Russia's Uncontested Arrival

[pondwater]

And for the record

the precedent set when the United States (with a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress) chose to invade Iraq with no cause is the smoking gun. 

With the help of the following democrats.

H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

I guess they were all republicans during the vote, hahaha

[Dave Gray]

I'm kind of torn on this particular situation.  On one hand, I agree with the general principle that we shouldn't meddle in other people's affairs.  However, in this case, it's pretty clear that we're in better shape if we have a country that becomes an ally rather than not.

It's good for the US if the Ukraine joins the EU.  It's bad if they buddy up with Russia.   It seems like there is a pretty clear path to victory, too -- prevent Russia from taking over the country and putting in their guy.

So, I am OK with intervention.  It doesn't necessarily have to be military strikes, but you start with sanctions and talking and escalate as needed.  I don't want an all-out war with Russia, of course, but I guess you have to be prepared for that if you get too involved.

It's a tough situation.

I was against the Iraq war at the time (against my own party, which I agree went along for the ride) because it seemed that there was no victory to be had.  What was considered victory?

I support (retroactively) the first Iraq war against Kuwait, because there was victory to be had.  This seem like a similar situation.

I see Fausto's point in not getting involved at all, but that level of isolationism scares me a bit, as one day, I'd like to see the whole world on more or less the same page, for things to be better for all of us.

[Spider-Dan]

And for the record
With the help of the following democrats.

H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
[...]
I guess they were all republicans during the vote, hahaha

It sounds like you agree that the Iraq invasion (supported by the Democratic minority) is the relevant precedent here, in which case Obama has nothing to do with it.

[pondwater]

I see Fausto's point in not getting involved at all, but that level of isolationism scares me a bit, as one day, I'd like to see the whole world on more or less the same page, for things to be better for all of us.

Actually, I don't think the whole world will ever be on the same page. Shit, the United States will never be on the same page with itself.

[pondwater]

It sounds like you agree that the Iraq invasion (supported by the Democratic minority) is the relevant precedent here, in which case Obama has nothing to do with it.

What precedent would that be? This thread has to do with Obama and his lack of foreign relation skills. Bush and the Iraq war have nothing to do with Putin's manhandling of Obama. What happened 11 years ago has no relevance to what is happening now, stick to the topic.

[Dave Gray]

Actually, I don't think the whole world will ever be on the same page. Shit, the United States will never be on the same page with itself.

Maybe not, but I think that eventually it's a possibility.  I feel that as we know more about ourselves and people are more educated around the world, that our divides will become less and less.

Now, I don't think everyone will always see eye to eye, but like "the West" is basically on the same page in terms of what is generally socially appropriate (don't behead your neighbor for their differing beliefs).  I think that we can all get there.

[bsmooth]

What precedent would that be? This thread has to do with Obama and his lack of foreign relation skills. Bush and the Iraq war have nothing to do with Putin's manhandling of Obama. What happened 11 years ago has no relevance to what is happening now, stick to the topic.

Actually they do. Since the pro GOP members here have a short memory, let me remind you of a similar incident. In 2008 Putin invaded Georgia, and Bush did nothing to stop him. In fact there were no real repercussions for Putin and Russia. This led Putin to believe he could do something again in the future...which he has.
Our military is tired, and needs a refitting after over a decade of warfare. The assets, and manpower we wasted in Iraq could have be used as a deterrent to Putin, but they are not available.
Putin knows we are not in a position to react militarily after our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rattling a saber is only good if you have an actual sword to wield.
Putin is a sociopath, no GOP president would have been able to back him down with our current state of affairs...not even the mighty Reagan.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

In 2008 Putin invaded Georgia,

And my friends in Atlanta were pissed.   

[mecadonzilla]

Like bsmooth, I too have wondered why all the folks who are so upset about this event had zero problems with Bush allowing the Russians to do the same thing in Georgia.  It's as if the right wing pundits are  deliberately forgetting recent history because it doesn't fit their narrative, and they know the people who eat their garbage up don't care about facts as long as Obama is made to look bad in some way.  

I think many conservatives have a man-crush on Putin.  I'd also be willing to wager that these same folks would rather see Putin succede than their own president, which would speak volumes about where their sympathies really lie...party over country.

[CF DolFan]

You guys can be fruitcakes. No one wants Putin to succeed. And I haven't heard anyone saying Bush handled the situation correctly. The difference is Obama made threats and hasn't followed through several times. Bush said lets talk it out and mediate.

In either case Obama should learn from his mistakes and he doesn't seem to be doing so. I knwo several people who talk about kicking someone ass. They are the ones anyone should fear. That's what Obama seems like to me.

You wouldn't know it from this forum but many Democrats are very concerned with Obama right now. Republicans and Democrats realize the importance to having to deal with this. LEt's not forget who labeled Putin "Hitler". 

Thanks Dave for being able to carry on a discussion.

[Spider-Dan]

So if I understand you correctly, the complaint that conservatives have is NOT that a precedent was set (by Bush) of invasion without cause, nor is it that a precedent was set (by Bush) of allowing Russia to invade its neighbors.

No, the problem is that Obama talks too tough because he issues threats that he doesn't follow up.  Oh, and it's also that he doesn't talk tough enough, because he uses euphemisms like "uncontested arrival" instead of "invasion," and "man-caused disaster" instead of "terrorist attack."

This is why it's a waste of time to discuss Obama with most conservatives.  He is both a clueless empty suit and a ruthlessly calculating tyrant, a weasel-wording wimp and a loudmouthed schoolyard bully, a devout Marxist and a corporatist pawn of the health insurance companies.

You can only cry wolf on both sides of the issue so many times.  But maybe we should return to discussing how the insurance mandate is an unconstitutional attack on our freedom, and how Obama should be impeached for delaying it.

[CF DolFan]

So if I understand you correctly, the complaint that conservatives have is NOT that a precedent was set (by Bush) of invasion without cause, nor is it that a precedent was set (by Bush) of allowing Russia to invade its neighbors.

No, the problem is that Obama talks too tough because he issues threats that he doesn't follow up.  Oh, and it's also that he doesn't talk tough enough, because he uses euphemisms like "uncontested arrival" instead of "invasion," and "man-caused disaster" instead of "terrorist attack."

This is why it's a waste of time to discuss Obama with most conservatives.  He is both a clueless empty suit and a ruthlessly calculating tyrant, a weasel-wording wimp and a loudmouthed schoolyard bully, a devout Marxist and a corporatist pawn of the health insurance companies.

You can only cry wolf on both sides of the issue so many times.  But maybe we should return to discussing how the insurance mandate is an unconstitutional attack on our freedom, and how Obama should be impeached for delaying it.

Seriously? I don't think you even try any more.

There an issue in the Ukraine and again, democrats put side of this forum get it. Pretending the GOP is evil because they do the same things liberals do (pointing out flaws they  themselves also do) is stupid. It's also why nothing gets done.

Sorry Charlie but even many of the most supportive democrats out there aren't happy with where his presidency has gone in this term. Unless he gets a handle on foreign affairs he will continue to burn out and the next guy/gal with walk into a disaster.

[pondwater]

Seriously? I don't think you even try any more.

There an issue in the Ukraine and again, democrats put side of this forum get it. Pretending the GOP is evil because they do the same things liberals do (pointing out flaws they  themselves also do) is stupid. It's also why nothing gets done.

Sorry Charlie but even many of the most supportive democrats out there aren't happy with where his presidency has gone in this term. Unless he gets a handle on foreign affairs he will continue to burn out and the next guy/gal with walk into a disaster.

It's already going to be a disaster. What do you want to bet that if the next administration is democrat that they will blame what they "inherited" was still Bush's fault. It's all they got. And why are people still bringing up an in "invasion without cause" by Bush. We've already proven that the war in Iraq was voted on by not only republicans, but also almost all of the top democrats. You people imply that only the republicans wanted to go to Iraq. How convienient, hahaha.

[Sunstroke]

...and the next guy/gal with walk into a disaster.

Thankfully, no matter how hard you pray (read: close your eyes and talk to yourself), the "next guy" won't be one of the Tea Party religious Yahoos...

Maybe if we get a "white" Democrat in office this next time, the GOP won't spend 99.999% of their energy and resources trying to gridlock the government and block everything the President does, just so they can say "look how little the President is getting done!!"

[CF DolFan]

Thankfully, no matter how hard you pray (read: close your eyes and talk to yourself), the "next guy" won't be one of the Tea Party religious Yahoos...

Maybe if we get a "white" Democrat in office this next time, the GOP won't spend 99.999% of their energy and resources trying to gridlock the government and block everything the President does, just so they can say "look how little the President is getting done!!"

You are part of the problem. Your extremist views and non-tolerant attitudes are no different than the extremes to the right. Pretending Fox extremists are any different than MSNBC extremists shows ignorance. Both parties do X and then point out X when the other guys do it. It laughable that your argument is "well the extremist right are crazy so no matter what my guy does it isn't wrong." Ok. Whatever. And drugs and alcohol don't cause any harm. Party on Garth!