Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
F3SS

Obama warns Russia

185 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato

That's your solution? To have stability in the world, you need a strong America to keep all the knuckleheads in line. Otherwise, you will have total anarchy. I will say that we need to stop threatening over the littlest of things but this is not a little thing. With Syria for example, there is evidence that Syrian forces under Assad used chemical weapons. We told Syria if you use chemical weapons there would be a very strong price to pay. What happened? NOTHING. Russia knows, from this country's past experiences, that we will sit on our hands and do nothing. Putin read Obama like a book and called his bluff. Ukraine unfortunately has to suffer for it.

I don't think a world that runs on what Obama says is the world we need to live in. That's one of the other unfortunate side effects of American Exceptionalism. The expectations the world has on the US are ridiculously high. The world needs to grow up. No more Pottery Barns or baby sitters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Yes, because "anything" is just what it says, your mindset is the quintessential problem with this country today. Empty-suited blank check writing over God knows what. An Establishment that has no problem with government getting involved in "anything". Don't be such a statist.

So then, you would say we shouldn't be prepared for anything at any time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

So then, you would say we shouldn't be prepared for anything at any time?

Why are you repeating the same question? You're gonna get the same answer again.

Let's explain it another way so it's crystal clear for ya.

Defend these 50 states, keep interstate commerce regular, prosecute fraud, and enforce contracts. "ANYTHING" ELSE, then pay for it yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Why are you repeating the same question? You're gonna get the same answer again.

Let's explain it another way so it's crystal clear for ya.

Defend these 50 states, keep interstate commerce regular, prosecute fraud, and enforce contracts. "ANYTHING" ELSE, then pay for it yourself!

How many times have I said the same thing? I'd like nothing more. By anything I mean anything that comes our way, not somebody else's. How is it that every time we talk I end up having to explain myself like I'm some new member? We've been in threads for years together. Much of our back and forth is because you either read me wrong or can't put two and two together about some of the basic things I believe in after all these years.

Now, just because I have convictions doesn't mean that circumstances couldn't arise that would intermittently sway my general opinion. They very well could, on any number of issues. And no I don't have any specifics in mind and don't want to debate a hypothetical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn

How many times have I said the same thing? I'd like nothing more. By anything I mean anything that comes our way, not somebody else's. How is it that every time we talk I end up having to explain myself like I'm some new member? We've been in threads for years together. Much of our back and forth is because you either read me wrong or can't put two and two together about some of the basic things I believe in after all these years.

Now, just because I have convictions doesn't mean that circumstances couldn't arise that would intermittently sway my general opinion. They very well could, on any number of issues. And no I don't have any specifics in mind and don't want to debate a hypothetical.

What are your beliefs anyway? Seems like you're 90% right wing conservative a lot of times, with only a slight lean towards Libertarianism. Kinda like Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

How many times have I said the same thing? I'd like nothing more. By anything I mean anything that comes our way, not somebody else's. How is it that every time we talk I end up having to explain myself like I'm some new member? We've been in threads for years together. Much of our back and forth is because you either read me wrong or can't put two and two together about some of the basic things I believe in after all these years.

Now, just because I have convictions doesn't mean that circumstances couldn't arise that would intermittently sway my general opinion. They very well could, on any number of issues. And no I don't have any specifics in mind and don't want to debate a hypothetical.

I'm probing for differences here because I don't think you're applying fundamentals you believe in with some of these retorts I'm getting. What you just said repeatedly, the question you were asking me repeatedly...maybe you can't see the moral hazard in "anything". I don't think you'd ever use that kind of rhetoric for a thousand other uses of government, but this time you did. And it was regarding military. I'm not sure after all these months that you won't make an exception to all that posting history for military. And it's rhetoric like I just saw that gives me pause. And then it's calling me "hippy" hours before you wrote this. Is that what you've gleaned from me over the years? What did I say to give you that idea? I don't know you? With all due respect sir, that observation scratches both ways.

Anything that now "comes our way" may be a far cry from "anything at any time", but I can only go by what you write. And this too is just rhetoric that can mean anything that you or some future bureaucrat wants it to mean. There's all kinds of crap out there that comes our way and it's manufactured to do so. You can't just assume a system like we're in and then start flinging "anything at anytime" around the room. Whether I observed you making dissimilar statements before or not. There have got to be major changes in the government for me to agree with a word you're saying. Even still. "What comes our way" is already applicable to what's going on right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

What are your beliefs anyway? Seems like you're 90% right wing conservative a lot of times, with only a slight lean towards Libertarianism. Kinda like Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

Well it's sort of hard to sum everything up in one post as it would be for anyone. Your assessment isn't so far off but I'm probably more like 60 or 70%. It would take a questioneer with specific points to really figure it out. But my point was made in that post above. Seems like every other time he and I talk it's like the first time we've met. After so long here you can gauge a general assessment of where one stands. It always seems like I'm beating a dead horse while playing a broken record with him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Yamato, I'll reply later. Gots to get to work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

1969184_371087506365204_842420458_n.jpg

I think the US needs to stay out. None of our business. At any rate, any super power that has messed with Russia gets their butts handed to them on a platter, and goes the way of the dinosaurs. Napoleon, Hitler.... It's best to remember and take note of history.

What about the Mongols (1240)? Or the Japanese (1904-05)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Through NATO, we're obliged to defend Poland, and I've talked to my cousins in Poland this weekend and they have no confidence in that alleged deal again whatsoever. Like Great Britain and France were supposed to defend Poland, a defense which essentially amounted to saying "Duh?" after Germany steamrolled it in a matter of weeks. I wonder if there are roots 75-years long in explaining their lack of confidence.

Well both countries did declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland. I believe the hope was that by saying they would stand by Poland they hoped the Germans wouldn't attack. They couldn't imagine that anyone would want war after the horrors of the "War to end all wars".

The Germans steamrolled France in a matter of weeks also. If they could have gotten across the Channel they would have steamrolled England also.

I do think, given the history of Poland, their lack of confidence is justified.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Well both countries did declared war on Germany when they invaded Poland. I believe the hope was that by saying they would stand by Poland they hoped the Germans wouldn't attack. They couldn't imagine that anyone would want war after the horrors of the "War to end all wars".

The Germans steamrolled France in a matter of weeks also. If they could have gotten across the Channel they would have steamrolled England also.

I do think, given the history of Poland, their lack of confidence is justified.

Isn't that how alliances are supposed to work? Standing by some other country in hopes they don't get attacked? Poland got steamrolled, to my point. That alliance was worthless too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

If we want to keep the US stuck in everyone else's business, alliances are another great way to accomplish that, and at least they're Constitutional. But it's like pulling teeth trying to stay Constitutional with right-wing chickenhawks who want to imagine fantasies about treaties we never signed.

But we don't need these status quo policies that cover for anything (we want) at any time (we want), "anythings" that have nothing to do with treaties the US actually signed. Show me where the Constitution says that its our unique duty in the world to pay for strangers and foreigners? Government grown too big, too unbalanced, too responsible for the world, and thus way too expensive. You're never going to balance the budget having rhetorical arguments about exactly how much global government is the right amount, until we re-examine what we think the role of government ought to be. In a nutshell, that's the only reason why I'm here. Otherwise, the unchallenged acceptance of the federal government getting involved in "anything" will continue.

"We need to do a lot less, a lot sooner, and not only in Egypt, but around the world." ~ Ron Paul, 2011 CPAC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

I would not worry so much about this, so far, and as long as the West keep howling, Russian oligarchs are loosing 10-15 billion a day... it will just be a question of time before one of them gets a contract on Vlady....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

It sounds like Putin's answer to Obama's threats are even greater threats (in the form of disproportionate responses aimed at hurting the US economically).

It seems to me that the pigs in power are messing their own beds again and then squealing about it.

There's a lot of really stupid things that both sides can do to each other; we could throw around hypotheticals all day. As for one, I have no reason to believe that assassinating Putin is going to change the policy. I don't see mobs of protesters in the streets of Russia I'd need to see to believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

It sounds like Putin's answer to Obama's threats are even greater threats (in the form of disproportionate responses aimed at hurting the US economically).

It seems to me that the pigs in power are messing their own beds again and then squealing about it.

There's a lot of really stupid things that both sides can do to each other; we could throw around hypotheticals all day. As for one, I have no reason to believe that assassinating Putin is going to change the policy. I don't see mobs of protesters in the streets of Russia I'd need to see to believe that.

If you know a little about Russia you know that Putin derives his power from the oligarchs, and they keep quiet (and out of politics) as long as policy does not interfere with them getting rich. As soon as that changes we will see once again who has the real power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

If you know a little about Russia you know that Putin derives his power from the oligarchs, and they keep quiet (and out of politics) as long as policy does not interfere with them getting rich. As soon as that changes we will see once again who has the real power.

