• 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!

US prepares $1B aid package for troubled Ukraine.....

apdst said:
He should have just shutup about it, to begin with. Uh...yeah! Obama planned that whole operation. Right!
Click to expand...

More CON crap. :roll:

So President Obama would have appeared STRONGER by ignoring Syria while a harpy chorus of shrill Congressional CONs demand this that AND the other thing be done???? Seriously?????

Now who said a damn thing about planning??? BushII didn't plan a damn mission, neither did Reagan, or Ford, or Nixon.... they said 'make it so' and when the plan was up for approval said 'go for it' If the mission had failed the blow back would have been on him, just like the failed rescue mission did on President Carter. As far as ordering other people's sons to die for their country, I don't see that as the first definition of brave. Nor do I see a reluctance to send in the troops everytime someone sneezes as being a coward.

But do tell me, what unleashing should be done????

What no-sense are you trying to peddle now? :confused:
 
apdst said:
He's a coward, because he won't act on the threats that he issues.
Click to expand...

You've been told repeatedly, he tried. He couldn't secure a UN resolution, the UK backed out, he hadn't secured authorisation from congress, 70% of Americans were against it, he's one man, he was stopped. He should have never issued the red line threat that has been interpreted as a threat to use force, until he had secured authorisation to use force. That doesn't make him a coward. Although I'm glad authorisation never came.
 
apdst said:
He's purged experienced generals for political reasons and abolished DADT.

Like it, or not, in the eyes of people like Putin, allowing gays to serve openly is a sign of weakness.
Click to expand...

Just another way Conservatives tend to resemble Putin.

I'll take a gay soldier over a bigoted conservative any day.
 
MMC said:
Heya Monte. :2wave: Did you see what I had up with Putin De-escalating things? Or that Piece I had up on the Putin Gambit?
Click to expand...

Hi MMC. sorry I didn't, I've been stuck in here, lol. Where's it at?
 
apdst said:
Finally! You're catching on!

But, if he's going to threaten the use of force, he needs to do it, or shutup about it. His failure to act upon his threats has placed The United States in a weak position.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not FINALLY catching on, I never approved of his threat, and would have been very pissed at him had he attacked Syria. I've never disagreed with you on the threat.
 
apdst said:
He's purged experienced generals for political reasons and abolished DADT.

Like it, or not, in the eyes of people like Putin, allowing gays to serve openly is a sign of weakness.
Click to expand...

Oh..."the purge." Yes. I see the right screaming about this a lot. Generals and other high ranking officers who are openly critical of the Commander in Chief getting relieved. That's what happens when you do that ****. Douglas MacArthur found that out the hard way.

The devil is in the details on that. Having done my research the "purge" isn't such an Obama conspiracy to weaken the military as the right would have you believe.

And removing DADT didn't actually weaken our military. Just because you postulate that Putin sees us as weaker for allowing gays to serve doesn't mean we are actually weaker.
 
apdst said:
He's a coward, because he won't act on the threats that he issues.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he was prevented from acting on those threats. And I'm glad he was prevented from doing so.
 
Threegoofs said:
Just another way Conservatives tend to resemble Putin.

I'll take a gay soldier over a bigoted conservative any day.
Click to expand...

I'll take the guy who's most likely going to do his job in a firefight. I don't give a **** who, or what he is.

Ya see? There's the difference between you and I.

However, image is as important to intimidating the enemy as anything else. Making decisions that bolsters the enemy's morale can create negative concequences on the battlefield.

The DADT debate is another perfect example of how Libbos put their agenda ahead of what's good for the country.
 
Lerxst said:
I'm pretty sure he was prevented from acting on those threats. And I'm glad he was prevented from doing so.
Click to expand...

Right! Like he's never heard of The War Powers Act. That means he's incompetent.
 
Lerxst said:
Oh..."the purge." Yes. I see the right screaming about this a lot. Generals and other high ranking officers who are openly critical of the Commander in Chief getting relieved. That's what happens when you do that ****. Douglas MacArthur found that out the hard way.

The devil is in the details on that. Having done my research the "purge" isn't such an Obama conspiracy to weaken the military as the right would have you believe.

And removing DADT didn't actually weaken our military. Just because you postulate that Putin sees us as weaker for allowing gays to serve doesn't mean we are actually weaker.
Click to expand...

I only know of one general that was relieved because he was openly critical of the president. There were more?
 
apdst said:
I'll take the guy who's most likely going to do his job in a firefight. I don't give a **** who, or what he is.

Ya see? There's the difference between you and I.

However, image is as important to intimidating the enemy as anything else. Making decisions that bolsters the enemy's morale can create negative concequences on the battlefield.

The DADT debate is another perfect example of how Libbos put their agenda ahead of what's good for the country.
Click to expand...

Ending discrimination is good for the country, its not an agenda. What realm do you orbit in.
 
apdst said:
I only know of one general that was relieved because he was openly critical of the president. There were more?
Click to expand...

I don't know...that's what the right was claiming in many articles. When I looked up the information there was no indication of a "purge" of the military. There were a lot of non-continuation boards where officers were dismissed because they had been passed up for promotion and other who were separated because of strength reduction. Many discharged over conduct related issues (fraternization, adultery, cheating on tests, etc). Some were dismissed over operational related matters in which their competency was called into question.

I've seen the list of officers separated from the military. What I've not seen is Obama's fingerprints on this "purge." Simply attaching that word to those separations without any explanation whatsoever and no evidence that Obama is behind this is very transparent and doesn't warrant any serious consideration. There's a reason that about the only play this "purge" gets is on sites like inforwars, WND, freepatriot, and other right wing conservative blogs and sites. Because it's a product of the anti-Obama hype.
 
apdst said:
However, image is as important to intimidating the enemy as anything else. Making decisions that bolsters the enemy's morale can create negative concequences on the battlefield.

The DADT debate is another perfect example of how Libbos put their agenda ahead of what's good for the country.
Click to expand...

This is absolute nonsense. Until you can actually quantify this in any meaningful way it's nothing more than empty rhetoric.
 
apdst said:
Right! Like he's never heard of The War Powers Act. That means he's incompetent.
Click to expand...

That act allows the president to commit troops in an emergency situation where there is imminent threat of attack, or we've been attacked, without the delay of seeking congressional approval until latter. Syria didn't fit that dude. What is the matter with you? Your hatred for Obama is clouding your judgement and making you say stupid things. And I doubt you really believe Obama has never heard of WPA, that's just more of your hatred, its unbecoming.
 
apdst said:
I'll take the guy who's most likely going to do his job in a firefight. I don't give a **** who, or what he is.

Ya see? There's the difference between you and I.

However, image is as important to intimidating the enemy as anything else. Making decisions that bolsters the enemy's morale can create negative concequences on the battlefield.

The DADT debate is another perfect example of how Libbos put their agenda ahead of what's good for the country.
Click to expand...

In other words, you like Putin more than Obama. Gotcha.
 
apdst said:
He should have never threatened to do so! Damn! Why is this so hard for you people to understand??
Click to expand...

Because he said their was a RED LINE? What exactly was he threatening by saying that? I took it to mean that they would lose their WMD's and that is what is happening.
 
iguanaman said:
Because he said their was a RED LINE? What exactly was he threatening by saying that? I took it to mean that they would lose their WMD's and that is what is happening.
Click to expand...

Also, these WMD's have to be kept secure while they're being rounded up, there's a lot of groups that would love to get there hands on them. I'm sure that's a challenge, dangerous and causing delays.
 
Just checking the news outlets for updates on this situation and what I'm seeing is that while Congress and President Obama are pushing for economic sanctions against Russia, Europe is urging the U.S. to slow down and let them set the pace. Why? Because U.S. policy on a European problem will most likely negatively impact our European allies as much or more so than it will Russia.

Why can't we just slow the **** down, let another 3rd party country take the lead on this. Say Germany? Why must it be us, especially when we appear to be out of step with those most affected? I get the feeling that what Germany and the rest of the EU really want to say to us is "hey...America...chill the **** out, please."
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
Just checking the news outlets for updates on this situation and what I'm seeing is that while Congress and President Obama are pushing for economic sanctions against Russia, Europe is urging the U.S. to slow down and let them set the pace. Why? Because U.S. policy on a European problem will most likely negatively impact our European allies as much or more so than it will Russia.

Why can't we just slow the **** down, let another 3rd party country take the lead on this. Say Germany? Why must it be us, especially when we appear to e out of step with those most affected? I get the feeling that what Germany and the rest of the EU really want to say to us is "hey...America...chill the **** out, please."
Click to expand...

Love it, I think Mrs. Merkel should say it, lol.
 
My take from Baier on FOX so far.
Live clips of Kerry being lovingly mobbed in Kiev.
Reporters in France telling Kerry that Putin denied Russian troops involved.
Kerry slapping back at Putin.
Putin saying his Russians were there and that he could go in with force when needed.
Obama slapping Putin around.
Graham and McCain slamming Obama, indirectly circling the wagons around Putin .
Lerxst said:
Just checking the news outlets for updates on this situation and what I'm seeing is that while Congress and President Obama are pushing for economic sanctions against Russia, Europe is urging the U.S. to slow down and let them set the pace. Why? Because U.S. policy on a European problem will most likely negatively impact our European allies as much or more so than it will Russia.

Why can't we just slow the **** down, let another 3rd party country take the lead on this. Say Germany? Why must it be us, especially when we appear to e out of step with those most affected? I get the feeling that what Germany and the rest of the EU really want to say to us is "hey...America...chill the **** out, please."
Click to expand...
 
Montecresto said:
You've been told repeatedly, he tried. He couldn't secure a UN resolution, the UK backed out, he hadn't secured authorisation from congress, 70% of Americans were against it, he's one man, he was stopped. He should have never issued the red line threat that has been interpreted as a threat to use force, until he had secured authorisation to use force. That doesn't make him a coward. Although I'm glad authorisation never came.
Click to expand...

Blustering blowhards are not noted for their courage, and bluster is all this President has done.
 
MMC said:
Obama has cut military to military talks and support with Russia.....Do you think this will cause problems going forward and dealing with Russia? Also in what way will this cost the US money, by doing this?



US prepares $1B aid package for troubled Ukraine.....
Associated Press – 2 mins 47 secs ago


5e400c08df9772084d0f6a706700dfbf.jpg


The Obama administration readied economic sanctions against Russia on Tuesday as it formally announced an aid package of $1 billion in energy subsidies to Ukraine amid worries that Moscow would extend its military reach into the mainland of the former Soviet republic.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Kiev for a five-hour show of support for the fledgling Ukraine government as it grapples with a military takeover of Crimea, a strategic, mostly pro-Russian region in the country's southeast. Kerry also was to pay homage to the dozens of protesters who were slain Feb. 20 in anti-government demonstrations that days later ousted Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych.

As Kerry arrived, the White House announced a package of energy aid, training for financial and election institutions, and anti-corruption efforts. U.S. officials traveling with Kerry also said the Obama administration is considering slapping Russia with unspecified economic sanctions as soon as this week.

Additionally, the officials said, the U.S. has suspended what was described as a narrow set of discussions with Russia over a bilateral trade investment treaty. It is also going to provide technical advice to the Ukraine government about its trade rights with Russia. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to be quoted by name before the official announcement was made.....snip~

US prepares $1B aid package for troubled Ukraine
Click to expand...

This appears to be a good initiative by the Obama Administration and one that will be a win for Obama and a win for Putin as well.

Putin will get the Crimea, as he wanted, and Obama will get credit for stopping Russia from absorbing the entire Ukraine. Perhaps this is the 'flexibility' Obama once referred to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom