The Obama Years- A GOP love story

[tshile]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Lol it's so funny people just jump to "start a war". Like I said above, we are not going to war,...is war the only option?

So I guess the Obama supporters will continue to advocate our strategy: "sitting on our hands"

So what would you recommend be done?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by tshile

So what would you recommend be done?

Sanctions, sit on hands, mean email to Putin. The status quo.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by tshile

So what would you recommend be done?

You Tube

Remember when we had a president who stood up to things?

[tshile]

So you want a strongly worded public address?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by tshile

So you want a strongly worded public address?

Lol yeah. That's exactly how Reagan handled the Russians.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Lol yeah. That's exactly how Reagan handled the Russians.

So you think the appropriate response would be to join/create/participate in another cold war?

You've yet to answer the question. Give me something actionable as a response to this. If you were president, what would you do?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tshile

So you think the appropriate response would be to join/create/participate in another cold war?

You've yet to answer the question. Give me something actionable as a response to this. If you were president, what would you do?

It is dumb to presume any internet user could craft the specific response the US President ought to make. We do not have the access to the intelligence and readiness status of forces in the area. That said, the Russians are not a superpower yet, and if we through back channels used our strengths against their weaker areas(directly or indirectly related to Ukraine) we could create a condition which let the Russian president know that we find their current path unacceptable. Most likely this should have been in the form of deeper sanctions earlier, but forgetting hindsight and rrecognizing that a passenger air liner being shot down should be a game changer where we should call for immediate UN peacekeepers on the ground in eastern Ukraine.

[Dirtbag59]

Soviet Russia was already on the brink by the time Regan got into office. The best you could attribute to Regan was he may have sped up the collapse by a couple of years and even that seems generous.

I'd argue that the Chernobyl incident with it's tremendous cost and the animosity created by the subsequent cover up did more damage to Soviet Russia then Reagan could have ever hoped to take credit for. And even then with a $15 billion direct loss it was a small part of the eventual collapse.

The Soviets dedication to communism, as least in principle, is what did them in. I remember seeing documentaries about East Germany where a child recalled asking his teacher when the world would be rid of currency and the teacher something akin to likely by the turn of the century. Such was the mindset of the Soviets and the Warsaw Pact countries though it was no secret that the party members were living well.

Had they embraced the hybrid system that China did post-Mao they likely would still be a major world power.

Personally in regards to Russia I would prefer to stick with the international community and let Russia make a fool of itself. The end result of Russia messing up is likely to happen regardless. Military action at this point will likely only cost American lives and if anything serve as propaganda fodder for the Ultra Nationalist in Russia which could possibly lead to a more dangerous conflict. Plus keep in mind the Ukraine crisis is currently costing Russia a lot of money in direct cost (ie not including possible embargos and sanctions). This latest incident is going to make the situation worse for Russia across the board.

After all it doesn't matter what your intent is. When a child sees an American solider in his back yard it doesn't take much for an adult to convince them that they're evil imperialist hell bent on taking over the world. Also another thing to keep in mind is that many Putin supporters are ultra nationalist hoping for a chance to cry victim should America exceed its reach. Part of the reason Putin has been able to keep power up to this point is that he's convinced the Russian people that everyones out to get them, particularly the US, and only a "strong" leader such as himself can protect the people. You know someone like.....

For the lulz. By the way this wasn't a parody, it was a random song praising Putin that was embraced by Putin and his camp following the songs popularity in 2002.

In other words to give Regan credit for taking down the Soviet Union by employing a 'tough foreign policy' is akin to giving Clinton full credit for the tech boom in the mid to late 90's. The point being Presidents get way to much credit and blame for virtually everything that takes place when they're in office. Especially when there are billions of other factors in play for any given situation.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It is dumb to presume any internet user could craft the specific response the US President ought to make. We do not have the access to the intelligence and readiness status of forces in the area. That said, the Russians are not a superpower yet, and if we through back channels used our strengths against their weaker areas(directly or indirectly related to Ukraine) we could create a condition which let the Russian president know that we find their current path unacceptable. Most likely this should have been in the form of deeper sanctions earlier, but forgetting hindsight and rrecognizing that a passenger air liner being shot down should be a game changer where we should call for immediate UN peacekeepers on the ground in eastern Ukraine.

Thank you.

So, basically, you think we should be doing exactly what we're probably doing. If we're not doing it, there's certainly no evidence that we're not and there ideally never would be until well after the issue is over.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tshile

Thank you.

So, basically, you think we should be doing exactly what we're probably doing. If we're not doing it, there's certainly no evidence that we're not and there ideally never would be until well after the issue is over.

No I didn't say that at all. The president was at fund raisers tonight and still hadn't commented on the plane being shot down. We are not advocating UN peacekeepers, which I think should atleast be in the discussion, and we are not putting any (real) pressure on Putin to change his tactics. We also aren't taking a leading role in denouncing the russian occupation of Crimea, nor are we assisting with meaningful defensive assistance a government in Kiev that has staked its future on a strong relationship with us. Because I don't sit in on national intelligence briefs I can't speak with any specificity of how some of these steps would happen, but I can certainly tell you that we are not publicly and repeatedly denouncing the Crimean debacle, that the House has not pushed forward an appropriations bill funding defensive weapons sales to Kiev(nor has the president sought one) and by Putin's actions you can infer that we are not putting pressure on any points that he respects or would cause him to cease and desist with his realpolitik approach to international rules and laws.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

No I didn't say that at all. The president was at fund raisers tonight and still hadn't commented on the plane being shot down.

Not true I heard a comment from him about 2:40 pm driving home yesterday (99.1 wnew)

[tshile]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

No I didn't say that at all. The president was at fund raisers tonight and still hadn't commented on the plane being shot down. We are not advocating UN peacekeepers, which I think should atleast be in the discussion, and we are not putting any (real) pressure on Putin to change his tactics. We also aren't taking a leading role in denouncing the russian occupation of Crimea, nor are we assisting with meaningful defensive assistance a government in Kiev that has staked its future on a strong relationship with us. Because I don't sit in on national intelligence briefs I can't speak with any specificity of how some of these steps would happen, but I can certainly tell you that we are not publicly and repeatedly denouncing the Crimean debacle, that the House has not pushed forward an appropriations bill funding defensive weapons sales to Kiev(nor has the president sought one) and by Putin's actions you can infer that we are not putting pressure on any points that he respects or would cause him to cease and desist with his realpolitik approach to international rules and laws.

Hah, that's what i get for reading to fast. I mixed up names

He has spoken to the issue. The idea that being at a fundraiser is bad suggests there's some other actionable thing he should be doing - what is that?

The UN announced yesterday they're having an emergency meeting today, presumably to discuss many options including putting peace keepers in. So, again, I'm not sure what more it is that should be done at this point.

I'm not sure what it is people want us to do about Ukraine and Russia. People keep saying they want *something* done but they lack specifics.

I get that this administration is borderline worst in history when it comes to foreign policy (at this point at least) and that it's really easy to lump it all together and decry the admin for it. But in this specific case - a commercial airliner is shot down - what is it that should be done? You'd think all the people being so highly critical of the issue would have an answer for that... but they don't.

We don't even have any proof (publicly) of who did it yet...

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by tshile

Thank you.

So, basically, you think we should be doing exactly what we're probably doing. If we're not doing it, there's certainly no evidence that we're not and there ideally never would be until well after the issue is over.

Thank you for saying "sit on your hands" the Obama doctrine.

[tshile]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Thank you for saying "sit on your hands" the Obama doctrine.

i didn't say that.

you still haven't answered the question...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by tshile

Hah, that's what i get for reading to fast. I mixed up names

He has spoken to the issue. The idea that being at a fundraiser is bad suggests there's some other actionable thing he should be doing - what is that?

The UN announced yesterday they're having an emergency meeting today, presumably to discuss many options including putting peace keepers in. So, again, I'm not sure what more it is that should be done at this point.

I'm not sure what it is people want us to do about Ukraine and Russia. People keep saying they want *something* done but they lack specifics.

Again, you aren't getting specifics on the internet forums, but you are also quick to dismiss the specifics that I did mention. Being at a fundraiser reflects a lack of concern, could he have resolved the issue by skipping the fundraiser, maybe - maybe not, but he could have demonstrated to the parties involved that it was a serious incident to shoot down a civilian jet. He could have used that time to meet with national security and congressional national security representatives. Perhaps they sit on their thumbs and twiddle their fingers, but Russian and separatists would have to at least believe they were going over possible responses at the US could take, including, coordinating having FAA, Malaysian, and international crews on the ground in Ukraine controlled territory and waiting impatiently for the separatists to allow them onsite. We could have announced that we will seek permission from Kiev to allow AWAC overflight of West Ukraine. Going to a fundraiser, and not speaking publicly (not press releases that G1 referred to), sends a message to world community.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the President could have held a national telecast, instead of a fundraiser, and brought the shooting of a civilian aircraft, operating along a known civilian route, under the shining light of US auspices, or discussed how that act brings a new and dangerous dimension to the fight in Ukraine. He could have highlighted the peaceful election and the high percentage support for the new Kiev government and directly call on the separatists to lay down their arms and meet with Kiev. He could have been working with Merkel, and the other European national leaders, to craft a proposal that would entice the separatists to the table, or crafting a UN resolution to create a UN sponsored peace talks under UN auspices.

All of this is to say that there are specific and substantive acts that a US President can, and should, take when a hostile force attacks a civilian aircraft with reckless abandon, and these acts should be immediate, obvious, and carry the full weight and stature of the office of the President and the power and force of the US world status. Instead, this President chose to release a meaningless release saying we don't even know if any US citizens were on board (so the other 270 or so human beings aren't important?, or the free and safe passage of civilian airlines aren't important), and attend a fundraiser that does nothing to unite the nation, or bring this to the nation as a whole under the seal of the President of the United States of America.

It's easy to do nothing (hell I try and get away with it every day LOL) and it's safer to sit back and offer platitudes to international leaders. It's incumbent on the US President though to be a national LEADER of actions, and not a middle management zombie going through motions of a political hack.

and G1- this is how CBS reported the President's statement:

Earlier Thursday, President Obama said that the crash "looks like it may be a terrible tragedy," and offered U.S. assistance in determining what happened.

"Right now we're working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority and I've directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government," Mr. Obama said during a speech in Wilmington, Del. "The United States will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why and as a country our thoughts and prayers are with all the families of the passengers wherever they call home."

Again, that's a Hallmark condolences card with a statement of American ignorance (why say we don't know if there were US citizens on the aircraft, it's a useless sentence and a silly first priority, whether or not US citizens were killed should be secondary to assuring safe passage of civilian aircraft at heights of 33,000 feet). That's NOT a US President acting as a leader on a world stage. If that and the condolences to Poreshenko and the Malaysian leader is all the US President needs to do, then we should just vote in the owner of Hallmark in the next election.