Russia To Sanction U.S. Senators.....

MMC said:

That's Right I did say Russia.....but then that would include all those that make up the ruling government of Russia. Which those people do have Names.

What does that bit about NAM and Soviet Weapons have to do with the Price of Tea in China?

No.....I trash Durbin for what he says out of his mouth and for being nothing more than a Obama yes man. He use to be his own politician with his own ideas. Course that goes way back when he actually worked for a living. Now he is nothing more than an Obama ass kisser.

Click to expand...

Do you ever say anything positive about the President or negative about the right wing darlings that run the Republican Party? Or is your outrage completely one way, as it is with virtually everybody on the Right?

Wiggen said:

Do you ever say anything positive about the President or negative about the right wing darlings that run the Republican Party? Or is your outrage completely one way, as it is with virtually everybody on the Right?

Click to expand...

Yeah.....why don't you run over to the thread I put up with Johnny Quest McCain. Might help with any confusion. Just sayin!

Whilst Diplomatic sanctions and Financial Sanctions may hurt Russia, their most prized asset is ultimately the Russian Oil and Gas Industry which supplies many European Countries and in the process is responsible for the bulk of Russian exports.

The dependency on Russian Gas varies according to country, with many Eastern European Countries and Countries such as Finland totally dependent, whilst other have less dependency.

Russia in the European energy sector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Britain does not rely on Russian Gas instead relying on North Sea Gas and Gas shipped in on large LNG Carriers and stored in places such as the Isle of Grain near London.

The Isle of Grain alone having the ability to supply 20 per cent of the UK’s forecast gas demand. However to build more LNG storage facilities, LNG Ships and other such facilities in order to supply whole European countries in the short term would be a mammoth task, and as for other alternative fuel sources they tend to be far more long term options.

A loss of Russian Gas would have serious implications for Russia and many European countries including Germany, and to replace Russian Gas with LNG would require a concerted effort by the west not seen since the Berlin Airlift. Whilst the West would have to take control of whole industries, markets and resources, although it's certainly not an impossible scenario, especially as many western countries such as the US, Canada and Australia have significant Natural Gas Supplies and emerging shale gas deposits, and Europe itself has the potential to carry out future shale gas extraction in certain regions.

If the West was to work together to negate the European reliance on Russian Energy it would without doubt be a devastating blow to Russia's Economy.

LNG Carrier

National Grid - Isle of Grain LNG

Europe looking at alternatives to Russian Gas

What further sanctions could Russia face?

Diplomatic travel ban? When's Edward leaving for the Honduras?

Wiggen said:

People who bring up Godwin's law when references are made to big countries invading small neighbors and then annexing them are obviously woefully ignorant of history. Sometimes behavior is Hitlerian, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Click to expand...

One can relate anything to the nazis. Hitler wore pants, and they wear pants...!!

Until genocide occurs, the comparison is off the table as it belittles the horror.

sawdust said:

First, I am real. That's why I have the ability to type. In general I think we are in agreement about Obama. He can't do anything to affect Russian policy and he knows it. The reason he can't do anything has nothing to do with the events of the last month, they have everything to do with the last six years. Obama has deliberately engaged in a foreign policy

Click to expand...

Correct. At last, you're acknowledging that Obama's indifference to the events in Crimea are deliberate, as opposed to him trying to be tough in Crimea but failing at it. Congrats.

sawdust said:

designed to decrease Americas power in the world.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. America--i. e. the American people, have never had any power in the world at all thanks to their miserable obsessed govt. in the last 50 years, which continues to run up huge deficits and taxes everyone to death to pay for pointless military interventions and sponsorship of foreign regimes (i. e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Contras, . . .)

As for the US govt.--which works for Exxon, BP, etc.--it has always been weak because

1) Its military can't fight worth crap, as evidenced by its 8 year bungling in Iraq and continual bungling in Afghanistan against Third World adversaries w/crude weapons.

2) It has never in the last 50 years, under all administrations, stood up for democracy; rather, it only claims to do so when it's in the best interest of its corporate-backed or AIPAC-backed sponsors, and condemns all democracies that are detrimental to those interests, and the rest of the world knows it and therefore never trusts anything the US govt. says.

So, in a nutshell, Obama did not do anything to weaken the US or the US govt. because it has already been weakened by prior administrations beyond all hope. FYI, one can only weaken something that was strong to begin with.

Wiggen said:

Tell that to the Ukrainians.

Click to expand...

The Ukrainian people have nothing to be sad about. Russia got rid of a territory that didn't like them.

Wiggen said:

Or the Georgians (you know, the ones in Europe, not in Dixie).

Click to expand...

The Georgians have nothing to be upset about, because the territory that Russia seized, South Ossetia, was also staunchly pro-Russian.

You see, the problem here is the right's tendency to employ false analogies based on their childish understanding of history (largely induced by the one-sided report of faux-news and the US mainstream media)--

Hilter conquered countries and territories that didn't want him there, whereas Putin invaded two territories (South Ossetia and Crimea) that welcomed him w/open arms.

solletica said:

Correct. At last, you're acknowledging that Obama's indifference to the events in Crimea are deliberate, as opposed to him trying to be tough in Crimea but failing at it. Congrats.



Incorrect. America--i. e. the American people, have never had any power in the world at all thanks to their miserable obsessed govt. in the last 50 years, which continues to run up huge deficits and taxes everyone to death to pay for pointless military interventions and sponsorship of foreign regimes (i. e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Contras, . . .)

As for the US govt.--which works for Exxon, BP, etc.--it has always been weak because

1) Its military can't fight worth crap, as evidenced by its 8 year bungling in Iraq and continual bungling in Afghanistan against Third World adversaries w/crude weapons.

2) It has never in the last 50 years, under all administrations, stood up for democracy; rather, it only claims to do so when it's in the best interest of its corporate-backed or AIPAC-backed sponsors, and condemns all democracies that are detrimental to those interests, and the rest of the world knows it and therefore never trusts anything the US govt. says.

So, in a nutshell, Obama did not do anything to weaken the US or the US govt. because it has already been weakened by prior administrations beyond all hope. FYI, one can only weaken something that was strong to begin with.

Click to expand...

I totally disagree that Obama did nothing to weaken the government internationally. I'm not going to defend Bush but our enemies knew that a threat to American interests would be met with serious military consequences. Wether you agree with those choices is a different topic. Obama hasn't shown a particular interest in foreign policy. He's played nice with our enemies, confused our allies and drawn movable lines in the sand when he disagrees with the actions of other nations. He's led from behind in the Middle East, emboldening our enemies and taken a back seat to the Russians who now drive foreign policy in the region.

Bush was someone who could be taken by his word. The question remains if his word was the right word, but at least the international community knew that his word would be backed by action. Obama just runs his mouth and hopes someone will listen. Either that or he slides his hand up Kerry's back side and moves his mouth for him.

I just read you last post again. What the hell do you mean "at last?" I've never thought anything other than the fact that Obama was an ineffective international leader. Here's a tip for you. Try communicating with others with an opening line that is something other than passive aggressive. You'll be a more effective communicator.

American said:

I hope they sanction the Democrats.

Click to expand...

It might work more effectively if the US sanctioned them also.

Wiggen said:

Tell that to the Ukrainians. Or the Georgians (you know, the ones in Europe, not in Dixie). People who bring up Godwin's law when references are made to big countries invading small neighbors and then annexing them are obviously woefully ignorant of history. Sometimes behavior is Hitlerian, regardless of whether you like it or not.

Don’t Let Godwin’s Law Protect Totalitarians

Click to expand...

Yes, but those who refer to it get to feel clued in and clever.

ecofarm said:

One can relate anything to the nazis. Hitler wore pants, and they wear pants...!!

Until genocide occurs, the comparison is off the table as it belittles the horror.

Click to expand...

Are you just making up these rules?

solletica said:

The Ukrainian people have nothing to be sad about. Russia got rid of a territory that didn't like them.



The Georgians have nothing to be upset about, because the territory that Russia seized, South Ossetia, was also staunchly pro-Russian.

You see, the problem here is the right's tendency to employ false analogies based on their childish understanding of history (largely induced by the one-sided report of faux-news and the US mainstream media)--

Hilter conquered countries and territories that didn't want him there, whereas Putin invaded two territories (South Ossetia and Crimea) that welcomed him w/open arms.

Click to expand...

And who are you to determine when people should and shouldn't be upset, "libertarian"?

sawdust said:

I totally disagree that Obama did nothing to weaken the government internationally. I'm not going to defend Bush but our enemies knew that a threat to American interests would be met with serious military consequences. Wether you agree with those choices is a different topic. Obama hasn't shown a particular interest in foreign policy. He's played nice with our enemies, confused our allies and drawn movable lines in the sand when he disagrees with the actions of other nations. He's led from behind in the Middle East, emboldening our enemies and taken a back seat to the Russians who now drive foreign policy in the region.

Bush was someone who could be taken by his word. The question remains if his word was the right word, but at least the international community knew that his word would be backed by action. Obama just runs his mouth and hopes someone will listen. Either that or he slides his hand up Kerry's back side and moves his mouth for him.

I just read you last post again. What the hell do you mean "at last?" I've never thought anything other than the fact that Obama was an ineffective international leader. Here's a tip for you. Try communicating with others with an opening line that is something other than passive aggressive. You'll be a more effective communicator.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Obama, Clinton, and Kerry have been one of the most stunningly inept administrations in modern history. Its almost like they are being mugged by reality.

US Conservative said:

Agreed. Obama, Clinton, and Kerry have been one of the most stunningly inept administrations in modern history. Its almost like they are being mugged by reality.

Click to expand...

Mugged????? Their getting Skull......erm uhm well.....:lol:

solletica said:

The Ukrainian people have nothing to be sad about. Russia got rid of a territory that didn't like them.



The Georgians have nothing to be upset about, because the territory that Russia seized, South Ossetia, was also staunchly pro-Russian.

You see, the problem here is the right's tendency to employ false analogies based on their childish understanding of history (largely induced by the one-sided report of faux-news and the US mainstream media)--

Hilter conquered countries and territories that didn't want him there, whereas Putin invaded two territories (South Ossetia and Crimea) that welcomed him w/open arms.

Click to expand...

So I guess we'd better hope Mexico doesn't decide to invade Los Angeles. Or France doesn't decide to invade Quebec.

Your reference to Godwin's Law was apparently designed to end any comparison of the Russian land grab with Hitler. This just in: Sometimes comparisons with Hitler are right on point. If you honestly think this ends with the Russians only invading territory that 'likes' them, you're either a Putin fanboy or simply do not understand international politics. Or you get all your news from the Russian media.

MMC said:

Yeah.....why don't you run over to the thread I put up with Johnny Quest McCain. Might help with any confusion. Just sayin!

Click to expand...

McCain doesn't count. The Right hates him because he isn't quite crazy enough for them. It's very popular to rip McCain if you're right wing. I said 'right wing darlings' in my post, not Republicans. So your answer to my question is 'no', you don't ever criticize them.

US Conservative said:

Are you just making up these rules?

Click to expand...

It's not right to compare genocide to less. Doing so belittles and validates the genocide (as there is always some people in the 'like nazis' category).

I can't make up logic.

solletica said:

Correct. At last, you're acknowledging that Obama's indifference to the events in Crimea are deliberate, as opposed to him trying to be tough in Crimea but failing at it. Congrats.



Incorrect. America--i. e. the American people, have never had any power in the world at all thanks to their miserable obsessed govt. in the last 50 years, which continues to run up huge deficits and taxes everyone to death to pay for pointless military interventions and sponsorship of foreign regimes (i. e. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Contras, . . .)

As for the US govt.--which works for Exxon, BP, etc.--it has always been weak because

1) Its military can't fight worth crap, as evidenced by its 8 year bungling in Iraq and continual bungling in Afghanistan against Third World adversaries w/crude weapons.

2) It has never in the last 50 years, under all administrations, stood up for democracy; rather, it only claims to do so when it's in the best interest of its corporate-backed or AIPAC-backed sponsors, and condemns all democracies that are detrimental to those interests, and the rest of the world knows it and therefore never trusts anything the US govt. says.

So, in a nutshell, Obama did not do anything to weaken the US or the US govt. because it has already been weakened by prior administrations beyond all hope. FYI, one can only weaken something that was strong to begin with.

Click to expand...

So the only answer is to turn everything over to the Libertarians, who don't believe in government at all. Got it!:lamo

Grant said:

Yes, but those who refer to it get to feel clued in and clever.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's kind of like a security blanket for them. Any time anybody mentions Hitler or Nazis, they trot out 'Godwin's Law' bull****, as though that's supposed to render anything said invalid. It's laughable.

Wiggen said:

So I guess we'd better hope Mexico doesn't decide to invade Los Angeles. Or France doesn't decide to invade Quebec.

Your reference to Godwin's Law was apparently designed to end any comparison of the Russian land grab with Hitler. This just in: Sometimes comparisons with Hitler are right on point. If you honestly think this ends with the Russians only invading territory that 'likes' them, you're either a Putin fanboy or simply do not understand international politics. Or you get all your news from the Russian media.

Click to expand...

Anyone who knows history is instantly struck by how close the situation in Crimea is to Hitlers aggression. Those who employ "godwins law" in this case are hopelessly naive.

ecofarm said:

It's not right to compare genocide to less. Doing so belittles and validates the genocide (as there is always some people in the 'like nazis' category).

I can't make up logic.

Click to expand...

Much happened in Nazi Germany outside of the genocide. Lets not appeal to ignorance and lack of insight when the similarities are so striking.

ecofarm said:

One can relate anything to the nazis. Hitler wore pants, and they wear pants...!!

Until genocide occurs, the comparison is off the table as it belittles the horror.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. You mean if the United States invaded Canada and Mexico, simply because we could, nobody could compare that to Nazi aggression in Europe in the late thirties and forties? Bizarre.

US Conservative said:

Much happened in Nazi Germany outside of the genocide. Lets not appeal to ignorance and lack of insight when the similarities are so striking.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Nazis did a hell of a lot of lousy things aside from genocide. Invading peaceful neighbors like Poland, Denmark, Norway, et al being one example.

Wiggen said:

McCain doesn't count. The Right hates him because he isn't quite crazy enough for them. It's very popular to rip McCain if you're right wing. I said 'right wing darlings' in my post, not Republicans. So your answer to my question is 'no', you don't ever criticize them.

Click to expand...

Okay, so go and look where I have jumped on Conservatives.....then the Neo Cons. Can't say McCain was one. Might wanted to be one.....but you know how that goes. Hell even told them they should have their own party.

Although I do notice one difference.....they don't complain as much when I take off the gloves. Imagine that!

Wiggen said:

So the only answer is to turn everything over to the Libertarians, who don't believe in government at all. Got it!:lamo

Click to expand...

Believing in limited government is not believing in no government at all. Spread that lie elsewhere. Individuals should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't intrude on another individuals rights.