Gyroscopic Investing

Ad Orientem wrote:

Benko wrote: What would happen?

With Obama in office, I'm not sure. But if it had happened when Dick Cheney was running things, er I mean W... I think we would all be a bunch of radioactive ash in the upper atmosphere.

I tend to think the Russians are masters at pushing the envelope when we have a weak President (or at least one that's perceived to be weak).  Love him or hate him, they simply wouldn't have pulled this crap with W/Cheney in the WH, nor would we have given up missile defense in this region for absolutely nothing in return.

Tenn PA GA wrote:

Cognitive dissonance 101:

Many of the people who are upset when the U.S. government tries to control everything are the same people who are upset when the U.S. government is unable to control everything.

+1   

Republican party is a master's class in cognitive dissonance.  My favorite republicans are the "chicken hawk" neo cons who were student deferred in the 1960s, but gung ho in middle age.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDHjPL3Pfoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj5k6toS7i8

TennPaGa wrote: Cognitive dissonance 101:

Many of the people who are upset when the U.S. government tries to control everything are the same people who are upset when the U.S. government is unable to control everything.

There are +'s and -'s for everything. Typically your strengths are also your weaknesses as well. Bush was a neocon. The negative part about that is we got involved in Iraq due to their philosophy. The upside of that is people like Putin knew they could not push it.

So far I'm not really sure what the upside of Obama's strategy is. Give up missile defense in Eastern Europe with nothing in return.... Watch Russian tanks and helicopters pour into Eastern Block countires again... Support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.... Denounce protests in Iran and then later cave on their nuclear ambitions.

Not seeing much upside.

clacy wrote: There are +'s and -'s for everything. Typically your strengths are also your weaknesses as well. Bush was a neocon. The negative part about that is we got involved in Iraq due to their philosophy. The upside of that is people like Putin knew they could not push it.

But, uh, he did push it during Bush's regime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i ... of_Georgia

Then, like now, the population was war-weary and the president simply didn't have a lot of cards to play.

TennPaGa wrote: If your goal is a U.S. global empire, pretty much everything that happens in the world will look like a failure.

Is there no middle ground between

A. "global empire" and

B. doing everything one can to make sure our country's influence in the world is markedly decreased e.g. alienating one's allies, making sure one's enemies (correction, FOREIGN enemies) don't take us seriously?

TennPaGa wrote:

Benko wrote: doing everything one can to make sure our country's influence in the world is markedly decreased e.g. alienating one's allies, making sure one's enemies (correction, FOREIGN enemies) don't take us seriously?

If your goal is a U.S. global empire, pretty much everything that happens in the world will look like a failure.

You are making assumptions that are not true--I do not think global empire is a good idea (and I most certainly ain't a neocon). 

Could we please get back to respectfully stating your own view vs. slamming another's view; or if you don't understand where the person is coming from, respectfully ask for clarification before leaping to assumptions.  I was enjoying reading the different perspectives.  Thanks.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Could we please get back to respectfully stating your own view vs. slamming another's view; or if you don't understand where the person is coming from, respectfully ask for clarification before leaping to assumptions.

What a dumb idea.

j/k Mountainer

I think they should all send me a $3.50.  Exact change please.

TennPaGa wrote:

clacy wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: Cognitive dissonance 101:

Many of the people who are upset when the U.S. government tries to control everything are the same people who are upset when the U.S. government is unable to control everything.

There are +'s and -'s for everything. Typically your strengths are also your weaknesses as well. Bush was a neocon. The negative part about that is we got involved in Iraq due to their philosophy. The upside of that is people like Putin knew they could not push it.

So far I'm not really sure what the upside of Obama's strategy is. Give up missile defense in Eastern Europe with nothing in return.... Watch Russian tanks and helicopters pour into Eastern Block countires again... Support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.... Denounce protests in Iran and then later cave on their nuclear ambitions.

Not seeing much upside.

If your goal is a U.S. global empire, pretty much everything that happens in the world will look like a failure.

Not at all and in fact, I'm far from a neo-con.  I think "talk softly and carry a big stick" is something that Bush and Obama both missed on. 

Bush = Talk Loudly + Carry a Big Stick
Obama = Seems to have a very incoherent foreign policy but it all revolves around talking about red lines and then not backing up that talk

While I agree with everything in TennPaGa's "Putin's War" post, that doesn't mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and let him steamroll Ukraine and take Crimea (with what increasingly is looking like bloodshed).  I mean, to me this is starting to look EXACTLY like the German invasion of Czechoslovakia in WWII even down to the justification.  I mean, the only discrepancies I can find are the technology being used and the fact that Putin is trying to get Crimea for free before he starts killing people but has made clear that if Ukraine doesn't roll over he's going to start shooting their soldiers.

The German occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) began with the Nazi annexation of Czechoslovakia's northern and western border regions, known collectively as the Sudetenland, under terms outlined by the Munich Agreement. Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's pretext for this effort was the alleged privations suffered by the ethnic German population living in those regions. New and extensive Czechoslovak border fortifications were also located in the same area.

Following the Anschluss of Nazi Germany and Austria, in March 1938, the conquest of Czechoslovakia became Hitler's next ambition. The incorporation of the Sudetenland into Nazi Germany left the rest of Czechoslovakia weak and it became powerless to resist subsequent occupation. On 16 March 1939, the German Wehrmacht moved into the remainder of Czechoslovakia and, from Prague Castle, Hitler proclaimed Bohemia and Moravia the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The occupation ended with the surrender of Germany following World War II.[1]

Even though it won't deter the permanent annexation of Crimea (which they're currently drafting a law for in the Russian parliament, all the better to protect the "Russian speaking" folks), I still think we should take this opportunity to pull out all the stops to diplomatically and economically isolate Russia as much as possible.  If that means we have to work with Europe to try and figure out a way for them to get a new source of energy supplies, so be it.  But Russia has consistently shown themselves to be a bad actor and some form of punishment is necessary.

I mean, if you found out your neighbor from a couple houses down was a burglar who did a home invasion on his next door neighbor but got off because he also happened to be friends with the DA, at the very least you'd stop inviting him over to your house and make sure your daughter didn't sell him any girl scout cookies.  Let him get his own cookies elsewhere.

I too became disenchanted with G. W. Bush a while after 9/11.  It seemed the further the event faded into the past, the more he became a fan of big government and throwing our US weight around the globe and at home.  In his defense, I do think his heart was mostly in the right place, as I would say about Jimmy Carter who in my estimation was a lousy president.

I think Obama's modus operandi (tell them what they want to hear, mostly forget about it, then move on to the next speech and repeat) has resulted in him not being taken seriously worldwide and the consequence of that double talk (a somewhat polite way to say liar?) and much sporatic inaction is a major downgrade in the potential good that our country could have accomplished.  However, I do not think the whole blame rests with Obama and our Federal leaders - it lies mainly with us who allow them to remain in office.  Our leaders are just a reflection of our increasingly "immoral by the traditional meaning" culture.

... Mountaineer

I've read a lot of people advocating that the US government "do something".

Perhaps I've missed the explanation for why. Why do you want the US government to "do something"?

Kshartle wrote: I've read a lot of people advocating that the US government "do something".

Perhaps I've missed the explanation for why. Why do you want the US government to "do something"?

There's not much you can do at this point, which is why it was a huge mistake for Obama to cave on missile defense in that region and get nothing in return.

Obama gave up his ace and now Putin knows he's all hat and no cattle.  That combined with the fact that he obviously has no clear strategy for foreign policy probably made Putin's decision relatively easy.

As Mike Rogers put it.... "Putin's playing chess, we're playing marbles".

clacy wrote: There's not much you can do at this point, which is why it was a huge mistake for Obama to cave on missile defense in that region and get nothing in return.

Obama gave up his ace and now Putin knows he's all hat and no cattle.  That combined with the fact that he obviously has no clear strategy for foreign policy probably made Putin's decision relatively easy.

As Mike Rogers put it.... "Putin's playing chess, we're playing marbles".

Why is not spending billions on missle defense to protect European countries a mistake? What has been lost?

Why do you care if the US government does anything?

Also, the US government has responded harshly. I just heard on CNBC that Obama and the government have banned disabled Americans from competing in the Special Olympics. So I guess that's something. 

Obama's weakness has opened the door for a new Cold War, an endangered Europe, a nuclear Iran, and an entrenched Syrian murderer/dictator. Our enemies fear us less and our friends fear us more. Good job!

Kshartle wrote: Also, the US government has responded harshly. I just heard on CNBC that Obama and the government have banned disabled Americans from competing in the Special Olympics. So I guess that's something. 

I won't be surprised if he used an executive order to ban importation of inexpensive Russian ammo. Forget about finding any cheap 7.62x39...

Pointedstick wrote:

Kshartle wrote: Also, the US government has responded harshly. I just heard on CNBC that Obama and the government have banned disabled Americans from competing in the Special Olympics. So I guess that's something. 

I won't be surprised if he used an executive order to ban importation of inexpensive Russian ammo. Forget about finding any cheap 7.62x39...

Luckily since that's just about the most popular round in the world there are lots of other suppliers, including domestic.

I didn't think about ammo prices going up for my rifles. I have 7.62x54R, 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 so maybe it's time to buy a little extra.

Reub wrote: Obama's weakness has opened the door for a new Cold War, an endangered Europe, a nuclear Iran, and an entrenched Syrian murderer/dictator. Our enemies fear us less and our friends fear us more. Good job!

My question Rueb is, why are they your enemies? What do you care if Russian troops occupy Ukraine? What difference is it to you?

Unfortunately, we do not live in a vacuum. What happens in the rest of the world DOES matter. Do you think differently?

Reub wrote: Unfortunately, we do not live in a vacuum. What happens in the rest of the world DOES matter. Do you think differently?

Sometimes things that happen in the world matter to me and sometimes they don't.

However that doesn't answer my question. My question is specifically why you care whether or not the Russian military occupies part or all of the Ukraine and why do you think the US government should take action? It's sounds like you care and think the US Government should respond. My question is why do you think that?

That same question goes for anyone who thinks this. Can anyone enunciate why in a non-vauge way?

TennPaGa wrote:
I do agree that the red line drawing in Syria, along with the "there will be costs" statement here were not helpful.  To me, though, a bigger problem would be if the U.S. intervened militarily in either of these conflicts.  Talk about a quagmire in the middle of a sandpit!

IMO, Obama's statements reflect poorly Obama and his penchant to talk when he ought to shut up.  But I don't see that they do any long term damage to the U.S. or its interests.

"Obama's statements reflect poorly Obama and his penchant to talk when he ought to shut up"

"But I don't see that they do any long term damage to the U.S. or its interests."

How can the first statement be true and it not do any damage to the US or our interests?  Or perhaps the key word is long term.  but we still have to get through the rest of his 2nd term.

When you guys say things like, "US interests" or "other countries interests", what do you mean?

What is a US interest and how can you tell? How does the US express it's interests to you? How does another country express it's interests to you?

My other questions are still hanging out there for anyone to take a shot at. Why do you care if Russian soldiers are in the Ukraine and why do you want the US government to react to it?

TennPaGa

I don't think it matters much to us what happens  in Ukraine, but your statement about past presidents and what they said is much too general.

The question is specifically, what happens when everyone around the world knows the president of the US is a paper tiger?  We will find out. 

OTOH I suppose one could argue that no one should be surprised by almost anything this man has done (Palin did sucessfully predict that Russia would  invade Ukraine after Obama was elected).

It just occured to me, I wonder if/how much the US's political enemies given to the dems?

The United States should stay out of this - There is no reason the U.S. should be meddling in something like this.