• 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

ecofarm said:
That's a fine argument Monte has there. I'm not sure it qualifies as debate, and no one can take it seriously, but there it is.

Bunch o' war lovers, tha lot o' ya. Just can't get enough, yum yum.

snicker
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to finally see conservatives admit it.
 
ecofarm said:
That's a fine argument Monte has there. I'm not sure it qualifies as debate, and no one can take it seriously, but there it is.

Bunch o' war lovers, tha lot o' ya. Just can't get enough, yum yum.

snicker
Click to expand...

Those that disagree with the Libbos are racists/sexists/homophobes and now, war lovers.
 
apdst said:
Obama has the authority act via The War Powers Act. It would have ben perfectly legal.

Oh, and you need to learn what a representative government is.
Click to expand...

It is not perfectly legal to attack a country that isn't threatening or attacking you. And I prefer a president that follows the will of americans, not his own.
 
Montecresto said:
We cannot attack countries that haven't attacked us or threatened to attack us.
Click to expand...

Cannot or should not?

Because, like it or not, it's something we do all the ****ing time.

Because we have "interests".

So, what?

Russia can't have interests?

I say **** Putin and **** Ukraine.

I don't even want to hear about this nonsense, let alone involve ourselves in it.
 
solletica said:
It's refreshing to finally see conservatives admit it.
Click to expand...

soot said:
Cannot or should not?

Because, like it or not, it's something we do all the ****ing time.

Because we have "interests".

So, what?

Russia can't have interests?

I say **** Putin and **** Ukraine.

I don't even want to hear about this nonsense, let alone involve ourselves in it.
Click to expand...

Should not. But why are you talking that way to me. We agree.
 
solletica said:
Nope, it's not stupid.

Ever seen a Mom make his kids eat his/her vegetables by telling the child that it will make him/her strong?

Obama's lie is the exact same thing--it's designed to keep naive individuals (i. e. the pro-war right wing) within the US pacified. That's all.
Click to expand...

Bull**** and nice try to cover for incompetence.
 
soot said:
Cannot or should not?

Because, like it or not, it's something we do all the ****ing time.

Because we have "interests".

So, what?

Russia can't have interests?

I say **** Putin and **** Ukraine.

I don't even want to hear about this nonsense, let alone involve ourselves in it.
Click to expand...


Why not **** Russia, got a thing for Putie?
 
Carjosse said:
The Western powers have to at least place sanctions on Russia if they are not going to help Ukraine. We cannot let Russia invade whoever they want.
Click to expand...

What sanctions are the "Western Powers" going to place on them? I put "Western Powers" in quotes not in the spirit of an arrogant American, but because, whereas America and Canada could quite easily place sanctions on Russia, the EU is in no position to do so.

The EU are entirely dependent on Russia for their energy resources. We can argue about what got them to that point another day, however the reality is that any sanction we place on Russia, Russia can turn around and hurt the "Western Powers" ten times worse with sanctions of their own.
 
clownboy said:
Bull**** and nice try to cover for incompetence.
Click to expand...

What's bull!@#$ is the utter failure of any of the right wingers to convince us why/how inaction to Putin's latest act amounts to incompetence.
 
Montecresto said:
It is not perfectly legal to attack a country that isn't threatening or attacking you. And I prefer a president that follows the will of americans, not his own.
Click to expand...

Are you the saying you like the 'No Drama Obama' Doctrine versus the 'Bring It On' Doctrine? And a SoS who was welcomed in Ukraine, as well as praised by Netanyahu ?
 
solletica said:
What's bull!@#$ is the utter failure of any of the right wingers to convince us why/how inaction to Putin's latest act amounts to incompetence.
Click to expand...

The utter incompetence doesn't come from inaction, but the president's actions in this case. His empty bluster, his entire handling of this. This president is useless and embarassing. And now, we toss a billion dollars out there as a distraction, to look like he's doing something.
 
Montecresto said:
He never complains that the UK pussed out in Syria. Obama dispatched Hillary Clinton to the UN two or three times to secure a resolution for use of force, every time she came home empty handed, then the UK backed out, he didn't have congresses approval, and 70% of Americans were against US action in Syria. He thinks Obama should have been a belligerent and attacked president Assad anyway. That's how one thinks that has a lust for war.
Click to expand...

Which is hilarious for you to say since when Putin sends troops in to Ukraine with no UN authorization you support him. Does Putin have a lust for war?
 
jmotivator said:
Which is hilarious for you to say since when Putin sends troops in to Ukraine with no UN authorization you support him. Does Putin have a lust for war?
Click to expand...

I never said I supported the action. Who said that?
 
Leading article: Bill Clinton 0, Saddam Hussein 1. So what is the US strategy? - Voices - The Independent

The message from Washington is clear. But it has to be spelt out because, earlier this week, the White House strategy of bluffing Iraq into submission by uncompromising talk and a massive show of strength came badly unstuck.

