Dorn, you're not seeing what Kerry's done there....

drsmooth wrote:Dorn, you're not seeing what Kerry's done there....

Well if that's really what you think he's doing with that quote then I can dig it

Roger Dorn wrote:Well if that's really what you think he's doing with that quote then I can dig it

frankly it's improbable he was intentionally backhanding the pre-Obama regime - but it's marvelous how the mind sometimes, absent agency, integrates disparate concepts

President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy - Washington Post editorial board, wow

yes, it'd be terrible if we just let russia waste billions of dollars occupying other countries that will invariably fight back. much better idea to respond with force, drawing ourselves into the conflict.

the premise of the article is basically "as long as there are crazy leaders in the world we cannot reduce military".

Try reading it again?

Russia is going to force the Ukraine into doing what is in Russia's best interest. It only starts with Crimea. Putin could care less what NATO thinks because there's no backbone. While Obama may have great visions, he's a terrible politician and has zero idea how to implement them successfully. The White House has its hands full dealing with Capital Hill, let alone on an international stage. Even while trying to impeach Clinton, he was still able to work with Congress on other issues. If you fight The White House at all you are blown off as not worthy. When it comes to playing politics, The President is in way over his head. We'd be much better off if Hillary won the nomination way back when. There's no worthwhile plan for dealing with this and WaPo is calling The White House out on it. No one is going to buy the "red line" shit after Syria.

jerseyhoya wrote:President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy - Washington Post editorial board, wow

yeah. wow.

you're the last person on the planet I'd have identified as a "beltway guy"

momadance wrote:Russia is going to force the Ukraine into doing what is in Russia's best interest. It only starts with Crimea. Putin could care less what NATO thinks because there's no backbone. While Obama may have great visions, he's a terrible politician and has zero idea how to implement them successfully. The White House has its hands full dealing with Capital Hill, let alone on an international stage. Even while trying to impeach Clinton, he was still able to work with Congress on other issues. If you fight The White House at all you are blown off as not worthy. When it comes to playing politics, The President is in way over his head. We'd be much better off if Hillary won the nomination way back when. There's no worthwhile plan for dealing with this and WaPo is calling The White House out on it. No one is going to buy the "red line" shit after Syria.

Motherfucker arranges to take out some obscure bomber no one remembers today but that was a big deal a few minutes ago, that "real serious leaders" couldn't lay a glove on, and he's "in way over his head" with "no worthwhile plan for dealing with this".

Nancy beltway handwringers are a dime a fucking dozen - like seat fillers at the Oscars

Wtf is he supposed to do? Get the nukes ready?

kopphanatic wrote:Wtf is he supposed to do? Get the nukes ready?

yes. war, delicious war. must. have. war.

While Obama's foreign policy has been uninspiring at best, the mistake many critics are making is the claim that Putin's moves reflect his strength and the West's weakness. But Putin's acts themselves are from a position of weakness. That's what makes him dangerous. Consider--pretty much everything in Ukraine has gone against Putin. His goal of a docile Ukraine firmly in Moscow's orbit is remote. There's a real chance he might lose access to his bases in Crimea. It may turn out the Russian military is inept. Ukrainians have pretty clearly indicated that they want to be considered Europeans and want nothing to do with the weird Czarist/Leninist ideology Putin is trying to cobble together.

The wash post editorial board is to war what the WSJ editorial board is to greed.

Yes indeed. Bought and paid for, all of them. The WASHPO and NYT are populated by chickenhawk assholes who've never spent a minute in uniform but are all too eager to send our men and women into harm's way for nebulous reasons.

Did you guys really come away from that editorial with the impression that the Washington Post wants us to go to war with Russia over Ukraine? In spite of the fact that they clearly say they don't want that?

The Washington Post's editorial from Sunday - Spell out the consequences for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - gives their set of suggested actions (Cancel attendance the G8 summit, sanction Russian leaders/businesses, freeze assets, possibly exclude Russia from Western banking systems). But yes, they must be chicken hawk warmongers and want Obama to get the nukes ready. It's a lot easier to deflect criticism when you caricature the arguments being made.

Kerry mentioned kicking them out of the G8. I'd say that's not exactly 'weak'.

they wouldn't be so cheeky if fred shero was still alive

jerseyhoya wrote:Did you guys really come away from that editorial with the impression that the Washington Post wants us to go to war with Russia over Ukraine? In spite of the fact that they clearly say they don't want that?

C'mon, you can't expect people to believe that something all the way down in paragraph 6 is actually worth reading? One's impressions formed in the 1st paragraph should never be altered, even if the 6th paragraph says:

The White House often responds by accusing critics of being warmongers who want American “boots on the ground” all over the world and have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq. So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea.

i love the patented, "jerz posts an article, people give him their takes, jerz comes back with a whiny tone that people totally missed the point, werthless comes in with a sarcastic/unfunny quip to seal the deal"