Bungler in Chief at it again

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

    What prevents the Ukranians from blowing up the pipeline used to deliver Russian natural Gas to Europe? 

     



    The same nation willing to throw thirty million unequipped men at German tanks until they drove the Germans off.

     



    blowing up the pipeline would cripple the Russian economy.  



    Gee, progressives notice the importance of energy issues on national security. Wow.

    The same airhead crowd that blocks the Keystone pipeline, fights the miracle of fracking technology that has given the US the capability to be energy self sufficient...and now the same progressive greens want to block exports of green friendly natural gas from the US...

    But they notice a natural gas pipeline in the Ukraine has some political impact...

    Duh.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

     

    What prevents the Ukranians from blowing up the pipeline used to deliver Russian natural Gas to Europe? 

     



    The same nation willing to throw thirty million unequipped men at German tanks until they drove the Germans off.

     



    blowing up the pipeline would cripple the Russian economy.  



    Gee, progressives notice the importance of energy issues on national security. Wow.

    The same airhead crowd that blocks the Keystone pipeline, fights the miracle of fracking technology that has given the US the capability to be energy self sufficient...and now the same progressive greens want to block exports of green friendly natural gas from the US...

    But they notice a natural gas pipeline in the Ukraine has some political impact...

    Duh.



    Such a simpleton:

    Canadian tar sands oil currently gets piped to the American mid-west, its refined, and then sold to the regional markets.  A good deal for many millions of Americans.

    Keystone XL is designed to bypass mid-western refineries and send all of the product to refineries in the Gulf, and then it gets exported to the world market.....and tax free because the Gulf refineries sit in foreign 'free-trade zones'

    How does exporting North American oil make us 'energy self-sufficient'?

    And when ports and shipping are established for natural gas, say good-bye to our domestic supply of gas too.

    But hey...as long as a few mega-corporations get to sell to the world its all good for the American consumer, right?  The money will just trickle-down.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday announced that he would expand sanctions against Russia, blacklisting wealthy individuals with ties to the government and a bank used by them, and opening the door to broader measures against Russian energy exports.

    The measures deliver on Mr. Obama’s warning this week that the United States would ratchet up the costs for Russia if President Vladimir V. Putin moved to annex the breakaway province of Crimea. But they were aimed at forestalling further Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine, after what Mr. Obama described as troubling Russian military movements.

    In a tit-for-tat response, Moscow banned nine American officials from entering Russia, including Speaker John A. Boehner, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator John McCain of Arizona, as well as three senior White House officials.

    ...


    Mr. Obama also said he had signed a new executive order that would allow him to impose sanctions on Russian industrial sectors, presumably including its energy exports — a step that would greatly tighten the economic pressure on Russia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/us-expanding-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine.html?hp

     

    Man..Putin is so tough!

    Seriously, certain tools need to admit it's plain that neither of us have any intention of getting into a conflict, and Obama did nothing wrong by daring to admit that hoplessly unavoidable fact.

    We'll trade sanctions back and forth as people try to save face, Russia will keep Crimea, and none of it will because Obama said we aren't sending in the military.



    Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

    There was no reason to publicly state military options were off the table. There is no positive reason to make such a statement. The only outcomes are benign and negative.

    There is no reason to prove such an assertion is true because we all know it is true as sure as the sky is blue.

    THe Russians are already in Eastern Ukraine while you smuggly state they'll be satisifed with Crimea. What a dope. Why weren't they satisfied with Georgia.




    little-Bush, the cowboy-in-chief, never took military action off the table and how'd that work out for Georgia?

    Your opinion ignores reality and recent history.



    Really?

    What did Bush do when Putin invaded Georgia? Nothing that I can recall. NOTHING. He didn't have anything to take off the table. Was there any crisis, sanctions or tossing Russia out of the G8?

    NOTHING

    You keep trying to justify Obama's incompetence by pointing to other incompetence. Sorry pal, doesn't work.

    Your guy is a total f up. Doesn't matter if Bush was too.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday announced that he would expand sanctions against Russia, blacklisting wealthy individuals with ties to the government and a bank used by them, and opening the door to broader measures against Russian energy exports.

    The measures deliver on Mr. Obama’s warning this week that the United States would ratchet up the costs for Russia if President Vladimir V. Putin moved to annex the breakaway province of Crimea. But they were aimed at forestalling further Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine, after what Mr. Obama described as troubling Russian military movements.

    In a tit-for-tat response, Moscow banned nine American officials from entering Russia, including Speaker John A. Boehner, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator John McCain of Arizona, as well as three senior White House officials.

    ...


    Mr. Obama also said he had signed a new executive order that would allow him to impose sanctions on Russian industrial sectors, presumably including its energy exports — a step that would greatly tighten the economic pressure on Russia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/us-expanding-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine.html?hp

     

    Man..Putin is so tough!

    Seriously, certain tools need to admit it's plain that neither of us have any intention of getting into a conflict, and Obama did nothing wrong by daring to admit that hoplessly unavoidable fact.

    We'll trade sanctions back and forth as people try to save face, Russia will keep Crimea, and none of it will because Obama said we aren't sending in the military.



    Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

    There was no reason to publicly state military options were off the table. There is no positive reason to make such a statement. The only outcomes are benign and negative.

    There is no reason to prove such an assertion is true because we all know it is true as sure as the sky is blue.

    THe Russians are already in Eastern Ukraine while you smuggly state they'll be satisifed with Crimea. What a dope. Why weren't they satisfied with Georgia.




    little-Bush, the cowboy-in-chief, never took military action off the table and how'd that work out for Georgia?

    Your opinion ignores reality and recent history.



    Really?

    What did Bush do when Putin invaded Georgia? Nothing that I can recall. NOTHING. He didn't have anything to take off the table. Was there any crisis, sanctions or tossing Russia out of the G8?

    NOTHING

    You keep trying to justify Obama's incompetence by pointing to other incompetence. Sorry pal, doesn't work.

    Your guy is a total f up. Doesn't matter if Bush was too.




    You're making my point for me.

    You wailing about taking the military option off the table despite the fact that the previous cowboy-in-chief didn't and yet the result was the same. Your opinion is rendered moot by history.

    Seriously, how can you be so obstinate as to not recognize that both options have been tried with the same result ... proving that you're rants are nothing but childish tantrums, ignorant of reality.

    And you're right, little-Bush did nothing ... at least this PotUS has marshalled a somewhat unified response which will make Putin's gambit very costly.

    If the cold war was won by bankrupting the Soviets, then this is a very impactful opening salvo.



    They aren't the same options and the results - so far - are different. But Georgia and Ukraine are different too. Ukraine is on the edge of Europe and 4 NATO countries are on its border. 

    Bush did nothing - he did not even pretend to have a military option to take off the table. He did nothing and look what happened.

    You are making claims that defy common sense. THere is no good that can come from taking away your option, even if your opponent THINKS  you are not going to use it. It is like Belichick and his injury report. THe opponent might think that Gronk is not going to play but until game time they have to practice like he will, because they do not know.

    Putin is the agressor. He will take what he can according to his judsgement about our response. We are just making it easier for him.

    If you would like to return to reality I will easily agree that the best case is that Obama's stupidity was benign. But that is the best case and what do we get for it????

    There is no reason for the guy to open his mouth like that. IS THERE?? 

    You guys are trying to make it too complicated to cover up for the idiot you support.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    You guys are trying to make it too complicated to cover up for the idiot you support.

     



    Just because he's a turd sandwich doesn't mean everything is his fault.

     

    I haven't seen you fail to blame him for something...   

    I also almost never see any argument backing up the blame. It's always "duh, well, I think it's obvious so it's true because shut up"



    Rubbish.

    I have not blamed him for your constipation have I?

    Like I have to explain why disclosing your strategy or tactics to your adversary is a bad idea? I mean really? I have to explain that??? And you are a lawyer??? If you were a public defender your client  would be paying too much for your services with that kind of intelligence.

    You always hide under the obamahate dooodoo poopy throwing instead of getting to the point at hand.

    But you do give good pictures and in reality you are probably an ok guy for a socialist. :))

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Bungler in Chief at it again

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    WASHINGTON — President Obama on Thursday announced that he would expand sanctions against Russia, blacklisting wealthy individuals with ties to the government and a bank used by them, and opening the door to broader measures against Russian energy exports.

    The measures deliver on Mr. Obama’s warning this week that the United States would ratchet up the costs for Russia if President Vladimir V. Putin moved to annex the breakaway province of Crimea. But they were aimed at forestalling further Russian incursions into eastern Ukraine, after what Mr. Obama described as troubling Russian military movements.

    In a tit-for-tat response, Moscow banned nine American officials from entering Russia, including Speaker John A. Boehner, the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator John McCain of Arizona, as well as three senior White House officials.

    ...


    Mr. Obama also said he had signed a new executive order that would allow him to impose sanctions on Russian industrial sectors, presumably including its energy exports — a step that would greatly tighten the economic pressure on Russia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/us-expanding-sanctions-against-russia-over-ukraine.html?hp

     

    Man..Putin is so tough!

    Seriously, certain tools need to admit it's plain that neither of us have any intention of getting into a conflict, and Obama did nothing wrong by daring to admit that hoplessly unavoidable fact.

    We'll trade sanctions back and forth as people try to save face, Russia will keep Crimea, and none of it will because Obama said we aren't sending in the military.



    Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

    There was no reason to publicly state military options were off the table. There is no positive reason to make such a statement. The only outcomes are benign and negative.

    There is no reason to prove such an assertion is true because we all know it is true as sure as the sky is blue.

    THe Russians are already in Eastern Ukraine while you smuggly state they'll be satisifed with Crimea. What a dope. Why weren't they satisfied with Georgia.




    little-Bush, the cowboy-in-chief, never took military action off the table and how'd that work out for Georgia?

    Your opinion ignores reality and recent history.




    He took the military option off the table because a) Putin's actions in Crimea didn't warrant a military repsonse and b) he was trying to de-escalate the situation.

    Letting people know we would not do something stupid helps calm the markets.

    What is with the righties' need to stick their chest and beat on it?  Everyone knows we have nukes.  Everyone knows we spend more on the military than the the next 9 countries combined.  Everyone knows this.

    Obama is trying to demonstrate that an effective US foreign policy can involve more than - Our way or we'll kill you.  Some call that feckless.  I call it the wise policy of a man that values the lives of the Americans would be the ones dying in a shooting war.

    Besides, the objective is to get Russia to fork over some dough to Ukraine to help their economy - not bring us closer to WW III.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share