In an error entirely of the Administration's own making, a State Department official disclosed that the US might countenance a more flexible sanctions regime. That told Iraq that it could treat the warmongering pictures being beamed in on CNN (which functions at times like these like a virtual back channel for US diplomacy) as mere sabre-rattling. Like everyone else, the US was prepared to deal. Once that cat was out of the bag, the US had to try doubly hard to look tough.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-clinton-doctrine

Not to be deterred by success, the Clinton administration made that demonstration of force in Iraq the exception that proves the rule. Consider its response to the next two bona fide nation security emergencies it faced: the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis and the current crisis over United Nations inspectors in Iraq. Both cases involved the "major regional contingencies" on which U.S. military planning is based. Yet in each we, Mr. Clinton's top priority was avoiding use of military force and confrontation, even if that meant accepting significant risks to U.S. interests.

Accepting Ambiguity An uncharitable interpretation would be that Mr. Clinton simply declared victory and unleashed spinmeisters to persuade us it was so. In the case of North Korea, after declaring publicly that Pyongyang cannot be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, the president decided to live with the possibility that it has one or two secret atomic bombs, rather than pressing for a more certain resolution that could have risked armed conflict. In the Iraq case, Mr. Clinton so far has accepted the ambiguity of the dangerous status quo ante, while Saddam gained an opportunity to hide the biological weapons that U.N. inspectors had been closing in on.
Click to expand...
I think Obama could learn something from the Clinton years......don't get involved unless you plan to take decisive action, action you're willing to back up with muscle. If you don't think you can do that, stay the hell out of it. You're going to lose the confrontation anyway, and look like a fool doing it. I'm thinking Obama should probably stop at condemning the actions of Russia, because anything else like sanctions or saber-rattling toward a country like Russian don't mean much.
 
solletica said:
I never said I supported the action. Who said that?
Click to expand...

Please try and read who was quoted in the post before assuming it is you.
 
The billion dollars was first brought out in discussions with 'Mr. Cantor', the only GOP leader to stand with the President so far.
Do you agree with Pukin that no Russians are in Crimea?
How far are you willing to go to defend our enemies ?
clownboy said:
The utter incompetence doesn't come from inaction, but the president's actions in this case. His empty bluster, his entire handling of this. This president is useless and embarassing. And now, we toss a billion dollars out there as a distraction, to look like he's doing something.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
No, no they aren't. That's what foreign relations and diplomacy are all about - words.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's about actions. World leaders don't care about words.

clownboy said:
I have been, over and over again in this thread. You came in late to the game and didn't read what came before. Not my problem.
Click to expand...

Where? I've yet to see any valid complaint about why Obama's inaction in this latest Crimean saga amounts to incompetence.
 
American said:
Leading article: Bill Clinton 0, Saddam Hussein 1. So what is the US strategy? - Voices - The Independent



https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-clinton-doctrine


I think Obama could learn something from the Clinton years......don't get involved unless you plan to take decisive action, action you're willing to back up with muscle. If you don't think you can do that, stay the hell out of it. You're going to lose the confrontation anyway, and look like a fool doing it. I'm thinking Obama should probably stop at condemning the actions of Russia, because anything else like sanctions or saber-rattling toward a country like Russian don't mean much.
Click to expand...

Here's a basic fact of life. . .

ALL POLITICIANS LIE

Obama lies, yes he does. He can lie and lie and lie and lie and lie as much as he wants, and no sensible person cares, because words don't mean ****.

Only actions matter. Deal w/it.
 
solletica said:
Here's a basic fact of life. . .

ALL POLITICIANS LIE

Obama lies, yes he does. He can lie and lie and lie and lie and lie as much as he wants, and no sensible person cares, because words don't mean ****.

Only actions matter. Deal w/it.
Click to expand...

I don't have to deal with it, but he will.
 
JoeTrumps said:
It's always all or nothing with you people. you act like our only options are do nothing or send troops. How about Obama simply tell Putin if he shoots one bullet in the Ukraine HE will impose the strongest sanctions possible on Russia. Then actually stick to his word(for once) and go through with it. But he won't do that. Even today he's sending out Biden to say we're going to pawn it off on "international institutions" to take care of the situation.

the point is NOBODY(not us, not the Russian, not the planet) expects Obama to show backbone here. If, however, he does I will be the first one to commend him for it.
Click to expand...

Problem is, guy, is that you're not looking at the big picture. For instance, the Chinese have major investments in the Ukraine...and anything that drives a greater wedge between Russia and China is good for America. Furthermore, the eastern half of the Ukraine is strongly pro-Russian, and there's talk of dividing the nation into east and west.

In other words, there's other factors going on here that most of us in the West don't know about. Besides, this whole situation would be analogous to America trying to - in the American government's opinion - sending troops into Mexico to "protect the Mexican people against tyranny"...and Russia threatening sanctions against us for doing so.
 
apdst said:
What's the answer, then? Obama's faux threats, that everyone in the world knows he won't act on, aren't doing a very good job.
Click to expand...

Why do we have to do anything at all that involves military options? Where is it written in the Constitution that when Bumf**kistan is being threatened by its neighboring nation, that we have to spend our blood and treasure to go protect them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom