Yup, NATO is a line that Obama drew in the sand.And we all know what Obama does once he's drawn a line in the sand.
Yup, NATO is a line that Obama drew in the sand.And we all know what Obama does once he's drawn a line in the sand.
Thanks for liking this post, j-mac. It shows how much we both, well you, despise intelligent thought!Personally, I think intellectuals are the worst. Just the word intellect gets my blood boiling.
Yup, NATO is a line that Obama drew in the sand.
Yup, Obama made it up.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.
wtf does ISIS have to do with the Ukraine and Putin?
sarcasm
No, what are they?Ever heard of smilies?
Nothing but it sounded good.
Yup, NATO is a line that Obama drew in the sand.
You mean the line that McCain, Ayotte and Graham signed off on after getting intel.And we all know what Obama does once he's drawn a line in the sand.
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.
Worse. He's an academic.
Hey, like all of us, he has a pesky problem with his short game....So, I've heard.
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!
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.
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.
It's not at all long standing though. It is a commitment made in 2004.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 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.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.
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.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: