Originally posted by carthage
He should be keeping his nose out of other countries business, considering he's got nothing but hypocrisy regarding his own foreign policy. Seriously, he'll lecture Putin about going into Crimea, when Putin can just as easily bring up Obama's occupation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
Bush initiated Afghanistan and Iraq, not Obama. Obama actually made a show of bringing troops home. Libya was the result of NATO. This comparison might work if Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were all US states at this point and were basically strong-armed from a larger nation with the pretense of protecting US citizens who barely number 50-60% of the local population, using non-marked soldiers to capture significant military bases and public offices. Followed by a vote which doesn't include "No" as a viable alternative to assimilation.
So in other words, it's not remotely similar.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Going on the offensive against Putin. Not blinking. I thought it was rather obvious. This country has been described as "cowardly" ever since Obama took office.
Chiefly by Republicans, who think that Reagan is the paragon of humankind.
I don't see European leaders like Merkel busting Putin's balls, but no one says that Germany is a weak, cowardly nation. And the EU as a whole has a lot more to lose in this situation than does the US. They are dependent on Russian natural gas, which is kind of a stupid arrangement.
There is no graceful way of dealing with abuses of power in other regimes, because of standards set up to protect sovereignty. Sending in any kind of armed support, even if just for show, would be catastrophic. Threatening force could just rally those to Putin's banner, or even push China to support him.
It's a shit situation: Either we act aggressively, and potentially cause even more bloodshed (up to and including war with Russia, which no sane person wants) or we passively snipe at them with economic restrictions, damnations, and exclusions. You can't "be a tough guy" and then not follow through; that's even less brave then what you perceive as weak here.
Putin wants the US/EU to instigate or attempt to use a show of force to deter him. In the months leading up to this, he pretty much usurped all of the mainstream media in the country and began turning out anti-West/US propaganda, perhaps in direct relation to his intent to make a land grab.
The idea of 'not blinking' is a pipe dream at best. International politics is not dick measuring in front of the camera; it's chess behind the scenes. Obviously the idea that Putin could/would do this was overlooked because, since the Cold War, spying efforts in Russia fell off. And also because nobody in Washington reads international news websites.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Bush initiated Afghanistan and Iraq, not Obama. Obama actually made a show of bringing troops home. Libya was the result of NATO. This comparison might work if Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya were all US states at this point and were basically strong-armed from a larger nation with the pretense of protecting US citizens who barely number 50-60% of the local population, using non-marked soldiers to capture significant military bases and public offices. Followed by a vote which doesn't include "No" as a viable alternative to assimilation.So in other words, it's not remotely similar.
Chiefly by Republicans, who think that Reagan is the paragon of humankind.
There is no graceful way of dealing with abuses of power in other regimes, because of standards set up to protect sovereignty. Sending in any kind of armed support, even if just for show, would be catastrophic. Threatening force could just rally those to Putin's banner, or even push China to support him.
It's a shit situation: Either we act aggressively, and potentially cause even more bloodshed (up to and including war with Russia, which no sane person wants) or we passively snipe at them with economic restrictions, damnations, and exclusions. You can't "be a tough guy" and then not follow through; that's even less brave then what you perceive as weak here.
The idea of 'not blinking' is a pipe dream at best. International politics is not dick measuring in front of the camera; it's chess behind the scenes. Obviously the idea that Putin could/would do this was overlooked because, since the Cold War, spying efforts in Russia fell off. And also because nobody in Washington reads international news websites. [/B]It's never been a pipe dream, it's been the standard for international politics since WWI. Not to mention, "not blinking" and "chess game" aren't mutually exclusive.
See, I rather like that the United States is actually acting in accordance with international law for once. I think most of us have just grown numb to the degree to which the American government has openly not given a shit for the past sixty years, so doing things as part of a multilateral and thus far nonviolent strategy in collusion with international bodies to deal with an international issue always feels like a plodding diplomatic farce.
Originally posted by Eminence
See, I rather like that the United States is actually acting in accordance with international law for once. I think most of us have just grown numb to the degree to which the American government has openly not given a shit for the past sixty years, so doing things as part of a multilateral and thus far nonviolent strategy in collusion with international bodies to deal with an international issue always feels like a plodding diplomatic farce.
So you want the US acting in accordance to international law, but other countries are ok to break it? I suppose you think that the UN is anything but a useless, impotent governing body?
Originally posted by Nephthys
Trying to resolve things diplomatically and peacefully doesn't equate to 'ok with breaking international law', lol.
I don't recall giving any indication that I said that but that's cute. Simply saying that you want to resolve things diplomatically doesn't mean a damn thing to anybody, especially when it's met with failure after failure.
Also, I don't see you mentioning that Russia is breaking international law? Lol
Originally posted by Nephthys
Then what did you mean by "other countries are ok to break it?" No-ones ok with that, they're just going about things a bit more calmly than 'F*ck you, gtfo or World War III!"
Really? In the past, let's say 20 years, countries like China and Russia followed international law, and again I'm only including 20 years instead of giving an example of the entire century and how many countries have broken international law? Is Russia following international law now? Is China? Are you at all familiar with world history?
Originally posted by Nephthys
If Russia jumped off a bridge would you copy it? >:[Just because Russia's being a douche doesn't mean we have to as well.
Oh so you're going with the incredibly wrong "two wrongs don't make a right!" argument. Because if we break international law to stop them from doing what they're doing, we're totally acting the same way. With that logic, I guess you oppose capital punishment because in your mind, two wrongs don't make a right?
psmith81992
So you want the US acting in accordance to international law, but other countries are ok to break it? I suppose you think that the UN is anything but a useless, impotent governing body?
Originally posted by psmith81992
Oh so you're going with the incredibly wrong "two wrongs don't make a right!" argument. Because if we break international law to stop them from doing what they're doing, we're totally acting the same way. With that logic, I guess you oppose capital punishment because in your mind, two wrongs don't make a right?
Jesus, why do I even bother trying to argue with you?
No you prat, I'm more going with the 'you are dumb and your dumb argument for aggression is dumb too' argument.