Putin is in command; or else he's just unbelievably eloquent about speaking someone else's mind.

Finding out how the Russians are polling over this is highly relevant. People are always where the real power is eventually; the intricacies of their respective governments notwithstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Putin is in command; or else he's just unbelievably eloquent about speaking someone else's mind.

Finding out how the Russians are polling over this is highly relevant. People are always where the real power is eventually; the intricacies of their respective governments notwithstanding.

The Oligarchs got the Russian people riled against Gorbachev, when Yeltsin was no longer their friend they got Putin in his place. By exactly the same means they will get whoever they need to keep the party going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

I'm probing for differences here because I don't think you're applying fundamentals you believe in with some of these retorts I'm getting. What you just said repeatedly, the question you were asking me repeatedly...maybe you can't see the moral hazard in "anything". I don't think you'd ever use that kind of rhetoric for a thousand other uses of government, but this time you did. And it was regarding military. I'm not sure after all these months that you won't make an exception to all that posting history for military. And it's rhetoric like I just saw that gives me pause. And then it's calling me "hippy" hours before you wrote this. Is that what you've gleaned from me over the years? What did I say to give you that idea? I don't know you? With all due respect sir, that observation scratches both ways.

Anything that now "comes our way" may be a far cry from "anything at any time", but I can only go by what you write. And this too is just rhetoric that can mean anything that you or some future bureaucrat wants it to mean. There's all kinds of crap out there that comes our way and it's manufactured to do so. You can't just assume a system like we're in and then start flinging "anything at anytime" around the room. Whether I observed you making dissimilar statements before or not. There have got to be major changes in the government for me to agree with a word you're saying. Even still. "What comes our way" is already applicable to what's going on right now.

First, I don't think I asked so many times that repeatedly is the proper description. I stated it once or twice, you then picked at it, I then asked a question in return and only once more afterwards when I didn't get an straight answer. I still haven't and don't care if I do. You take every statement someone makes and breaks it into relentless semantics and nuances all in hopes of some gotcha moment when you can finally oust someone as the die hard republican or democrat you've always suspected they were.

I'm not the CiC and do not need my every word or statement scrutinized. I don't have all the answers nor am I supposed to. Convictions and beliefs are honorable things but reality doesn't always let you keep on a straight and narrow path. The hippy remark was simply that, a remark about a remark, and not an one size fits all assessment of your character. I don't recall what it was about but feel free to go back and look.

You too can't just assume that the system we are in allows for a Ron Paul foreign policy which I'm inclined to agree with even though reality says that even Ron himself couldn't have got it done completely and likely would've had to make exception and compromise along the way. You like to spend far too much time over analyzing people. Problem is, it leads to combativeness. The one thing I've learned on these boards is that you get to know, and get along better with, someone by just keeping conversations going. Yea we all dig at each other but when you insist on acting like Sigmund Freud trying to extract the deepest realities of who a person really is in your opinion it tends to get us nowhere fast, like this. I liked Ron Paul a lot but I'm starting to finally see why his supporters were so infamous.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

The Oligarchs got the Russian people riled against Gorbachev, when Yeltsin was no longer their friend they got Putin in his place. By exactly the same means they will get whoever they need to keep the party going.

Sounds just like the US then.

If you're suggesting that Russian people are somehow uniquely qualified in picking embarrassing leaders, no thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

First, I don't think I asked so many times that repeatedly is the proper description. I stated it once or twice, you then picked at it, I then asked a question in return and only once more afterwards when I didn't get an straight answer. I still haven't and don't care if I do. You take every statement someone makes and breaks it into relentless semantics and nuances all in hopes of some gotcha moment when you can finally oust someone as the die hard republican or democrat you've always suspected they were.

I'm not the CiC and do not need my every word or statement scrutinized. I don't have all the answers nor am I supposed to. Convictions and beliefs are honorable things but reality doesn't always let you keep on a straight and narrow path. The hippy remark was simply that, a remark about a remark, and not an one size fits all assessment of your character. I don't recall what it was about but feel free to go back and look.

You too can't just assume that the system we are in allows for a Ron Paul foreign policy which I'm inclined to agree with even though reality says that even Ron himself couldn't have got it done completely and likely would've had to make exception and compromise along the way. You like to spend far too much time over analyzing people. Problem is, it leads to combativeness. The one thing I've learned on these boards is that you get to know, and get along better with, someone by just keeping conversations going. Yea we all dig at each other but when you insist on acting like Sigmund Freud trying to extract the deepest realities if who a person really is in your opinion it tends to get us nowhere fast, like this. I liked Ron Paul a lot but I'm starting to finally see why his supporters were so infamous.

Principle ought to be infamous.

"Anything" is the rhetoric of the Establishment. Again, I can only go by what you write. It's nothing personal. However, I can't guarantee that it won't be unpleasant. We've got to bang these things out.

So yes, Ron Paul couldn't have done something completely. THAT is just rhetoric. As President he would have had more than adequate power to make the kinds of changes in this government that you allege to support. I'm sorry that you still can't see that in 2014. How can a bullet-proof voting record and lifetime defender of small government principle not impress you? What in the world do you want?

What's to disagree with the CiC simply defending these 50 states? Not our oil companies, who have profit interests 7000 miles away. Hiding behind bizarre ethno-religious group-think mentality and unconstitutional foreign nationalism to float these foreign policies of ours that have nothing to do with national security but to jeopardize it. I haven't weeded you out from any of this yet.

Yet I can acknowledge that on balance you're spreading a good message. Your character and your value as a person are impeccable and pristine as far as I can tell. I don't think I've done anything untoward to you to deserve a cat fight about it.

Look man, I could participate in the daily partisan humdrum around here. Or I could find differences with you, which I think is where the legitimate and worthwhile debate lies. We can debate without getting personal I truly hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn

Well it's sort of hard to sum everything up in one post as it would be for anyone. Your assessment isn't so far off but I'm probably more like 60 or 70%. It would take a questioneer with specific points to really figure it out. But my point was made in that post above. Seems like every other time he and I talk it's like the first time we've met. After so long here you can gauge a general assessment of where one stands. It always seems like I'm beating a dead horse while playing a broken record with him.

Yeah I know what you mean. I think we all tend to mentally analyze each other on these forums, yet you really can't tell what a person is really like until you meet them face to face, eye to eye in real life. A person's words and paragraph doesn't tell you everything about them. The other thing is, we each tend to change our beliefs over time, especially when it comes to politics and I was just curious if you had changed your thoughts politically somewhat from a year ago. I know mine have changed somewhat in the last two years. I've gone from just being an Independent (conservative on somethings and liberal on somethings) to an Independent who's starting to become Libertarian minded on a lot of things. Especially when it comes to the U.S. intervening in another country's political affairs, don't like it - don't support it. Funny thing is, if you had asked me about that a little over 3 years ago, I'd probably have said; 'Yes, we should. To save lives, to help those who are being oppressed' and all that bologna. But now I look at it as more of being interventionism.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thelaw1

1969184_371087506365204_842420458_n.jpg

I think the US needs to stay out. None of our business. At any rate, any super power that has messed with Russia gets their butts handed to them on a platter, and goes the way of the dinosaurs. Napoleon, Hitler.... It's best to remember and take note of history.

Actually, Hitler went the way of the dinosaurs partly because we got involved. It is speculation at best that the USSR would have defeated Hitler if we did not intervene. They could have taken troops from Africa and put them on the Russian front had we not gotten involved. Also, it is true that Napoleon fell mainly due to his disastrous military campaign in Russia but he fell partly again, because other countries stood up to him. I don't get this logic though I do appreciate the libertarian leanings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Principle ought to be infamous.

The word infamous comes with negative connotation so I guess it's good or bad depending on perspective.

"Anything" is the rhetoric of the Establishment. Again, I can only go by what you write. It's nothing personal. However, I can't guarantee that it won't be unpleasant. We've got to bang these things out.

To be less than fully prepared is to be unprepared. I really was thinking of our own best interests when I said anything. I can't say for certain that any line of conduct could ever be a hard line though.

So yes, Ron Paul couldn't have done something completely. THAT is just rhetoric. As President he would have had more than adequate power to make the kinds of changes in this government that you allege to support. I'm sorry that you still can't see that in 2014. How can a bullet-proof voting record and lifetime defender of small government principle not impress you? What in the world do you want?

Who says I'm not impressed!? All I can say about 2014 is what I see. Political infighting 24/7/365. Had Ron been elected his presidential power would've made impacts but he'd have still been up against a largely establishment oriented house and congress. It would've been interesting but no way could he have fully implemented all of his great ideas. As for you, Ron still would've had an R next to his name and you'd have to contend with people lashing out at you for being a loyal republican. Now that would have been something to see too.

What's to disagree with the CiC simply defending these 50 states? Not our oil companies, who have profit interests 7000 miles away. Hiding behind bizarre ethno-religious group-think mentality and unconstitutional foreign nationalism to float these foreign policies of ours that have nothing to do with national security but to jeopardize it. I haven't weeded you out from any of this yet.

Nothing, and if it were up to me that's how it'd be but unfortunately we have relations, deals and politics to contend with and as far as I can see those are real world issues. You seem to mistake statements like that for implying that I'm fully in favor of it. What can I tell you? I'm not. Though there may be a nuance here and there that tilts my table. Being idealistic and speaking idealistically is great but sometimes realities push a conversation or train of thought off course a little. It's called reasoning and rationale. Strict ideology doesn't always work the way one wants.

Yet I can acknowledge that on balance you're spreading a good message. Your character and your value as a person are impeccable and pristine as far as I can tell. I don't think I've done anything untoward to you to deserve a cat fight about it.

Look man, I could participate in the daily partisan humdrum around here. Or I could find differences with you, which I think is where the legitimate and worthwhile debate lies. We can debate without getting personal I truly hope.

Thanks man. Now I'm humbled but impeccable and pristine might be a little much. I think it's just that you're relentless and frankly exhausting at times. You also confuse me because I usually think you get me then you go all out trying to pin me as a hardliner and/or get me to prove without a doubt otherwise. Differences are fine but I think my previous couple of sentences speak to that comment too.

I'm really not trying to get personal. Generally, I like you. Remember that time I stuck up for you when a certain moderator was hammering you calling you a troll? I know you do. Just maybe it's the way you persist that perhaps it begins to feel a little personal. Either way, we've done this before. We'll get past it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Yeah I know what you mean. I think we all tend to mentally analyze each other on these forums, yet you really can't tell what a person is really like until you meet them face to face, eye to eye in real life. A person's words and paragraph doesn't tell you everything about them. The other thing is, we each tend to change our beliefs over time, especially when it comes to politics and I was just curious if you had changed your thoughts politically somewhat from a year ago. I know mine have changed somewhat in the last two years. I've gone from just being an Independent (conservative on somethings and liberal on somethings) to an Independent who's starting to become Libertarian minded on a lot of things. Especially when it comes to the U.S. intervening in another country's political affairs, don't like it - don't support it. Funny thing is, if you had asked me about that a little over 3 years ago, I'd probably have said; 'Yes, we should. To save lives, to help those who are being oppressed' and all that bologna. But now I look at it as more of being interventionism.

You're absolutely right. Sometimes we pigeonhole ourselves and each other simply because we only know each other based around one or two particular subjects. I rarely stray from these US threads so maybe I'm seen as a hardcore politiphile. While it is one my more opinionated subjects my actual life is composed of many more things. If there were anyone here who were keeping detailed records of members I'm sure that someone could pinpoint exactly who I am and where I live with the power of the Internet if they were so inclined. I don't always do it but from time to time I have posted enough scattered personal details that someone with the determination could put it all together. But who cares that much about regular ol' me? I'd be pretty creeped out and surprised if anyone did. Point being though, over-analyzing people on the net isn't the best way to know a person.

As for my political evolution if you will, not so sure about a year ago but over several years then sure, I've come along. I think it's more a case that I haven't changed so much as I have learned about the who's, what's and how's of politics, not that I haven't changed a view or two over time. In the beginning when I first got interested I thought or assumed republicans were my peeps and democrats weren't. Over time I've grown to dislike both even more though if is a party member who I can identify with they're still going to fall under republicans. Not that independents don't carry weight with me but there really isn't much to choose from there because most anyone who's good aligns with a party simply to get where they've gotten or want to go. For the record, I pull the lever for any libertarian on the ballots.

Edited by F3SS
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gomar

Too bad Russia did not warn Lincoln there would be costs to intervene in the South when the CSA declared their independence from the USA. Surely, if Lincoln had a right to defend the nation, and restore order, without interference from foreign nations, then Russia does as well.

Fact: in WWII Western Ukraine joined the Nazis in fighting the Allies; Ukrainian Fascists murdered Jews, slavs, Russians, Tatars, etc. Ukraine was the only nation in the world that allowed former WWII Fascists to have a parade.

Fact: Kiev is the beginning of Russia; Ukraine-Russia seperation was caused by the Mongol invasions, Tatar and Cossacks and Turks moved in, later the Lithuanian-Polish league conquered Ukraine.

Oh, and how many presidents has Ukraine had in the last 5 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.