• 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!

WHITE HOUSE TO PUTIN Don't 'Even Think About Messing Around' With The Baltics

Personally, I think intellectuals are the worst. Just the word intellect gets my blood boiling.
Thanks for liking this post, j-mac. It shows how much we both, well you, despise intelligent thought!

I was being satirical, however.
 
Yup, NATO is a line that Obama drew in the sand.

The line drawn in the sand, according the the article in the OP, came directly from the White House press office: "Don't mess with the baltic states or else." Obama is all talk.
 
Nothing but it sounded good.

He doesn't know it but he just pulled a bush.

Bush

"what are you going to do about 9/11?"

"Drop bombs in Iraq."​

apdst

"What are you going to do about Putin in the Ukraine?"

"Drop bombs in Iraq."​
 
Yup, NATO is a line that Obama drew in the sand.

Wow that's impressive that he drew that line in the sand before he was born! Holy Cow the man get's more amazing all the time.

Yes I know you were being sarcastic.
 
And we all know what Obama does once he's drawn a line in the sand.
You mean the line that McCain, Ayotte and Graham signed off on after getting intel.
Then stood and chirped at him as the "Cheney" coalition in Congress fell apart.
The one where Congressman Cotton supported bombing, the GOP guy running for the Arkansas Senate .
 
BTW here's what the late James Garner thought of the mythical Reagan portrayed earlier in the thread as some great orator blah, blah, blah.

 
Right. That hasn't happened and likely won't happen because the end result could be WWIII with Nukes. I don't believe that Putin wants to kick that off.

He's just trying to grab some low-hanging fruit.


I sincerely hope you're right, shrub...

I don't believe Putin wants to kick anything off, either, but I imagine he'd crash the proverbial party. I wouldn't be surprised, at that stage in the game, if he were to show up -- invited by one of our adversaries. I hope the theory of MAD holds true. I've never been a big conspiracy, the-Muslims-are-coming!, 2012-the-world-is-over type. But I will say this...

Between Putin/Ukraine, ISIS, Israel/Hamas, unsecured US borders... This is the very first time in my life that I have considered there is a real chance, however remote, that things may turn bad very quickly. I find that potential disturbing.
 
Worse. He's an academic.

Hey, like all of us, he has a pesky problem with his short game....So, I've heard. ;)


What's wrong with academics, j-mac? The college kids just aren't getting the same "bang for the buck" these days. Damn economy.
Which is worse, in your opinion? An academic or a smartass? They both have their merits! :mrgreen:

Maybe Obama will turn out to be like those guys in school that were super-smarmy. Their "game" was -- that they had "no game." They act very innocent, then rear their ugly heads. Catches everyone off guard.

We have 2 years left with this guy in office. I certainly hope he's got something up his sleeve.
 
Didn't Biden's son accept an appointment to the Board of Directors of Ukraine's largest gas company recently? This is getting curiouser and curiouser!

I had not heard that anywhere before, but thanks for that post. It bears looking in to. It certainly would cast a new light on things, IMO.
 
Wasn't Reagan the president that turned tail and ran after the marine barracks were bombed in Beruit? You know the one who Bin Laden said he got the idea on how the Americans could be beat? That president?

Btw the words of a speech writer attributed to a president don't mean squat to me. Reagan could only wish to have the integrety Obama does.


No. I'm talking about the President that won the Cold War without firing a shot. The one that had to clean up the mess left behind by his Democrat predecessor. I'm talking about the President that forced Iran to release the hostages on his first day in office, because they knew they would pay the price if they didn't.

While the significance of the deaths of those 16 marines should never be diminished, it must also be placed in context. It was the first time the US had participated in a multi- national peacekeeping force in the region. The unexpected terrorist attack was indeed tragic.

Inferring that Bin Laden somehow learned to beat America because of Ronald Reagan is a serious stretch. We can reserve that discussion for another thread.



I find your comment, "Reagan could only wish to have the integrety Obama does," laughable. History will be the judge. Not his JV cheering squad.


152520_600.jpg
 
How is our great Nobel Prize winning Community Organizer going to handle Putin? Is there going to be another "Red Line" or is he going to "Reset" with Russia? Maybe Bathhouse Barry should challenge Putin to a golf match. Barry can bring his pal The Pimp With a Limp along for the ride.
 
Yes, I am absolutely suggesting that we withdraw our commitment to the Baltics before we are put in a position where we are unable to honor it.

This isn't 1939, and we weren't sitting opposite a nation with 5000 nuclear weapons.

I don't agree. I think it's one of the worst decisions we could make at this juncture. We've been backing off for years now, and things have just gotten worse all-around. To back of a long-standing commitment -- as the one in the Baltics -- would completely undermine what little remaining credibility the US has internationally.

I used to be on the other side of the fence regarding these types of issues. I would have been in favor of the US not getting involved... we aren't the world police... who made us judge & jury...etc...etc... After years of abiding by this brand of foreign policy, and now seeing the practical results of said policy, I firmly believe I was wrong in that sort of thinking.
 
I don't agree. I think it's one of the worst decisions we could make at this juncture. We've been backing off for years now, and things have just gotten worse all-around. To back of a long-standing commitment -- as the one in the Baltics -- would completely undermine what little remaining credibility the US has internationally.

I used to be on the other side of the fence regarding these types of issues. I would have been in favor of the US not getting involved... we aren't the world police... who made us judge & jury...etc...etc... After years of abiding by this brand of foreign policy, and now seeing the practical results of said policy, I firmly believe I was wrong in that sort of thinking.
It's not at all long standing though. It is a commitment made in 2004.
 
