# We have lost world respect.



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Obama talked about his red line in Syria. Then he talked about crossing the line in Keive. Now he warns Russia. I'll bet they are terrified. 
Drudge headline:


> Russia war games over Ukraine prompt US warning...


They are so frightened that they now have a warship docked in Cuba. The first since president Kennedy run them out. We are beginning to look like world wimps. Obama and Kerry will only make us look more weak every time they open their mouth. The whole world knows they are all mouth and no action.

Drudge headline again:


> RUSSIAN WARSHIP DOCKS IN HAVANA





> Russian spy ship docked in Havana





> Havana (AFP) - A Russian warship was docked in Havana Wednesday, without explanation from Communist Cuba or its state media.
> 
> The Viktor Leonov CCB-175 boat, measuring 91.5 meters (300 feet) long and 14.5 meters wide, was docked at the port of Havana's cruise ship area, near the Russian Orthodox Cathedral.
> 
> ...


Evidently they are there to protect communist interests in Venezuela. They are perhaps also there to test our resolve of which this administration has none. Maybe he can appease Putin like he tries with everyone else.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

And it also looks great when they are talking about cutting military spending and troop numbers.

Boy that looks great to the rest of the world!!!


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

If you draw a line in the sand and say don't cross it, you have to back it up. Otherwise you will get walked all over on.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Yes, send in the Marines! Exactly what we need is to intervene in another war in the Eastern hemisphere&#8230;..at least this one won't be in Asia like the other four we have lost in the past 64 years.

I find it interesting that the conservatives wish we would get back to the intentions of our Founding Fathers on many issues but ignore the thoughts of people like Jefferson on the role of standing armies.

And BL as far as backing up "our" line in the sand or "we" will get walked all over&#8230;&#8230;when are you enlisting?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The Idea is not to go to war, the idea is to have enough respect that when you warn someone it's not just a joke to them. We had that respect, and that respect was valuable for the fact that it eas a deterent to war. Weakness gets one into war while strength deters it.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

While I don't necessarily disagree with your first part of the statement, you could argue that "strength" indeed DOES get you into war. If you didn't have the means fight wars all over the world, you would be much less willing to get involved in those hot spots. US foreign policy since WW II illustrates that fairly well. Just off the top of my head&#8230;.Israel, Korea, Cold War, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Beruit, Panama, Granada, South America, Desert Storm, Bosnia, Somalia, 9/11, War on Terror, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya&#8230;.. We get involved in a lot of spots around the world, directly or indirectly, because we have the means to do so. And doing so, it causes tensions that get us involved in future conflicts. All at the cost of US blood, treasure and legitimate standing among many in the world.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm going to partly agree with you too. I think we should mind our business much more than we do. Why is it up to us to be the world police. At the same time I would say that if we were not strong we would not still exist.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It looks like people agree with out take on Obama and Putin.



> As reports are coming in that Russia has placed 2,000 troops in Crimea, within the borders of Ukraine, President Obama said that "the United States will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine."
> 
> Charles Krauthammer responded on Special Report tonight saying, "The Ukrainians, and I think everybody, is shocked by the weakness of Obama's statement. I find it rather staggering."
> 
> ...


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

edited by Sasha and Abby

Play nice or leave.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Being able to wage war does not mean a thing. It takes someone to say we need to get involved. The ones in our gov do not have any fat in the fire. I would think if all their grand children would be line infantry they might think for a second.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug now I know your the same person as Fritz. gst asks why he was booted here. I think it was for his foul mouth like yours.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman said:


> Shaug now I know your the same person as Fritz. gst asks why he was booted here. I think it was for his foul mouth like yours.


Nope. My apologies though. I know better and have watched others like 280IM poke at you until they were tossed.



People said:


> Being able to wage war does not mean a thing. It takes someone to say we need to get involved. The ones in our gov do not have any fat in the fire. I would think if all their grand children would be line infantry they might think for a second.


Old mans war.......young mans fight.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

shaug said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Shaug now I know your the same person as Fritz. gst asks why he was booted here. I think it was for his foul mouth like yours.
> ...


I left up your post in the event you acquired some civility and edited it. We will see if the apology is sincere or just bs.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Gooseguy10 said:


> And BL as far as backing up "our" line in the sand or "we" will get walked all over&#8230;&#8230;when are you enlisting?


When did I ever say that we needed to get involved? All I said, if someone draws a line in the sand they better back it up.

As far as me enlisting, that is none of your business.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plains,



> I left up your post in the event you acquired some civility and edited it. We will see if he apology is sincere or just bs.


What happened to the rest of your post? Maybe I'm wrong but I thought I saw more? Poof '''


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Shaug it's very clear you were not sincere about your apology for the sad statements you have made. The difference between nodak and fishingbuddy is were a little more civil over here. We expect common decency.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Goose...

I agree with you to a certain extent as well. Obama is making threats or acting like he is a "big dog" yet the actions of cutting military and military spending shows the opposite.

Also i agree with you about going into places we might not need to go. Yet how many of those place we went into was pushed by NATO?? Also now if we don't go people will think.... why did they go to XYZ and not come and help us? Then they will hate the USA for that. It is one of those you are "damned if you do damned if you don't" situations our nation is in and will always be in because of past actions.

Also like Plainsman posted.... Putin really didn't care what Kerry and Obama has said. He mobilized troops anyways. Now do I think he is going to go in and start to take over the country like communist Russia did....NO. Bot i think he is looking to go in and show power....Yes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Hippie pinko faag


So I really have to ask the rest of you guys: do I come off that way?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman... Do you own guns?? Then nope you don't come off that way... :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks chuck, I am really sick of asinine juvenile behavior. I think some people are accustomed to other sites where they can be as crude as they like. I don't know about you, but this kind lf language is uncalled for. It reflects on the person who thinks they are cool.

On another site I'm sure this same guy (can't bring myself to be as crude) tells how he thinks I ducked the draft. He uses my name so it's easy to google and find my birthday. Once you have my birthday simply go to the site of the 1969 draft lottery and you will find my number was 231. That was the easy part of showing this was not the truth. The draft never applied to me. I didn't have to keep my head down to duck it.

http://www.calledtoservevietnam.com/blo ... ec-1-1969/

Kids didn't have tv in their rooms back in those days. The lounge that had two dozen seats held 200 kids the night of the lottery. They announced that they would take up to number 180 for the draft. A half dozen of my friends were picked that night so they went down and volunteered because a volunteer had more options than a draftee. One poor fellow who was kind of short matched right up with the railroad tracks. He tripped on one and took out four front top teeth on the other rail. When the train pulled past they had let the draftees ride the caboose. They had beer stacked two feet high in the back. My friend would not go to the doctor with his busted teeth. He got on the train all smiles. The last time I ever seen him he had a beer in his and smile on his face.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Chuck Smith said:


> Goose...
> 
> I agree with you to a certain extent as well. Obama is making threats or acting like he is a "big dog" yet the actions of cutting military and military spending shows the opposite.
> 
> ...


Now that we are done with the 8th grade name calling&#8230;.

I would rather be damned if we don't, than commit troops, to the tune of billions of dollars (not to mention American lives), than do the opposite just to maintain world standing. And while not a big fan of Obama, could any President "do anything" to stop Putin considering the attitude towards getting bogged down anywhere in the world post Iraq an Afghanistan? Considering where we are at as a nation, I would rather have a President that doesn't make bold statements that need to be backed up&#8230;..especially when the the US would have to commit military resources, or beg another nation to agree with us. Either option is not very good in my book.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I would rather have a President that doesn't make bold statements that need to be backed up


I completely agree. If Obama had not made that dumb "red line" statement about gas in Syria we would not look so weak now. Be willing to back it up or shut it up. I'm sick of the United States spending billions to save everyone else's a$$. I would take the cost of the Iraq war out of them in oil. That or Sadam could have them. Some of them are to primitive to govern themselves anyway and are better off with a dictator. I don't think a benevolent dictator could handle those crazy Muslims.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I would rather be damned if we don't, than commit troops, to the tune of billions of dollars (not to mention American lives), than do the opposite just to maintain world standing. And while not a big fan of Obama, could any President "do anything" to stop Putin considering the attitude towards getting bogged down anywhere in the world post Iraq an Afghanistan? Considering where we are at as a nation, I would rather have a President that doesn't make bold statements that need to be backed up&#8230;..especially when the the US would have to commit military resources, or beg another nation to agree with us. Either option is not very good in my book.


I agree with you on all of this. Yet what is one of the head lines on MSN today.... US putting together an $1 billion dollar aid package for the Ukraine.

So you see we are giving aid anyways. So people will say we can give money yet we can't help with the policing of the nation?? Like i stated before we are doomed by our past aggressions and now the world looks to the USA as world police. Now i hate that the world looks to us like that. But it is the position we are in.

The hard part is we have the bleeding hearts in our country that wants to go save the world. We also have the people that think a democracy will work anywhere and everywhere and is the only solution. Yet i agree with Plainsman is in some situations a dictator is the correct person or form of government for that nation.

What is killing me or gets my all riled up is that when we go in and do our policing (Iraq) we don't get much in return. I hate to say it we needed to take oil or lands or something. I know that is not our way yet if we would have done those things in the past.... people might not rise up as much now or in the future. Just think about it.... Why are people now concerned with Russia mobilizing??? Because past history shows they will take over those lands!

I have gone off on a few tangents with this post. But I agree I don't think the USA sound stick their nose into this one or many other fights. Yet our leaders are trying to act tough yet with other actions are showing weakness. This isn't a Dem's vs Rep thing. It is a weak leader and executive branch of government. We are a weak nation right now.... government, economics, human welfare issues, etc. I hated to say what I just typed but we are. The world knows this yet we are making idle threats. We need to shut up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

How big of a fool must one be to see Obama as having any intelligence on foreign affairs? In Iran even the children laugh at him. We are fast becoming the laughing stock of the world.



> resident Barack Obama is a "low-IQ US president," whose threat to launch a military offensive should nuclear talks fail is an oft-cited punchline in the Islamic Republic, particularly among children, an Iranian general said on Tuesday.
> 
> "The low-IQ US president and his country's Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of 'the US options on the table' on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children," General Masoud Jazayeri said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.
> 
> Jazayeri was responding to the US president's interview in Bloomberg on Sunday, in which Obama maintained that the Iranian leadership should take his "all options on the table" stance - including the warning of a potential military strike - seriously.


For the full sad story: http://www.timesofisrael.com/iranian-ge ... z2v1bF22DF


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Take all personal feelings regarding Obama out of this for a second&#8230;&#8230;

I hear many people say we need to do "something" about Russia/Ukraine. My simple question is what course of action should we pursue here?

I also see on here that a few have said that we are viewed as weak around the world (Iran's kids laughing, Putin doing whatever he wants etc) AND we should stop intervening around the world as a police force. Again, simple question, how do we flex our world muscle BUT not act as the world policemen?

Like all politics (including many times on here) people focus more about who we should theoretically blame, instead of what actions we should pursue (and what the real world implications of those actions are).


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the resolve we displayed to the world for so many years was a deterrent in itself. The comments about the red line in Syria destroyed much of that and led to the problems now. Now it will be much harder to regain that respect around the world. Especially while we retain the same president. I know we wanted to talk about it leaving the president out, so I will say it would make no difference who the president is anyone who says something and backs off will have a tougher time being taken seriously next time. It takes a long time to build a reputation, but a short time to tear it down.

The mistake was saying more than we were willing to do. Now we need be even more careful. I doubt at this point there is not much we can do for the Ukraine. The best we can do is approach this through our allies. The Russians would bristle if we do it through NATO because they will look at it as aggression and the United Nations is a paper tiger sooooooo maybe just civilized nations condemning the aggression as a whole.

Rebuilding the way the world once looked at us will take time. The first thing we need to do is regain our own integrity. We have stood beside our allies when times have been tough, and now it's time for them to stand beside us as we get back on our credibility feet again.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Goose...

I will say this. When we went in and took out Bin Laden. :thumb: That is showing power and backing up the "fight" on Terror.

Withdrawing from Iraq when it is not stable... not so much.

Cutting Millitary... again... this is not fortifying strength or showing strength in my book.

Now I am not one of those guys thinking we need to go around the world and conquer lands. But I do believe if we come into a country that is asking for help that we get compensated.

IE: in Iraq we should have taken over oil fields as payment. Then once the debt is repaid and they the nation is stable give them back. I know that show aggression and a negative perception. But again maybe if nations would come in and take over places it would maybe have them stop asking for help on every little thing.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

So its showing muscle when we can quickly and neatly take out a threat like Bin Laden&#8230;.unfortunately 99% of the issues around the world aren't that simple. So what do you do with the complicated issues? Or do we just pick the easy ones?

As far as compensation, I couldn't disagree with you more&#8230;.especially in Iraq. For starters, we were never "invited to help out" in Iraq. We almost unilaterally VOLUNTARILY invaded a sovereign country on 100% false pretenses. All the while killing 100's of thousands of Iraqi's. Now we should be compensated for by taking control of their oil revenue because it cost a lot of money to do it? Odd thinking here.

Other scenarios such as Libya, Syria and now Ukraine. We will help for a price&#8230;.isn't that also known as a mercenary force?

This topic started out with the title "we have lost world respect." Imperialistically taking over countries to the highest bidder is not the roadmap to regaining that respect.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> As far as compensation, I couldn't disagree with you more


So what are American lives and money worth. Most of the oil wells in Iraq would not be there if not for the investments of American companies. Yes yes oil is evil, money is evil, but I'm getting sick of saving countries then on top of that rebuilding them. Do other countries do that? How much money did Russia spend rebuilding Afghanistan?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> > As far as compensation, I couldn't disagree with you more
> 
> 
> So what are American lives and money worth. Most of the oil wells in Iraq would not be there if not for the investments of American companies. Yes yes oil is evil, money is evil, but I'm getting sick of saving countries then on top of that rebuilding them. Do other countries do that? How much money did Russia spend rebuilding Afghanistan?


We set the standard of rebuilding countries after war in the World Wars. Not winner takes all.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

American lives and money are worth a lot. Now if only our foreign policy makers would understand that idea.

Also, how many other countries rebuild other countries&#8230;.not many. Why? Because they are not running all over the world playing world policeman and sticking their noses in places they shouldn't.

I have a novel idea&#8230;.instead of spending money to rebuild countries, or demanding compensation from the countries we "save," how about NOT getting involved in those countries in the first place? By doing that we don't have to worry about how to re-coup our money we spent, how to rebuild a nation, OR worry about what a proper exit strategy is ("peace with honor" comes to mind here).

At the risk of spinning off into another long debate, considering where Iraq looks to be heading (especially Western Iraq), I would have a very hard time saying we "saved" anything in Iraq. If this keeps going, in no time, Iraq will be worse off in many ways than before we Shocked and Awed our way into Baghdad in 2003.

As far as the Soviet's in Afghanistan&#8230;.they were "lucky" enough to only do it 1/2 wrong&#8230;.they got involved in a 3rd (4th) world country in Asia but were lucky enough to lose it so they didn't have to spend billions to rebuild it&#8230;..they let the US fall on that hand grenade. On a similar note, I wonder how many billions we would have spent to rebuild Vietnam if the military outcome had gone the other way?

In terms of getting compensation out of Iraq. Two thoughts, I am not an Iraqi oil expert but I would bet that those companies that invested in oil money in Iraq have seen massive profits and one form of indirect compensation almost all Americans with Iraqi oil in the world market, there should be lower gas prices (in theory). If the Iraqi oil industry "repaid" the US, where would that money end up? Probably not in the pockets of the average American.

At a certain point, whether we like it or not, the US will have to face the fact that it can not control everything in the world that it doesn't like. Going to war to save face, pushing ideological interests and protecting minority business interest doesn't work. 60 years of foreign policy blunders, 100,000 + dead young American boys and $16 trillion in debt should have shown us that.

Finally, rebuilding countries directly after WW II had little to do with being nice vs. "winner take all." It had everything to do with preventing desperate countries from taking aid from the Soviets and therefore spreading the communist sphere of influence through western Europe and parts of Asia.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> At a certain point, whether we like it or not, the US will have to face the fact that it can not control everything in the world that it doesn't like. Going to war to save face, pushing ideological interests and protecting minority business interest doesn't work. 60 years of foreign policy blunders, 100,000 + dead young American boys and $16 trillion in debt should have shown us that.


How much of this is contributed or pushed because of United Nations?? How many times has the US been asked to go in to countries because of the United Nations? Look at the whole Iraq issue. Iraq wouldn't let UN inspectors do their jobs. So what did the UN do... ask for help from the US. Repeatedly!!!

Now I agree Iraq is not better off now than before. That is why I said we shouldn't be leaving at all. Now do I want more lives taken or money spent.... NO. But the job isn't done and we are leaving. That is why our "world policy" is a joke!!!

Then you talk about being a mercenary.... YEP!! Doesn't bother me one bit. Because we really wouldn't be a mercenary. We come in and help out. Mercenaries don't help out... they come in exterminate and leave!!! We would rebuild a country or help rebuild a country. Then get compensated. It is like hiring a firm to come into a business to help save it from going bankrupt. They cut or fire people (WAR or Conflict). Then they help set up a new management infrastructure or new way to operate (Rebuilding).....and guess want.... They get compensated!!!!

Now when I said take oil or what ever. that could be in the form of Treaties that they only sell oil at a set price to the USA. That X number of gallons per year come to the USA at a set price. ETC. That is just using oil as an example. If there is other economic value in the country.... ie: steel, iron, manufacturing, fabrics, gold, silver, diamonds, etc. You can set the same treaties or trade agreements. That is compensation!!! Yet not the "Rape and Plunder" you thought i meant. It is helping and rebuilding yet getting compensated.

EDIT:

Now people keep saying wasted lives. If we would do something to the likes of what I am saying those lives wouldn't be looked upon as wasting USA lives. Because a solid government would be intact (Because we wouldn't have left Iraq or other places too soon). Our country would be seeing an economic gain from the treaties or payment from what ever resources that the country has....industrial, precious metals or oils, manufacturing, etc. Now to bring it all back to the topic..... Then if the USA did these things we wouldn't be losing world respect. We would be seen in a little better light. One success story... JAPAN. Now do lots of people agree with what sanctions were brought down on them after WWII.... Nope and their is still some animosity. But look how that nation has thrived. But everyone forgets about that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I have a novel idea&#8230;.instead of spending money to rebuild countries, or demanding compensation from the countries we "save," how about NOT getting involved in those countries in the first place?


We agree again, but still I wouldn't say never. I also agree with chuck, especially about the United Nations. I often wonder if we should even be in the United Nations. In the next year they are going to be a threat to our second amendment. Obama is chomping at the bit to sign the small arms treaty. The small arms treaty is much more invasive than liberals tell us. They are either fools or liars when they say it will not hurt us. Our only chance is for conservatives to take over the senate before Obama can ask them to ratify the United Nations treaty.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Goose...

I also agree we shouldn't get involved in many cases as well. But like i mentioned we almost get bullied into going by the United Nations or our allies ask for help.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This is what happens when a community organizer (more like community inciter) becomes president and has no idea about foreign relations. We have gone from a respected nation to the laughing stock of the world. We need a new president fast before an inept fool gets us into a nuclear war because of his weak, apology tour, kiss up diplomacy.

Moscow (AFP) - A leading anchor on Russian state television on Sunday described Russia as the only country capable of turning the United States into "radioactive ash", in an incendiary comment at the height of tensions over the Crimea referendum.



> Russia test-fires ICBM amid tension over Ukraine Reuters
> Russia warns could halt foreign arms checks AFP
> Russia, U.S. still far apart on Ukraine, says Putin Reuters
> Ukraine Crisis Tests Obama and Putin's Already Rocky Relationship ABC News
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is what I am not getting about this whole situation... Crimea voted they want to join Russia. So why are we putting sanctions on Russia when a country voted to join??

This is why we have lost respect!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> Here is what I am not getting about this whole situation... Crimea voted they want to join Russia. So why are we putting sanctions on Russia when a country voted to join??
> 
> This is why we have lost respect!!


I was listening to that today too. Obama says it's an illegal election. I'm inclined to think it may have been more legal than the last one we had. When a free people ask us for help that's one thing, but when they vote and we say nope that's no good we are out of line. We should all be playing by the same rules.

All that said it's a sure thing there is a lot of corruption in those countries. I'm sure it was a legal vote, but dead people may vote for Russia just like they voted for Obama. Like the old cliché goes Obama made the bed now the free world has to live with it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

I agree it might not have been an unbiased election (buying of votes)....but yet it was an election or vote. The people want to be apart of Russia. Good for them. Now where all the people yelling this isn't fair or USA is wrong like they did with Bush....oh wait Bush wasnt in the pocket of the media.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

If you are looking objectively at this situation, you would have to admit that the mess we have in foreign relations right now is truly a mess that can be put at the feet of both Obama and Bush 43. And for the record, Bush had just as much foreign relations experience as the current President. Actually I'm wrong, Bush probably signed a few guys from Cuba when he worked for the Rangers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm not that fond of Bush in retrospect, but lets not forget he was pulled into this mess with 9/11. Also as governor he had more experience than a community organizer or a short term senator with no legislation and few votes. He must have played a lot of golf as a senator also. 
What makes it hard to compare Obama and Bush is Bush was a president and Obama is very close to a dictator now.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> If you are looking objectively at this situation, you would have to admit that the mess we have in foreign relations right now is truly a mess that can be put at the feet of both Obama and Bush 43.


Still blaming Bush???

Ok I will give you some of the stuff in the middle east can still be tract to the invasion of Iraq and Afganistan which is Bush... Yet now the unstability is on Obama because he is withdrawing troops when a stable government isn't in place. But this stuff with Russia is all on Obama. Some of the discourse in China.... Obama! Just wait for China to call in the debt here if things don't start to change in the USA. Then you will see turmoil on our soil. Behengazi.... Obama!

Like Plainsman I am not a 100% Bush backer. But yet people are still playing the blame game with him and it has been over 5 years!!! I guarantee you 5 years after Obama people will be in a world more of hurt if they don't right the ship.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I look at Crimea and Ukraine as two different things, partly different anyway. Before 1854 Crimea belonged to Turkey, and was taken back by Russia and some allies (England and a few other European countries, all fighting with and against each other all the time) Remember the Crimean War with Florence Nightingale and the Charge of the Light Brigade, the Heavy Brigade and the politics within the army command structures then. Supposedly one of my forefathers was the General commanding the Heavy Brigade and wanted to save the light brigade but was prevented from doing so because of army politics but that's another story.....
Anyway, Crimea remained Russian and Stalin literally killed almost all the Tarters, whomever they were, millions of them, and following the demise of Stalin and the rise of the USSR, Khrushchev when he wasn't banging his shoe in a tantrum in the UN, ceded Crimea to the Ukraine partly to encourage Ukranians immigration there as the Tarters were literally all dead, leaving mostly Russians and no one to work, but back then the USSR were supposedly all one and who cared! 
So with the USSR breakup and Ukraine not being a member of the Russian Bloc any more, the Russian supermajority in Crimea wanted to rejoin Russia and split from Ukraine. They voted to do this, and don't ask me if it was a rigged vote or not, but because they are 90 percent Russian it probably was a true vote, but Western Europe and USA are calling foul! 
But a lot of counties around the world are saying to the European Counties and USA, so what, let Em go!! AS LONG AS PUTIN DOESNT TRY TO TAKE OVER UKRAINE!! That's where all the political posturing is coming in. What to do if Putin DOES invade Ukraine?....WOW, GOOD QUESTION. I'm with Goose in that a war with Russia would be a horrible unwinnable thing even if we could afford it, which of course we can't. Sanctions and pressure from our allies might help as Russia is shaken economically except for vast oil reserves. But idon't agree that the world is particularly laughing at OR praising the USA! No matter who were Pres, you'd hear the same pros and cons no matter what!
Things over there are changing every hour, every day, is its hard to predict what will ultimately happen. I just hope no one gets trigger happy and things escalate........


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Not a blanket "Bush Blamer" at all. Just pointing out that the lack of clout we have in the US is at the feet of both Obama and Bush.

As far as "some of the stuff in the Middle East being on bush and the lack of sustainability being on Obama&#8230;." If you remember back to around March of 2003&#8230;.the real smart people were asking how we leave Iraq? There was never a good answer b.c Bush had no real answer. I would argue the lack of future vision by Bush and company on how to get out of Iraq left no real good scenario of how to get out. In other words, no way to sustain!

Bush will go down in history as one of the five worst presidents in US history. This coming from a guy that voted for him twice!

Also, in regards to Bush being forced into foreign issues due to 9/11. I will give you Afghanistan&#8230;.but Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11! It had everything to do with pushing an agenda, using force and gaining financially for a few&#8230;.in other words, the exact same thing Putin and other dictators have done throughout history!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Plainsman says he's tired of saving countries and then having them show no gratitude. I'd agree, but the trouble is, I can't think of any countries who have asked us to go in and " save" them. Another problem with saving a country is the question of who is the good guy and who is the bad guy? Easy to tell in WW2 and arguably in Korea. But since then, not so easy.....
Chuck S blamed a lot of our follies on the UN. Hardly with Iraq and Afganistan - last time I checked the U N was against us moving in there. Turned out to be a NATO operation, NOT the UN. I'm not very pro UN but yes we've been involved in so called humanitarian peacekeeping campaigns in Africa, Bosnia and other places, and along with our allied NATO Forces have acquitted ourselves pretty well, despite the huge problems of trying to fit into a multinational force. We've gained a lot of international prestige in a lot of countries. Even Somolia and it's disasters earned us a lot of respect in non Muslim nations.
Chuck S argues against pulling out too soon before govts and unrests are stable in places like Afganistan and Iraq. OK, but when do we pull out and stop spending billions of taxpayers money? Why throw good money after bad? April 15 is approaching and think of sending billions to Karzai and his like as you make out your check! LOL 
I'm with Goose. Let's stay home. All the American lives and money have left Iraq in a bloody civil war killing hundreds a month, soon to follow in Afganistan. For a while we were spending 2 Billion per DAY in these countries. I realize hindsight is 20-20 but next time we need to get a guy like Bin Laden a Billion dollars for his head or absolute proof of death might be more bang for the buck! Even ten Billion would be cheap!


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

And I'm not a Bush blamer ( voted for him twice) or Obama blamer. Voted against him twice! Just a frustrated taxpayer sick and tired of expensive, seemingly senseless wars with ongoing horrendous human suffering to our young Americans and their families, the weight we'll all have to bear for a generation or two.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

+1 on your last post&#8230;.both in voting behavior and viewpoint.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman says he's tired of saving countries and then having them show no gratitude.


I guess Kuwait comes to mind. At least I think I remember them begging us to come to their aid.

I guess one country I have been in that did ask us for help was Grenada. However, they are very grateful and thank you when you're there many years later. Actually a friend of mine who was a Navy Seal was bayoneted in the back when we went into Grenada. He said he would have died if the guy was trained better and had twisted the bayonet before he pulled it out. The military sent him back to school for his PhD and he is a chemist for them now.

Maybe what I am really tired of is countries looking for a scrap, getting their behind kicked, then we rebuild them. It worries me that some countries will start a little trouble just for the benefits of being defeated by the United States.

All that said it's time to stop playing Mr. Policeman. It's a waste of American money and blood. If they are unwilling to fight for their own freedom let their enemies have them. I would say those countries who are allies like those in NATO we stand with. Although I'm getting real sick of France. Many in NATO I look at as sort of leeches. They don't spend much on defense because they rely on us. Maybe it's time to say pull your weight or we are saying good-bye.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Goose and Habitat....

I agree we should just keep out of this and let what happens happen. But when the President and out Congress are trying to put in sanctions and what not other countries are just laughing.

Goose... I also agree Bush didn't have an exit strategy at all for Iraq. Yet what Obama is doing is worse than keeping troops there. Because in 10 years we could be right back in there.... Just like after Desert Storm.... and yes that was Bush Sr. with not the correct exit strategy.

Anyway.... no matter how you look at it the US forgein relations is a Joke. This administrations kept preaching how he was going to make our "image" better yet he isn't doing a thing. Along with many other of his "promises". Now I am not a 100% Obama Basher. Yet it is hard not to be when you see how things are going. What gets me is the media and others still sing his praises when Bush Jr. was in office they would be all over him. Here is a case in point about the media.... Dan Quayle misspelled potato.... The media, comics, late night shows, etc Jumped all over it for months. How much have you heard about Obama's gaffe with Respect????


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

You are correct about respect, Chuck. Loss or not?? Depends what liar you believe. From what I can see the main people laughing at USA and our allies are Russia/Putin and the usual anti American largely Muslim countries. And of course our National political machines that try to get the most political mileage out of situations like this.
Putting aside the stuff we get from FOX, Rush and the many right wing websites and instead make a genuine effort to read the worlds press, particularly the EU press, Australia, Canada, Japan, Great Britain, etc and I think you'll have to agree that a lot of the reported laughing is just more political hay making that both sides, another perfect example is MSNBC, specialize in these days. My bull**** filter works overtime when I chech their websites though most of them do have some accurate tidbits of truth. Just have to toss out the nonsense.
Heck, you don't have to be able to understand all the languages from the international press. All websites, for example, the BBC offers their stuff in some 28 different languages, only one I understand! My point is that if you start to look as objectively as possible, the people and countries in the word THAT MATTER are pretty well on our side, but don't have much to offer in the way of positive suggestions to back Putin down.
After all, what do we have to beat down the guy?? FORCE - absolutely no one with a brain wants a war, etc. or SANCTIONS of all kinds of types and effectiveness but usually don't work that well, ad nauseum. And WORLD OPINION again, from the countries that matter to the rest of the world, even though a lot of these countries would never take a public position but are still pretty well in our and our allies corner.
Time will tell - no magic answers from this poster!! He'll, I' m goin fishin.........


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Depends what liar you believe.


I don't like to use poor grammar, but aint that the truth. Sad, but true. I think the Netflix show "HOUSE OF CARDS" is a training film for the Washington crowd. I'm so disappointed in both parties.

As for FOX I try to watch or read everything myself, and I have to say the truth more often comes from FOX. They have things that ABC, NBC, and CBS ignore on purpose.


----------

