You misunderstand the point, vette: The disproportionate representation of blacks in the armed forces is a symptom of their poverty, and of their making up a disproportionate share of America's poor and working-poor. And that does not make America look good.
Will Ukraine situation lead to World War III?
- Thread starter renard_ruse
- Start date
You misunderstand the point, vette: The disproportionate representation of blacks in the armed forces is a symptom of their poverty, and of their making up a disproportionate share of America's poor and working-poor. And that does not make America look good.
renard_ruse
Break up Amazon
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Posts
- 16,094
You like talking about fallacies, I've noticed.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
clearly, Rob is in love with Vette...its clear by the way Rob chases after Vette.
Sad, Rob insanity blinds him to what a fuck up obama is
U
unregistered
Guest
RobDownSouth
No Kings
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Posts
- 77,887
Grampa Urine insinuates African Americans are cowards.
Grampa Urine has two...TWO....Navy Crosses.
That reinforces my point: The blacks choose non-combat jobs because they see service as a way out of poverty, and the non-combat skills they learn are more marketable in post-service civilian life than are combat skills. Which is a good thing in terms of results, I hope, both for them and for the military, but that they think they need to do that in the first place, and that they are more likely than others to seek "the employer of last resort," are symptoms of their poverty and our nation's shame.
Last edited:
U
unregistered
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
Ferrumitzal
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Posts
- 114
There will be no large global conflict over this. Putin has already shown that he has no fear of the US under an obama administration. There are even signs that they are working together on some level.
The current POTUS certainly won't order any large-scale movements with the Russians on the other side of the line. Going up against a tinpot in Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc, is very easy and the rest of the world doesn't really care. Going up against the Russians, on their turf, is a whole different kettle of fish.
Obama will issue a sternly-worded letter of condemnation, at best. Just like he did when our Ambassador was killed in Benghazi. No big deal. Don't let it be seen as him being week on foreign policy. Keep the media talking about the republicans and the latest american idol episode.
The current POTUS certainly won't order any large-scale movements with the Russians on the other side of the line. Going up against a tinpot in Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc, is very easy and the rest of the world doesn't really care. Going up against the Russians, on their turf, is a whole different kettle of fish.
Obama will issue a sternly-worded letter of condemnation, at best. Just like he did when our Ambassador was killed in Benghazi. No big deal. Don't let it be seen as him being week on foreign policy. Keep the media talking about the republicans and the latest american idol episode.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1904266/eyeroll-o.gif
Coming from a person who thinks that slavery was a benefit for African-Americans, this is some truly egregious, self-serving, white privileged bullshit.
U
unregistered
Guest
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Wow, that was fast. I should get paid for making suckers self-conscious and immediately run into threads they haven't replied to in days.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md3ukoOYpm1qa6g1m.gif
Well, I should hope so, but what particular signs do you see?
EU gives Russia 48-hour deadline to return troops to barracks in Crimea. Otherwise, economic sanctions. Come to think of it, if anything can scare Putin, it's that.
Sean
We'll see.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2005
- Posts
- 96,194
Symptoms of something else if you ask me.
And what would that be?
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
Don't listen to Obama's Ukraine critics: he's not 'losing' – and it's not his fight
The ‘do something’ pundits rear their heads. Just like they did on Iraq, Afghanistan and every other crisis of US ‘credibility’
In the days since Vladimir Putin sent Russian troops into the Crimea, it has been amateur hour back in Washington.
I don’t mean Barack Obama. He’s doing pretty much everything he can, with what are a very limited set of policy options at his disposal. No, I’m talking about the people who won’t stop weighing in on Obama’s lack of “action” in the Ukraine. Indeed, the sea of foreign policy punditry – already shark-infested – has reached new lows in fear-mongering, exaggerated doom-saying and a stunning inability to place global events in any rational historical context.
This would be a useful moment for Americans to have informed reporters, scholars and leaders explaining a crisis rapidly unfolding half a world away. Instead, we’ve already got all the usual suspect arguments:
Personality-driven Analysis
Let’s start here with Julia Ioffe of the New Republic, a popular former reporter in Moscow who now tells us that Putin has sent troops into Crimea “because he can. That’s it, that’s all you need to know”. It’s as if things like regional interests, spheres of influence, geopolitics, coercive diplomacy and the potential loss of a key ally in Kiev (as well as miscalculation) are alien concepts for Russian leaders.
Overstated Rhetoric Shorn of Political Context
David Kramer, president of Freedom House, hit the ball out of the park on this front when he hyperbolically declared that Obama’s response to Putin’s actions “will define his two terms in office” and “the future of U.S. standing in the world”.
Honorable mention goes to Ian Bremmer of Eurasia Group for calling this crisis “the most seismic geopolitical events since 9/11”. Putting aside the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Arab Spring, Syria’s civil war and tensions in the South China Sea, Bremmer might have a point.
Unhelpful Policy Recommendations
Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Commander of Nato, deserves a shout-out for calling on Nato to send maritime forces into the Black Sea, among other inflammatory steps. No danger of miscalculation or unnecessary provocation there. No, none at all.
Inappropriate Historical Analogies
So many to choose from here, but when you compare seizing Crimea to the Nazi annexation of Austria in 1938, as Leonid Bershidsky did at Bloomberg View, you pretty much blow away the competition.
Making It All About Us
As in practically every international crisis, the pundit class seems able to view events solely through the prism of US actions, which best explains Edward Luce in the Financial Times writing that Obama needs to convince Putin “he will not be outfoxed”, or Scott Wilson at the Washington Post intimating that this is all a result of America pulling back from military adventurism. Shocking as it may seem, sometimes countries take actions based on how they view their interests, irrespective of who the US did or did not bomb.
Missing from this “analysis” about how Obama should respond is why Obama should respond. After all, the US has few strategic interests in the former Soviet Union and little ability to affect Russian decision-making.
Our interests lie in a stable Europe, and that’s why the US and its European allies created a containment structure that will ensure Russia’s territorial ambitions will remain quite limited. (It’s called Nato.) Even if the Russian military wasn’t a hollow shell of the once formidable Red Army, it’s not about to mess with a Nato country.
The US concerns vis-à-vis Russia are the concerns that affect actual US interests. Concerns like nuclear non-proliferation, or containing the Syrian civil war, or stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Those are all areas where Moscow has played an occasionally useful role.
So while Obama may utilize political capital to ratify the Start treaty with Russia, he’s not going to extend it so save the Crimea. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is not nothing, but it’s hardly in the top tier of US policy concerns.
What is America’s problem is ensuring that Russia pays a price for violating international law and the global norm against inter-state war. The formal suspension of a G8 summit in Sochi is a good first step. If Putin’s recalcitrance grows – and if he further escalates the crisis – then that pressure can be ratcheted up.
But this crisis is Putin’s Waterloo, not ours.
Which brings us to perhaps the most bizarre element of watching the Crimean situation unfold through a US-centric lens: the iron-clad certainty of the pundit class that Putin is winning and Obama is losing. The exact opposite is true.
Putin has initiated a conflict that will, quite obviously, result in greater diplomatic and political isolation as well as the potential for economic sanction. He’s compounded his loss of a key ally in Kiev by further enflaming Ukrainian nationalism, and his provocations could have a cascading effect in Europe by pushing countries that rely on Russia’s natural gas exports to look elsewhere for their energy needs. Putin is the leader of a country with a weak military, an under-performing economy and a host of social, environmental and health-related challenges. Seizing the Crimea will only make the problems facing Russia that much greater.
For Obama and the US, sure, there might be less Russian help on Syria going forward – not that there was much to begin with – and it could perhaps affect negotiations on Iran. But those issues are manageable. Meanwhile, Twitter and the opinion pages and the Sunday shows and too many blog posts that could be informative have been filled with an over-the-top notion: that failure to respond to Russia’s action will weaken America’s credibility with its key allies. To which I would ask: where are they gonna go? If anything, America’s key European allies are likely to fold the quickest, because, you know, gas. And why would any US ally in the Far East want Obama wasting his time on the Crimea anyway?
You don’t have to listen to the “do something” crowd. These are the same people who brought you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other greatest hits. These are armchair “experts” convinced that every international problem is a vital interest of the US; that the maintenance of “credibility” and “strength” is essential, and that any demonstration of “weakness” is a slippery slope to global anarchy and American obsolescence; and that being wrong and/or needlessly alarmist never loses one a seat at the table.
The funny thing is, these are often the same people who bemoan the lack of public support for a more muscular American foreign policy. Gee, I wonder why.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/obama-ukraine-russia-critics-credibility
The ‘do something’ pundits rear their heads. Just like they did on Iraq, Afghanistan and every other crisis of US ‘credibility’
In the days since Vladimir Putin sent Russian troops into the Crimea, it has been amateur hour back in Washington.
I don’t mean Barack Obama. He’s doing pretty much everything he can, with what are a very limited set of policy options at his disposal. No, I’m talking about the people who won’t stop weighing in on Obama’s lack of “action” in the Ukraine. Indeed, the sea of foreign policy punditry – already shark-infested – has reached new lows in fear-mongering, exaggerated doom-saying and a stunning inability to place global events in any rational historical context.
This would be a useful moment for Americans to have informed reporters, scholars and leaders explaining a crisis rapidly unfolding half a world away. Instead, we’ve already got all the usual suspect arguments:
Personality-driven Analysis
Let’s start here with Julia Ioffe of the New Republic, a popular former reporter in Moscow who now tells us that Putin has sent troops into Crimea “because he can. That’s it, that’s all you need to know”. It’s as if things like regional interests, spheres of influence, geopolitics, coercive diplomacy and the potential loss of a key ally in Kiev (as well as miscalculation) are alien concepts for Russian leaders.
Overstated Rhetoric Shorn of Political Context
David Kramer, president of Freedom House, hit the ball out of the park on this front when he hyperbolically declared that Obama’s response to Putin’s actions “will define his two terms in office” and “the future of U.S. standing in the world”.
Honorable mention goes to Ian Bremmer of Eurasia Group for calling this crisis “the most seismic geopolitical events since 9/11”. Putting aside the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Arab Spring, Syria’s civil war and tensions in the South China Sea, Bremmer might have a point.
Unhelpful Policy Recommendations
Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Commander of Nato, deserves a shout-out for calling on Nato to send maritime forces into the Black Sea, among other inflammatory steps. No danger of miscalculation or unnecessary provocation there. No, none at all.
Inappropriate Historical Analogies
So many to choose from here, but when you compare seizing Crimea to the Nazi annexation of Austria in 1938, as Leonid Bershidsky did at Bloomberg View, you pretty much blow away the competition.
Making It All About Us
As in practically every international crisis, the pundit class seems able to view events solely through the prism of US actions, which best explains Edward Luce in the Financial Times writing that Obama needs to convince Putin “he will not be outfoxed”, or Scott Wilson at the Washington Post intimating that this is all a result of America pulling back from military adventurism. Shocking as it may seem, sometimes countries take actions based on how they view their interests, irrespective of who the US did or did not bomb.
Missing from this “analysis” about how Obama should respond is why Obama should respond. After all, the US has few strategic interests in the former Soviet Union and little ability to affect Russian decision-making.
Our interests lie in a stable Europe, and that’s why the US and its European allies created a containment structure that will ensure Russia’s territorial ambitions will remain quite limited. (It’s called Nato.) Even if the Russian military wasn’t a hollow shell of the once formidable Red Army, it’s not about to mess with a Nato country.
The US concerns vis-à-vis Russia are the concerns that affect actual US interests. Concerns like nuclear non-proliferation, or containing the Syrian civil war, or stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Those are all areas where Moscow has played an occasionally useful role.
So while Obama may utilize political capital to ratify the Start treaty with Russia, he’s not going to extend it so save the Crimea. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is not nothing, but it’s hardly in the top tier of US policy concerns.
What is America’s problem is ensuring that Russia pays a price for violating international law and the global norm against inter-state war. The formal suspension of a G8 summit in Sochi is a good first step. If Putin’s recalcitrance grows – and if he further escalates the crisis – then that pressure can be ratcheted up.
But this crisis is Putin’s Waterloo, not ours.
Which brings us to perhaps the most bizarre element of watching the Crimean situation unfold through a US-centric lens: the iron-clad certainty of the pundit class that Putin is winning and Obama is losing. The exact opposite is true.
Putin has initiated a conflict that will, quite obviously, result in greater diplomatic and political isolation as well as the potential for economic sanction. He’s compounded his loss of a key ally in Kiev by further enflaming Ukrainian nationalism, and his provocations could have a cascading effect in Europe by pushing countries that rely on Russia’s natural gas exports to look elsewhere for their energy needs. Putin is the leader of a country with a weak military, an under-performing economy and a host of social, environmental and health-related challenges. Seizing the Crimea will only make the problems facing Russia that much greater.
For Obama and the US, sure, there might be less Russian help on Syria going forward – not that there was much to begin with – and it could perhaps affect negotiations on Iran. But those issues are manageable. Meanwhile, Twitter and the opinion pages and the Sunday shows and too many blog posts that could be informative have been filled with an over-the-top notion: that failure to respond to Russia’s action will weaken America’s credibility with its key allies. To which I would ask: where are they gonna go? If anything, America’s key European allies are likely to fold the quickest, because, you know, gas. And why would any US ally in the Far East want Obama wasting his time on the Crimea anyway?
You don’t have to listen to the “do something” crowd. These are the same people who brought you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other greatest hits. These are armchair “experts” convinced that every international problem is a vital interest of the US; that the maintenance of “credibility” and “strength” is essential, and that any demonstration of “weakness” is a slippery slope to global anarchy and American obsolescence; and that being wrong and/or needlessly alarmist never loses one a seat at the table.
The funny thing is, these are often the same people who bemoan the lack of public support for a more muscular American foreign policy. Gee, I wonder why.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/obama-ukraine-russia-critics-credibility
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,404
You've got your cause and effect swapped here Vette. And a lot of this was done to the black community.
U
unregistered
Guest
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,404
Wait, where is this natural gas that Obama is refusing to build, did I miss something?
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
He can't face up to that verity. He enables Busybody's unfettered racism under the guise of "freedom," so expecting him to understand what he never cared about in the first place is futile.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
obama is a pussy ... Ukraine will NEVER get that land back
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,404
Georgia didn't get the land back under Bush either. However I'm confident the Ukraine will get their land back, but this is effectively a situation where if everybody would simply hold hands and sing koombuhya we'd solve this one. There is literally no reason for this fight.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
Ukraine today ... maybe France tomorrow. oh wait, France is too far in debt...never mind
Beco
I'm Not Your Guru
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Posts
- 57,795
they control a lot of oil....
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Like that means fuck all....we had control over some of the worlds biggest oil reserves....did we capitalize on it? Did we even pay our fucking tab with it? Did our oil prices go the fuck down 1 god damn penny? Did the citizens of the US get any fucking thing out of it but a bunch of dead kids and an insano tab to be paid to GOP/MIC interest?
FUCK NO....
Once again, why should we the people of the US give 1 wet fuckin' fart about Ukraine?
What in the fuck is in it for us? Hmmm??
Last edited:
Similar threads
