Report: Malaysian airliner crashes in Ukraine

[FirefightnRick]

This is the exact same semantic rigmarole that self righteous, turtleneck wearing, latte sipping liberals pulled on your man George W. Bush.

Enjoy the company.

Well I could have simply waited till it was the lead joke on John Leibowitz' show, but then I'd probably be waiting a long time wouldn't I?

Rick

[meangreenacct]

Well I could have simply waited till it was the lead joke on John Leibowitz' show, but then I'd probably be waiting a long time wouldn't I?

Rick

Clearly you don't watch the show...also don't really see then making a joke right now about 295 people dying.

[emmitt01]

This is the exact same semantic rigmarole that self righteous, turtleneck wearing, latte sipping liberals pulled on your man George W. Bush.

Enjoy the company.

I don't know. Does it really live up to the gold standard of "so many gynecologists aren't able to practice their love on women" or "They misunderestimated me"?

Or how about these gems? "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." or "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." Those would NEVER become fodder for the tin foil crowd at Fox News.

[UNT90]

I don't know. Does it really live up to the gold standard of "so many gynecologists aren't able to practice their love on women" or "They misunderestimated me"?

Or how about these gems? "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." or "You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." Those would NEVER become fodder for the tin foil crowd at Fox News.

At least he knew how many states Murica has...

I guess commie foreign-born Muslims can't count states?

Edited July 18, 2014 by UNT90

[UNT90]

Pres. Obama would do good to watch this and learn from it. I would hope he takes a similiar tact when (actually, if) he addresses the nation on this matter in a couple of days.

"Massacre".

"Crime against humanity".

"No justification, legal or moral, for what the soviets did"

"this was the Soviet Union against the world"

"act of barbarism born of a society which wantonly disregards individual rights and the value of human life"

"they owe the world an apology"

True then, and true now. Pres. Obama should memorize and re-issue this speech. He won't, because he doesn't want to provoke Putin.

Worst foreign policy president since Jimmy Carter.

Edited July 18, 2014 by UNT90

[Green P1]

pre-emptive strike against those a-holes who will invariably blame him...like they do everything from Jews and Muslims not getting along to refugee 5 year olds to, let's say, their own E.D.?

[Censored by Laurie]

[UNT90]

< 40 years.

[GTWT]

Obama condemns Russia after airliner downed in Ukraine

http://news.msn.com/world/obama-condemns-russia-after-airliner-downed-in-ukraine

"an outrage of unspeakable proportions"

Now '90 will bash President Obama for harsh rhetoric.

[UNT90]

Obama condemns Russia after airliner downed in Ukraine

http://news.msn.com/world/obama-condemns-russia-after-airliner-downed-in-ukraine

"an outrage of unspeakable proportions"

Now '90 will bash President Obama for harsh rhetoric.

LOL! Did you even read the article? Let me tell you what Putin got out of this article: "Blah blah blah military action is not an option blah blah blah." In other words, keep doing what you are doing, Vlad, cause we ain't gonna do a damn thing.

Why in the HELL would you tell the world that you are taking an option off the table? Pres. Obama is quickly passing the peanut farmer as the absolute worst foriegn policy president of the last 150 years. How I would love to play behind Pres. Obama in a poker game. Easy money.

Quite the opposite on that statement. Not NEARLY tough enough. Go back watch the video I posted of Reagan's reaction. Read the quotes I posted.

Yes, Reagan's address was 4 weeks after the incident, but Reagan didnt have social media at his disposal. Reading through Cerebus's posts, it very clear who is responsible.

It's also very clear that the "President" of the "insurgence" was acting under direction from Moscow. The Ukraine's have the phone calls recorded. Phone calls made to Moscow immediately after the shoot down. Clearly a report to upper management. And all we get is "an outrage of unspeakable proportions"? Really?

Maybe Pres. Obama will follow up with something stronger between fundraising stops. I doubt it. Maybe he will address the nation from the Oval Office between fundraising and vacation stops. Again, I doubt it. If he does, I hope he uses DECIDEDLY STRONGER language than "outrage of unspeakable proportions." Maybe something along the lines of "the barbaric act of special forces directly under the control of Pres. Putin. This is the result of Pres. Putin, a man who is nothing more than a discount dictator who lies to those he governs, embarking on an imperialistic campaign to restore as much of the old Soviet Union as possible. That WILL NOT happen. Perhaps Pres. Putin has misunderstood our patience for weakness. He no longer has that problem. Our patience is exhausted and this ends today. I am sending an American carrier group to the Black Sea and will work with our European allies to provide military assistance, including ground forces, to the sovereign nation of Ukraine at the invitation of the sovereign nation of Ukraine."

Of course, 66 will just tell us to place our heads firmly back in the sand and ignore the world around us, no matter how many passenger planes magically fall from the sky. He is the West Texas (?) Neville Chamberlain of our time, after all.

Edited July 18, 2014 by UNT90

[Rudy]

*sigh* 42 days

[GTWT]

'90 do you really think that US military action should be on the table in the Ukraine?

Oh, and I agree that Nancy was a forceful leader. She would have had Ron say something really powerful.

[UNT90]

'90 do you really think that US military action should be on the table in the Ukraine?

Oh, and I agree that Nancy was a forceful leader. She would have had Ron say something really powerful.

Showing your ignorance about the past. Also, very liberal of you to imply that anything positive that came from a Republican president, specifically Reagan, just HAD to be driven by a female. History has served Reagan well. The same will not be said for Pres. Obama in 30 years. Just look at the peanut farmer and you will see exactly where Pres. Obama's legacy is headed.

Even if US military action isn't on the table, YOU DONT PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE IT. Is that really so difficult to understand?

Yes, I think NATO military action in Ukraine should absolutely be on the table if the Ukrainian government asks for help on the ground.

We will have to stand up to Putin, who is nothing more than a tyrant, at some point in time. Better sooner than later.

This won't happen under Pres. Obama. Putin has Pres. Obama correctly pegged as a leader guided by a political compass, not a moral compass.

Edited July 20, 2014 by UNT90

[GTWT]

We will have to stand up to Putin, who is nothing more than a tyrant,

Like we stood up to Sadam Hussein. That worked out well.

Yes, I think NATO military action in Ukraine should absolutely be on the table

Ask Napoleon about the wisdom of fighting Russia in the Ukraine. US or NATO military involvement in the Ukraine would be the silliest possible thing we could do.

Agreed peanut farmers & bad actors have no business being President.

[UNT90]

Like we stood up to Sadam Hussein. That worked out well.

Ask Napoleon about the wisdom of fighting Russia in the Ukraine. US or NATO military involvement in the Ukraine would be the silliest possible thing we could do.

Agreed peanut farmers & bad actors have no business being President.

We aren't invading Russia, so your Sadam Hussein reference makes zero sense.

[GTWT]

We aren't invading Russia, so your Sadam Hussein reference makes zero sense.

You are talking about US troops in the Ukraine. That makes zero sense.

Sadam Hussein & Vladimir Putin are both authoritarian despots who flaunt international mores. We find them offensive. We should do everything possible - withing the context of our own best interests - to constrain them. Driving Hussein out of Kuwait was in our best interest. Driving him from power & replacing him with a weak pro-Iranian government that may easily be replaced by a radical Islamic regime is not in our best interest. Constraining Putin in the Ukraine is in our best interest. Involving US troops in a war in the Ukraine is not.

[UNT90]

You are talking about US troops in the Ukraine. That makes zero sense.

Sadam Hussein & Vladimir Putin are both authoritarian despots who flaunt international mores. We find them offensive. We should do everything possible - withing the context of our own best interests - to constrain them. Driving Hussein out of Kuwait was in our best interest. Driving him from power & replacing him with a weak pro-Iranian government that may easily be replaced by a radical Islamic regime is not in our best interest. Constraining Putin in the Ukraine is in our best interest. Involving US troops in a war in the Ukraine is not.

Constraining him in Ukraine how? Sanctions? That will mean nothing to him?

What makes you think he won't move on from the Ukraine to somewhere else? He has made it pretty clear that he plans to get the band back together (the band in this instance being the old USSR). When we do nothing, it empowers him. When we issue weak statements with no follow through, it send the message to the Russian people that what Putin is doing must not be that bad.

What Reagan did was address the Soviet people directly, bypassing the Soviet government in an attempt to change the average Soviet's view of America, themselves, and their government. This was very tough for Reagan to do due to the tight control of information in the Soviet Union at that time. It is much easier to do nowadays with lightening quick social media and numerous internet news sources. Yet Pres. Obama has not called Putin out directly as an international criminal. Because he fears political consequences.

Not only does Pres. Obama not speak harshly and directly to the Russian people, he also publicly takes military involvement completely off the table and does so in a very public manner. His media quote should be "We will consider every option available to end Russian imperialistic aggression." Let Putin and, more importantly, the Russian people, worry about what that means. But Pres. Obama did what he always does, the politically expedient thing to let all of the members of his far left base know that the US will continue to abdicate it's role as world leader.

This is the time to act. Putin is on the defensive after shooting down a civilian aircraft. Call him what he is loudly and directly to the Russian people. Let the Russian people know by sending a Carrier group to the black sea that PUTIN has brought these tensions and has brought US military might very close to the Russian border. That this is PUTIN'S doing. If Ukraine asks and we can convince our NATO partners to help, put peacekeeping ground forces in Ukraine. It would be best if this were brought before the UN and Russia was forced to be the only state to vote it down (they do have veto power). It's about isolating Russia from the rest of the international community and putting pressure on the Russian people to decide if this is the route they really want to go with their government.

Governments everywhere serve at the pleasure of those they govern. There has never been a better time to put pressure on the Russian people to make a change, and bringing American troops uncomfortably close to the Russian border is a part of that pressure.

[GTWT]

Unfortunately there may be little beyond exerting political and economic pressure we can do in the Ukraine. We can't be the world's policeman & we shouldn't do anything as stupid as bluffing about military action on Russia's borders. And make no mistake - it would be a bluff. There is no way we can bring enough military might to bear in the Black Sea - sans threat of nuclear war - to threaten the Russian hegemony in that region.

What we can do is support our European allies as they exert economic pressure on Russia & as they strengthen their support of the Baltic States & eastern Europe. Even here it has to be an European initiative - our economic impact on Russia is too limited.

Your attitude in this matter is part of what scares me about America's radical right. You're willing to risk everything over ideology.

Governments everywhere serve at the pleasure of those they govern.

This statement is simply untrue.

Edited July 21, 2014 by GTWT

[Coffee and TV]

and bringing American troops uncomfortably close to the Russian border is a part of that pressure.

Jesus Christ.

[UNTFan23]

Unfortunately there may be little beyond exerting political and economic pressure we can do in the Ukraine. We can't be the world's policeman & we shouldn't do anything as stupid as bluffing about military action on Russia's borders. And make no mistake - it would be a bluff. There is no way we can bring enough military might to bear in the Black Sea - sans threat of nuclear war - to threaten the Russian hegemony in that region.

What we can do is support our European allies as they exert economic pressure on Russia & as they strengthen their support of the Baltic States & eastern Europe. Even here it has to be an European initiative - our economic impact on Russia is too limited.

Your attitude in this matter is part of what scares me about America's radical right. You're willing to risk everything over ideology.

This statement is simply untrue.

We bluffed with Assad in Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons, Assad called the bluff, and now the world knows we won't do anything if we try to talk tough. It's why no "red line" was declared this time regarding the Ukraine/Russia conflict because the US has no leverage to appear to be an international bully. Economic sanctions are about the best the US can do but without western Europe joining in those sanctions don't have much teeth.

Edited July 21, 2014 by UNTFan23

[UNT90]

Unfortunately there may be little beyond exerting political and economic pressure we can do in the Ukraine. We can't be the world's policeman & we shouldn't do anything as stupid as bluffing about military action on Russia's borders. And make no mistake - it would be a bluff. There is no way we can bring enough military might to bear in the Black Sea - sans threat of nuclear war - to threaten the Russian hegemony in that region.

What we can do is support our European allies as they exert economic pressure on Russia & as they strengthen their support of the Baltic States & eastern Europe. Even here it has to be an European initiative - our economic impact on Russia is too limited.

Your attitude in this matter is part of what scares me about America's radical right. You're willing to risk everything over ideology.

This statement is simply untrue.

Not surprised at all that you feel governments don't serve at that pleasure of those they govern.

We are the "world's policemen" and have been since the end of WWII. That fact that you either don't understand that or are willing to accept Pres. Obama abdicating that responsibility says a lot about your world view (also tells me your radical stance on global warming is far more politically driven than having anything to do with actual science, but I digress).

Your attitude is what scares me about the far left. The thought that if the US just "leaves everyone alone they won't bother us." It's naive, dangerous, and historically stupid.

[adman]

A government only has as many enemies as it needs.

[GTWT]

Your attitude is what scares me about the far left.

My attitude is that the US military should only be employed to protect vital US interests. That makes me much more conservative - on this issue at least - than you.

[Coffee and TV]

Economic sanctions are about the best the US can do but without western Europe joining in those sanctions don't have much teeth.

Iran just got rid of a ton of enriched uranium.

So there's that I guess...

[CMJ]

My attitude is that the US military should only be employed to protect vital US interests. That makes me much more conservative - on this issue at least - than you.

Pretty much. If we were really the world's policeman, we'd be much more involved in Africa as well. How many countries are fighting over there at any one time (especially internally)? We show up where it in some way benefits us.

BTW - there is nothing wrong with that. We could never police the whole world. Not even with our seemingly limitless capabilities.