurate characterization above is also, unfortunately, not the character of current U.S. foreign policy. This statement is far more influential to our present state than any legacy considerations of strategic shortsightedness on Reagan's part. He expected we would build from the foundation he laid down, and we haven't.
(edit for typo)
-
Beat? Yeah, no. Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev. Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe.
Reagan "negotiated?" You have an interesting definition of the word, since Reagan actually walked out of a "negotiation" when the Soviets tried to TKO his SDI program. Reagan built our defenses back up and it was in trying to keep up with this that was atleast, in part, (The Pope & Maggie Thatcher also get some credit) responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union.
-
Beat? Yeah, no. Reagan negotiated a massive change with Gorbachev. Some of his most senior diplomats from that time are speaking out now about how their work is being destroyed by the attitude that Russia was a loser for agreeing to back off of Europe.
Ah, yes. The "Gorbachev let Reagan win." angle/argument.
Yeah. No. I was there when the build-up was taking place. I was there and saw the demonstrations in East Germany. I was in Berlin Labor Day weekend of 1989. And I was there when the Wall came down, and the Ossi's flooded across the border.
All that sweat, hard work and treasure being pissed away by the current regime.
-
Ah, yes. The "Gorbachev let Reagan win." angle/argument.
Yeah. No. I was there when the build-up was taking place. I was there and saw the demonstrations in East Germany. I was in Berlin Labor Day weekend of 1989. And I was there when the Wall came down, and the Ossi's flooded across the border.
All that sweat, hard work and treasure being pissed away by the current regime.
No, he didn't let Reagan win - reagan won through negotiation. Not through provoking war. Both sides at that time understood red lines and their importance.
Part of the deal for Russia giving up without a fight was no NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. there are important strategic reasons for it. What's happening now is a far greater risk for war than anything Reagan did.