It's not at all long standing though. It is a commitment made in 2004.

While not centuries old, a decade is a decent chunk of time. Certainly warrants, IMHO, honoring it. I think not doing so -- really, with any sort of agreement we've made in the peace/security dept, would be at our own peril.

It gives jerks like Putin the impression we can be railroaded, and won't stand up to him.

It gives other nations cause to doubt our word. Some of the weaker ones may switch sides, thinking we will treat their agreements in the same fashion.

Granted, this is all pure speculation on my part. I guess my main point was that this is the very first time I can realistically see the possibility of a major war.
 
While not centuries old, a decade is a decent chunk of time. Certainly warrants, IMHO, honoring it. I think not doing so -- really, with any sort of agreement we've made in the peace/security dept, would be at our own peril.

It gives jerks like Putin the impression we can be railroaded, and won't stand up to him.

It gives other nations cause to doubt our word. Some of the weaker ones may switch sides, thinking we will treat their agreements in the same fashion.

Granted, this is all pure speculation on my part. I guess my main point was that this is the very first time I can realistically see the possibility of a major war.
It's scary as hell, right? But really, it's Russia posturing where they know we have no real influence. So let them, and let's not pretend like NATO means anything in areas that we wouldn't risk our own national security to protect.

When Putin starts talking about annexing Mexico, then we have a problem. But that would never happen, because he or any other Russian leader would know that it would be a real threat to us.

I've seen some comparisons to having our head in the sand re: WWII, but the reality is that neither Germany nor Japan had even close to the resources it would take to invade North America.

Russia is not a threat to US security unless something catastrophic happens to our side of the MAD equation. The battle we can reasonably fight is on the economic side.
 
It's the technological front that we should be truly fearful of...when a technology breakthrough makes nuclear warfare and the MAD equation obsolete. We don't want to be on the wrong side of that breakthrough. Russia agrees, which is why it views any missle defense systems developed by the West as an act of war.
 
I think Putin is using ISIS case on his favor.
Russian troops enter Ukraine when USA started the air attack in Iraq.

To be honest, USA has 2 fronts out there. Russia in Ukraine and ISIS.
Going in war with Russia I found it stupid and worthless. Everyone can come up with "to defend ukraine people and democracy" but we all know that's bull****.
USA can't fight with both ISIS and Russia at the same time. If there was only Russia, it can't fight it alone as well.

EU didn't back up USA in war with Syria. With Russia, EU will think more than twice.
If you go back in time, Syria case was like Russia vs USA game. There was the moment where EU looked weak, because EU didn't have the will to follow US on it's war campaigns and Putin did read very well that picture. Remember that even British said no.
The next was escalation in Ukraine. The US did complain that EU was inactive there and it really was and it still is. Well, Putin was free to annex Crimea and now that's a closed case.
Even if Russia invade Ukraine, I doubt EU will go in full war. They prefer to buy the gas from Russia for 5$ and sell to their own people for 20$, rather than buying it from US companies for 15$ and selling it for 20$.
If the situation goes really bad, I believe it will end by EU's way (as that's the only thing EU know to do best), diving Ukraine in East and West.
 
It's scary as hell, right? But really, it's Russia posturing where they know we have no real influence. So let them, and let's not pretend like NATO means anything in areas that we wouldn't risk our own national security to protect.

When Putin starts talking about annexing Mexico, then we have a problem. But that would never happen, because he or any other Russian leader would know that it would be a real threat to us.

I've seen some comparisons to having our head in the sand re: WWII, but the reality is that neither Germany nor Japan had even close to the resources it would take to invade North America.

Russia is not a threat to US security unless something catastrophic happens to our side of the MAD equation. The battle we can reasonably fight is on the economic side.

I certainly hope that's the case.

The US has a lot more enemies than it did in WWII. With more powerful weapons, to boot. Pre-WWII, we'd never been attacked in our neck of the woods, with the exception of Pearl Harbor. It's already been demonstrated the US is not as geographically "insulated" as we once were. I think that raises the stakes a bit. When you factor in the lunatic fringe... yup. Scary. Personally, I think Crimea was Putin's way of sticking his toe in the proverbial pool, and testing the waters. On some level, I think he wanted to gauge what, if any, response there would be. He got his answer.

As far as him annexing Mexico... Putin doesn't seem like the fiesta type. Way too colorful/cheerful for him. Although I'd pay money to put his pompous ass in a bullfight... Ole! :mrgreen:
 
I certainly hope that's the case.

The US has a lot more enemies than it did in WWII. With more powerful weapons, to boot. Pre-WWII, we'd never been attacked in our neck of the woods, with the exception of Pearl Harbor. It's already been demonstrated the US is not as geographically "insulated" as we once were. I think that raises the stakes a bit. When you factor in the lunatic fringe... yup. Scary. Personally, I think Crimea was Putin's way of sticking his toe in the proverbial pool, and testing the waters. On some level, I think he wanted to gauge what, if any, response there would be. He got his answer.

As far as him annexing Mexico... Putin doesn't seem like the fiesta type. Way too colorful/cheerful for him. Although I'd pay money to put his pompous ass in a bullfight... Ole! :mrgreen:
We are a lot more powerful as well, and Moscow to Washington still is a very long way. MAD is alive and well, and we need to make sure it stays that way. Our real threats in the near term absolutely come from less politically defined enemies such as IS.
 
Back
Top Bottom