Ukraine

[Conan71]

He can use whatever propaganda he chooses because long term it won't be effective.  

That's always been the USSR/Russia's strongest weapon.  Only after the cold war was over did we finally realize how much of the USSR's armament was bluff and bluster.  Technologically, they are light years behind the U.S.

[AquaMan]

I don't think we should get involved.  I just think we should make that intension clear.  Our greatest weapon is the privilege of trading with us. When backed up by an impenetrable and fearsome defense, that is all we should need.  Attack us, and die, attack our friends and die economically.  Learn to survive peacefully with us or without us, but don't provoke us.

Unfortunately fence-sitting hurt us.  Putin has the best hand currently because he knows Obama is going to waver like a reed, and confront this with rhetoric instead of action.  That hurts because our markets will pay the price, and our trading partners will become uneasy as to which side they feel safer dealing with.

China is giggling.

" I don't think we should get involved" and "fence sitting hurt us" and "rhetoric instead of action"  don't seem to be compatible statements. Did I miss something here?

[AquaMan]

This is worth noting. It is our history being played out in Europe right now. Surprises me that you all haven't made the connection. Russia is doing what we did to acquire Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona. On the pretext that our country was at risk and our countrymen were being attacked by hostile forces, we intervened to protect our interests and our people using "remember the Alamo!" to rally support. I know the circumstances are not an exact match but our behavior allowed us to expand our economic and defensive base. That was the real reason American forces intervened. Had there been instantaneous press, internet and Spanish ships in the Gulf we may never have pulled it off. It was done before most of the world knew what was happening.

[Gaspar]

" I don't think we should get involved" and "fence sitting hurt us" and "rhetoric instead of action"  don't seem to be compatible statements. Did I miss something here?

Yes you did.  

We should either tell the world that WE WILL NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN YOUR PETTY WARS UNLESS THEY POSE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, or we tell them STOP IT OR WE WILL BLOW YOU UP.

Either way, we make it clear that bad actors and their allies will lose the ability to trade with the US.  Period!

However the use of the word "Period!" may not play play well with this president.  

The body language in this room is priceless.

"Ok, now everyone look at the president and pretend he knows what he's doing.  Joe, finger out of your nose."

[rebound]

...Russia is doing what we did to acquire Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona...    ...we intervened to protect our interests and our people using "remember the Alamo!" to rally support...

I get your post and agree with your general sentiment, but my Texan wife's family as well as my kids who were both born in TX, would probably take umbrage at including TX in with the other states.   Texas won it's independence from Mexico own it's own.  There was no support from the US military at the time.  "Remember the Alamo!", and "Remember Goliad!"  were Texian battle cries, not US.  It then became an independent country for a while before aligning with and be annexed by the US.  (Which did start another war, this time between the US and Mexico, but Texas was already independent by then.)

[AquaMan]

Yes you did.  

We should either tell the world that WE WILL NOT BECOME INVOLVED IN YOUR PETTY WARS UNLESS THEY POSE AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, or we tell them STOP IT OR WE WILL BLOW YOU UP.

Either way, we make it clear that bad actors and their allies will lose the ability to trade with the US.  Period!

However the use of the word "Period!" may not play play well with this president.  

The body language in this room is priceless.

"Ok, now everyone look at the president and pretend he knows what he's doing.  Joe, finger out of your nose."

No, I didn't. Your self constructed paradigm limits your vision. Wars are economic. Using economics to punish is like using tanks to acquire land. You don't see that refusing trade with us and our allies is a warlike action similar in nature to our refusing to trade with Japan before WWII, yet selling to their perceived enemies. The Japanese considered that "becoming involved". They were correct in that assessment and it led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Of course you disguise your limitation by using captioning pics and dismissing our leadership. Consistent behavior.

[AquaMan]

I get your post and agree with your general sentiment, but my Texan wife's family as well as my kids who were both born in TX, would probably take umbrage at including TX in with the other states.   Texas won it's independence from Mexico own it's own.  There was no support from the US military at the time.  "Remember the Alamo!", and "Remember Goliad!"  were Texian battle cries, not US.  It then became an independent country for a while before aligning with and be annexed by the US.  (Which did start another war, this time between the US and Mexico, but Texas was already independent by then.)

Texans take umbrage at everything outside of Texas! My recounting of that history is from memory, though there was no overt support from the US military at the time, there were certainly American patriots fighting there and behind the scenes support. Some friends tell me Texas never really became a state in fact since its entry was not ratified by the necessary number of states. Any validity to that?

[Gaspar]

No, I didn't. Your self constructed paradigm limits your vision. Wars are economic. Using economics to punish is like using tanks to acquire land. You don't see that refusing trade with us and our allies is a warlike action similar in nature to our refusing to trade with Japan before WWII, yet selling to their perceived enemies. The Japanese considered that "becoming involved". They were correct in that assessment and it led to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Of course you disguise your limitation by using captioning pics and dismissing our leadership. Consistent behavior.

So if our country decides not to do business with someone because we don't like the way they conduct themselves, that is an act of war?  Really?  Seriously?

Trade with the US is a carrot, not a stick.  It only becomes a stick when other countries allow themselves to become dependent through their own economic mismanagement.  We are not responsible for Russia's sucky economy or corrupt government. 

We are G D free as individuals and as a country to do business with whomever the hell we please.  Trade is mutual exchange and we have the right extend or revoke it based on the actions of our trade partners.  We are not obligated to trade under penalty of war.

It seems that you have adopted a global paradigm that has little basis in reality.

[rebound]

Texans take umbrage at everything outside of Texas! My recounting of that history is from memory, though there was no overt support from the US military at the time, there were certainly American patriots fighting there and behind the scenes support. Some friends tell me Texas never really became a state in fact since its entry was not ratified by the necessary number of states. Any validity to that?

Oh man, do they ever!  And I've lived with it for almost 20 years now.  

Texans are always looking for ways to claim that either (a) they were never really made a state and are therefor still technically a separate nation, or (b) that the terms of their annexation allow them to secede at their will.  Neither of those claims is true.   Regarding annexation, it was a very tumultuous time in the US, and there were some interesting compromises, etc, involved with the TX annexation.  The controversy regarding the necessary number of states is related to a 2/3 versus simple-majority vote criteria.  It's a long and convoluted story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation), but in the end TX was in fact legally annexed.  (Note, this same process was basically used for Hawaii as well, and if we want to discuss unfair and/or unjust annexation of lands, Hawaii is a textbook case.  The US actually helped overthrow a sitting ruler in order to secure the state.)   The second point, about being able to secede, is also invalid but has a twist.  While they can't secede, there is some language in one of the documents that would allow TX to split into multiple smaller states should they choose.  I can't see that happening now, as it would diminish their power, but it would (as I understand it) be legal.

[AquaMan]

So if our country decides not to do business with someone because we don't like the way they conduct themselves, that is an act of war?  Really?  Seriously?

Trade with the US is a carrot, not a stick.  It only becomes a stick when other countries allow themselves to become dependent through their own economic mismanagement.  We are not responsible for Russia's sucky economy or corrupt government. 

We are G D free as individuals and as a country to do business with whomever the hell we please.  Trade is mutual exchange and we have the right extend or revoke it based on the actions of our trade partners.  We are not obligated to trade under penalty of war.

It seems that you have adopted a global paradigm that has little basis in reality.

Context is hard for you. We do business with anyone we want. True enough. When we use economics to punish or reward countries involved in a possible war scenario then we are taking sides and becoming involved.

I laid out my summary of the viewpoints espoused on here so far. You are staying consistent with your antiquated view of the world. History should give you some pause to question those views but you'll likely disregard what isn't within your paradigm. Its infuriating when your strongly held political convictions conflict with real life events. The immediate response is everyone else must be crazy.  I don't hold on to mine too strongly lest they hold me back in dealing with reality. 

[AquaMan]

Oh man, do they ever!  And I've lived with it for almost 20 years now.  

Texans are always looking for ways to claim that either (a) they were never really made a state and are therefor still technically a separate nation, or (b) that the terms of their annexation allow them to secede at their will.  Neither of those claims is true.   Regarding annexation, it was a very tumultuous time in the US, and there were some interesting compromises, etc, involved with the TX annexation.  The controversy regarding the necessary number of states is related to a 2/3 versus simple-majority vote criteria.  It's a long and convoluted story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_annexation), but in the end TX was in fact legally annexed.  (Note, this same process was basically used for Hawaii as well, and if we want to discuss unfair and/or unjust annexation of lands, Hawaii is a textbook case.  The US actually helped overthrow a sitting ruler in order to secure the state.)   The second point, about being able to secede, is also invalid but has a twist.  While they can't secede, there is some language in one of the documents that would allow TX to split into multiple smaller states should they choose.  I can't see that happening now, as it would diminish their power, but it would (as I understand it) be legal.

Thanks. Very interesting. How cool would it be to separate into 5 states, create a loosely bonded confederacy, add 8 more senators from the area and increase influence over the whole country? Lots of states would allege unfair treatment if they weren't allowed the same. Divisive.

Of course Mexico may not like that sort of anti-independent attitude and cut off trade with the other states while offering aid to the new states.

[Red Arrow]

Texans take umbrage at everything outside of Texas! My recounting of that history is from memory, ...

You (and I) are old but not that old.

[Gaspar]

Russia is now backed by China.

Russia is moving long range artillery into Ukraine today (CNN thinks they are tanks   )

2S1 Gvozdikas

How long do you think it will take before President Obama claims Russia is "on the wrong side of history" and shakes his finger?

Well, there it is, about 30 minutes ago at a presser at Powell Elementary School in DC.  When taking questions about the Ukraine, He actually said "We stand on the side of history."  


Huh?  No one knows what that means. Are we somehow outside of the time-space continuum?

If you listen closely, you can hear laughing all the way from the Kremlin.

[Conan71]

Well, there it is, about 30 minutes ago at a presser at Powell Elementary School in DC.  When taking questions about the Ukraine, He actually said "We stand on the side of history." 

Huh?  No one knows what that means. Are we somehow outside of the time-space continuum?

Probably means he's stalling until one of the Clintons can intervene on his behalf.

[Gaspar]

Probably means he's stalling until one of the Clintons can intervene on his behalf.

But we walk into the future. . .and we sit with the now.  **tears**

Hope & Change!  Hope & Change!


Warning, bullshit clouds forming over the DC area.