• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine

Ha, he just wasn't the belligerent that time.


It looks to me like Putin's response to Obama's threat of isolation is to unzip his fly and wave his dick at Obama. That should do a lot of good.
 
It looks to me like Putin's response to Obama's threat of isolation is to unzip his fly and wave his dick at Obama. That should do a lot of good.

Well, isn't that what happens when you walk around with your mouth open?
 
No, he was the puss. And the world took notice. Specifically, Putin.

Ok, so once again. Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN several times to secure a resolution for use of force, she failed. The UK backed out, he failed to secure congressional authorization, and 70% of Americans were against military action. How was he a puss on that one. Or do you mean he should have said, **** all that and started bombing Syria anyway.
 
Ok, so once again. Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN several times to secure a resolution for use of force, she failed. The UK backed out, he failed to secure congressional authorization, and 70% of Americans were against military action. How was he a puss on that one. Or do you mean he should have said, **** all that and started bombing Syria anyway.

Obama just talks and talks and never seems to know what to say until the teleprompter tells him. Never make threats unless you intend to carry with them through.
 
Ok, so once again. Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN several times to secure a resolution for use of force, she failed. The UK backed out, he failed to secure congressional authorization, and 70% of Americans were against military action. How was he a puss on that one. Or do you mean he should have said, **** all that and started bombing Syria anyway.

The same UN that has failed to act in the Ukraine....there is no reason to support the UN if they are not going to enforce international law, so yes, considering that Obama committed the US to a red line, and the UNs failure to enforce international law...we should have said f=that and went in.
 
The same UN that has failed to act in the Ukraine....there is no reason to support the UN if they are not going to enforce international law, so yes, considering that Obama committed the US to a red line, and the UNs failure to enforce international law...we should have said f=that and went in.

How the hell can the UN "enforce international law"?
 
Obama just talks and talks and never seems to know what to say until the teleprompter tells him. Never make threats unless you intend to carry with them through.

We don't disagree. But in my opinion, he had every intention of carrying his red line through. He was prevented as I've pointed out, unless you too are one that thinks he should have bull dozed through anyway, just to save face. He couldn't carry through! And I'm not making excuse for him, I'm delighted it worked out that way.
 
The same UN that has failed to act in the Ukraine....there is no reason to support the UN if they are not going to enforce international law, so yes, considering that Obama committed the US to a red line, and the UNs failure to enforce international law...we should have said f=that and went in.

Wow! Your probably serious, and a menace. The UK pulled their support, he couldn't get congressional authorization and 70% of his constituency said NO. "Going In" under those circumstances is insanity.
 
How the hell can the UN "enforce international law"?

Gee, I dunno...how can they? And if they can't, what the hell are they there for?
 
Wow! Your probably serious, and a menace. The UK pulled their support, he couldn't get congressional authorization and 70% of his constituency said NO. "Going In" under those circumstances is insanity.

Going in means a lot of things, not just boots on the ground. Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are getting killed...left and right, while everyone sits back with some popcorn. Menace, huh? That's funny...sitting back, wringing hands, is how genocides occur.
 
Going in means a lot of things, not just boots on the ground. Meanwhile, innocent men, women and children are getting killed...left and right, while everyone sits back with some popcorn. Menace, huh? That's funny...sitting back, wringing hands, is how genocides occur.

Just because you didn't get to see the military in full swing again, doesn't mean the Obama administration is setting back with popcorn. Covertly the opposition, known to be infested with AQ, MB, and al Nusra, have been supported by this administration and others. This "opposition" has been responsible for the majority of the deaths there, they have targeted UN convoys, and civilian driven supply convoys, they have killed Christians and burned their churches, they have parked car/truck bombs in front of government buildings and indiscriminately killed civilians, they have bound and execution style, killed pro president Assad civilians, and the reporter for AP provided evidence that they were responsible for the chemical attacks.

President Assad is fighting a war on terror and the US is impeding his efforts, because of a long term US foreign policy goal of "regime change" in Syria.
 
Just because you didn't get to see the military in full swing again, doesn't mean the Obama administration is setting back with popcorn. Covertly the opposition, known to be infested with AQ, MB, and al Nusra, have been supported by this administration and others. This "opposition" has been responsible for the majority of the deaths there, they have targeted UN convoys, and civilian driven supply convoys, they have killed Christians and burned their churches, they have parked car/truck bombs in front of government buildings and indiscriminately killed civilians, they have bound and execution style, killed pro president Assad civilians, and the reporter for AP provided evidence that they were responsible for the chemical attacks.

President Assad is fighting a war on terror and the US is impeding his efforts, because of a long term US foreign policy goal of "regime change" in Syria.

That is an amateurish assessment at best. Support to the Free Syrian Army is what should be happening. Overtly, combined with blockades of Syrian ports, and air support.
 
Gee, I dunno...how can they? And if they can't, what the hell are they there for?

I always thought they were established to fulfill Rockefeller's NWO plan, but what the hell do I know.?
 
I would be rather surprised, if the developments had not been predicted with a relatively high probability.

The person who the lberals believe is the dumbest woman on earth figured it out a few years back.

Care to guess where that puts the current person in charge?
 
Gee, I dunno...how can they? And if they can't, what the hell are they there for?

Well maybe you should find out more about the UN before coming with such stupid comments about the UN. It is like asking why NATO cant stop the gang violence in LA....
 
Well maybe you should find out more about the UN before coming with such stupid comments about the UN. It is like asking why NATO cant stop the gang violence in LA....

Why don't you explain to me what the UN is for, then?
 
Why don't you explain to me what the UN is for, then?

Europeans tend believe that committees can solve all their problems so they create bloated bureaucracies full of big headed brainy people with swell accents, assume that something will be done and their problems will be solved and that's all that need be done. The original intent of these bureaucracies will lie long forgotten even while they grow into an an expensive sludge where some speak their opinions (as on these boards), more regulations are passed, but nothing of real consequence is ever done. They do more harm than good.
 
That is an amateurish assessment at best. Support to the Free Syrian Army is what should be happening. Overtly, combined with blockades of Syrian ports, and air support.

Oh really now Mr. Professional, why don't you refute the claims I made of those opposing president Assad and seeking to impose their own form of tyranny in Syria.
 
Oh really now Mr. Professional, why don't you refute the claims I made of those opposing president Assad and seeking to impose their own form of tyranny in Syria.

Why actually, yes, I am a professional. You are aware that there are non AQ/Hizballah/fundamentalist groups active in Syria, yes?
 
President Obama is so concerned about the growing crisis in the Ukraine, that he and the vice president left on vacation this weekend. That is just one of the many reasons Putin should take him so seriously.
 
Europeans tend believe that committees can solve all their problems so they create bloated bureaucracies full of big headed brainy people with swell accents, assume that something will be done and their problems will be solved and that's all that need be done. The original intent of these bureaucracies will lie long forgotten even while they grow into an an expensive sludge where some speak their opinions (as on these boards), more regulations are passed, but nothing of real consequence is ever done. They do more harm than good.

The only ones doing harm are people like you, who want to shoot first and never ask questions later.
 
Europeans tend believe that committees can solve all their problems so they create bloated bureaucracies full of big headed brainy people with swell accents, assume that something will be done and their problems will be solved and that's all that need be done. The original intent of these bureaucracies will lie long forgotten even while they grow into an an expensive sludge where some speak their opinions (as on these boards), more regulations are passed, but nothing of real consequence is ever done. They do more harm than good.

LOL

Like it or not, there's truth in those words.
 
"Obama warns US will 'isolate' Russia if Putin doesn't pull back in Ukraine"

It is a mighty big place to isolate. Perhaps they should concentrate on isolating our border with Mexico.
 
The same UN that has failed to act in the Ukraine....there is no reason to support the UN if they are not going to enforce international law, so yes, considering that Obama committed the US to a red line, and the UNs failure to enforce international law...we should have said f=that and went in.

There are vast limits to world organizations such as the UN. Aside from the highly politicized General Assembly, the UN needs the consent of the world's great powers to engage in robust enforcement via the Security Council. That's far easier said than done, given differences in national interest.

If one looks at the UN Chart, excerpts from Article 2 state:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and. justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


For an objective outside observer, the operative question is when these principles will become truly operative. They weren't respected during the Balkans conflicts and Kosovo's being extracted from Serbia. They weren't respected when it came to the second Persian Gulf War (the 1st one actually had Security Council support). They were bent when it came to Libya. They were ignored when Russia moved into Crimea. This gap between the principles and practice undermines the integrity of the legal arguments now being put forth with respect to Crimea.

The fact is that power calculations and national interest take precedence over those principles when nations are charting their course to safeguard what they perceive to be major interests. Hence, the principles remain ideals, but ones that have not been fulfilled. There is little indication that will change anytime soon.

The nation-state remains the best guardian of its interests (as I believe it properly should). It is uncertain whether an arrangement whereby it would truly subordinate its major interests to any world organization would be viable. The UN Charter's principles are aspirational. The mechanism (of the UN) falls far short of what would be needed to bring them to fruition. Some combination of power, diplomacy, and an effective UN Security Council might create a balance where they might be realized more often than would otherwise be the case. A more effective Security Council would depend on its members transcending parochial interests (as opposed to their major interests, which can't be expected), to make the Council more objective and realistic in its work.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom