Gyroscopic Investing

TennPaGa wrote:

Benko wrote:
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.

Then it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a specific list of damaging statements and the associated damage.

Is your argument really that nothing bad happened in the past, so you think no matter what he does, nothing bad will come of it?

I believe the behavior of the current white hosue occupant is more extreme than that of any prior occupant e.g. Obamacare rollout.  How many prior occupants would you think capable of that?

So I don't think history is relevant since I believe we are in uncharted water, for obvious reasons.

Why do I care about Russia invading Ukraine? Because I do not want to see a return to a Cold War era where thousands of nukes are poised to launch at each other and hundreds of millions are forced to live under tyranny and it's threat. Been there done that. Alternatively, I also do not want to see a world where we choose to ignore and thereby invite Russia's expansionism at the risk of their domination and our eventual weakness and demise and the demise of our allies.

And no, I am not in favor of military action in Ukraine because the cost would obviously be much too high.

Reub wrote: Why do I care about Russia invading Ukraine? Because I do not want to see a return to a Cold War era where thousands of nukes are poised to launch at each other and hundreds of millions are forced to live under tyranny and it's threat. Been there done that. Alternatively, I also do not want to see a world where we choose to ignore and thereby invite Russia's expansionism at the risk of their domination and our eventual weakness and demise and the demise of our allies.

And no, I am not in favor of military action in Ukraine because the cost would obviously be much too high.

The final sentence seemly oddly incongruent with the nature of the threat you see. If going down this path leads to a new cold war and the possibility of the destruction of the USA and Europe, or even a nuclear apocalypse, then perhaps military action might be preferable to the alternative, no?

If Ronald Reagan were President I would have a different answer.

After all, to this President global warming, socialized medicine, and gay marriage are much more important issues.

reub wrote:

If Ronald Reagan were President I would have a different answer.

Didn't the Gipper withdraw troops in response to the Beirut Bombing that killed 241 American Servicemen?

Reub wrote: If Ronald Reagan were President I would have a different answer.

After all, to this President global warming, socialized medicine, and gay marriage are much more important issues.

Reagan was a staunch anti-communist so I don't know what dog he would have in this fight. As far as I know the Russians aren't seeking to impose communism on the Ukraine.

Pot meet Kettle...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

It is exceedingly rare that I agree with Eugene Robinson on anything. But he raises a lot of powerful points in this op-ed piece.

TennPA,

Your original statement something to the effect that Obama should have kept quiet is to the point.  The point is not that Obama should do anything about Ukraine.  The point is that if one is a pushover e.g. because you say things that you never do anything about, you will get taken advantage of. 

Obama knows that domestically he can push the limit and change/postpone  Obamacare as often as he wishes, "create" or F with many laws because it is super unlikely anyone would ever try to impeach him.  If we make  it clear to the world that we can be walked over, we will be.

Benko wrote: TennPA,

Your original statement something to the effect that Obama should have kept quiet is to the point.  The point is not that Obama should do anything about Ukraine.  The point is that if one is a pushover e.g. because you say things that you never do anything about, you will get taken advantage of. 

Obama knows that domestically he can push the limit and change/postpone  Obamacare as often as he wishes, "create" or F with many laws because it is super unlikely anyone would ever try to impeach him.  If we make  it clear to the world that we can be walked over, we will be.

Benko how can another country take advantage of the US? What does that mean? How do they, "walk all over us"?

I agree with you about 87.4% of the time so I'm curious what you mean by this, what are you thinking?

Reub wrote: Why do I care about Russia invading Ukraine? Because I do not want to see a return to a Cold War era where thousands of nukes are poised to launch at each other and hundreds of millions are forced to live under tyranny and it's threat. Been there done that. Alternatively, I also do not want to see a world where we choose to ignore and thereby invite Russia's expansionism at the risk of their domination and our eventual weakness and demise and the demise of our allies.

And no, I am not in favor of military action in Ukraine because the cost would obviously be much too high.

Don't you think the cost to Russia would be high also? Didn't the Czars struggle there? Didn't the Soviet Union struggle there and go broke?

Empires are expensive. They cost more than they bring in. Look at the British. After WWII they had to give up their Empire because they were broke. If empires actually brought money in they would have kept it. - I realize that's not a Ukraine specific argument though.

My point is, if you don't like the Russians having greater influence in the world then the worst thing you could probably wish on the them is a military occupation of Ukraine.

Desert wrote:

ns3 wrote: Somebody who writes for the National Review has already brought up the word "appeasement" if we do nothing. I wish they would retire that word once and for all.

No, it's not my fight and not my grandchildren's fight.

As usual, I am in 100 percent agreement with Pat Buchanan on the subject.

http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/20 ... -not-ours/

And also, I like Steve Sailer's take on the subject in regards to American interests.....

Personally, I didn't see myself as suffering all that much from the fact that until a week ago Ukraine had an elected president whose policy was to try to play off Russia and the West in economic negotiations to try to get the best deals for his government (not necessarily for his citizens, of course -- but I'm struck by how much of the anger in the American press at the former Ukrainian president is over his impudence at trying to extract more money from Putin than whatever the West was willing to offer).

That's a good article.

If I were appointed benevolent dictator of the USA, I'd require the population to vote on each proposed war.  A vote in support for war would come with a very serious requirement, however.  Anyone voting for the war would be required to signup with the Selective Service, regardless of age, gender, physical condition, or political connection.  In the event the war was prosecuted, fighting forces would be selected randomly from all those who voted for it.  Obviously very few wars would get majority votes; perhaps WWII and that's about it.  Imagine all the armchair war supporters worrying about being called up to serve in Vietnam or Iraq.

Robert Heinlein beat you to it: http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com ... t-war.html

ns3 wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: Also, the ex-president wasn't deposed in a coup, he got voted out by parliament.

To say the president wasn't deposed in a coup is quite a stretch. Here is one of the best summaries of the events that I have seen....

http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/25/how ... r-friends/

The Russians obviously believe that the U.S. was involved in this. As American citizens we would be the last to know if this was true so I don't know how you can so boldly claim that the idea is ridiculous. People who reveal the truth about what our government is doing have to flee to Russia and seek asylum.

Exactly.

Libertarian666 wrote:

ns3 wrote:

RuralEngineer wrote: Also, the ex-president wasn't deposed in a coup, he got voted out by parliament.

To say the president wasn't deposed in a coup is quite a stretch. Here is one of the best summaries of the events that I have seen....

http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/25/how ... r-friends/

The Russians obviously believe that the U.S. was involved in this. As American citizens we would be the last to know if this was true so I don't know how you can so boldly claim that the idea is ridiculous. People who reveal the truth about what our government is doing have to flee to Russia and seek asylum.

Exactly.

The Olympics were used as cover for the US government to institue a coup in Ukraine and now people are acting like American interests are at stake or something if Russia makes their play. People imagine that the interests of their government are their own. Again, it's collective stockholm Syndrome and a funtion of decades of programming.

There is no such thing as American interests. There are only individual interests. My interest is served by being able to trade freely with others. The US government prevents that, other governments do not. Therefore the US government is my enemy. This is always the case for the citizens/subjects/tax cattle. Their own government is their enemy and working against their interests at all times.

Is Russia going to prevent disabled Americans, many of which will not live another 4 years, from competing in the special olympics? No, the US govt is doing that because it is their enemy. 

Benko wrote: TennPA,

Your original statement something to the effect that Obama should have kept quiet is to the point.  The point is not that Obama should do anything about Ukraine.  The point is that if one is a pushover e.g. because you say things that you never do anything about, you will get taken advantage of.

How is Obama getting taken advantage of? He's the president of the USA, not Ukraine. Ukraine isn't our ally or even a strategic partner in any respect. So what do we care? Truly, how are we getting taken advantage of if a second-world eastern-bloc country gets invaded by a neighboring superpower and many of its residents actually cheer on the invading forces?

I'm having trouble imagining what Obama could have said or done that would  have prevented or stopped Russia from invading Ukraine. Could you perhaps provide some examples?

If indeed, we all agree that there's actually nothing that Obama could have done, then all this complaining about his weak foreign policy is just a bunch of hot air from his typical critics looking to opportunistically blame everything they can on him. God knows I'm no fan of Obama but I don't shake my fist at him when I get caught out in the rain with no umbrella.

Pointedstick wrote: Ukraine isn't our ally or even a strategic partner in any respect. So what do we care? Truly, how are we getting take advantage of if a second-world eastern-bloc country gets invaded by a neighboring superpower and many of its residents actually cheer on the invading forces?

Perhaps you'll have better luck. I haven't been able to get an answer on this and I think I've asked it nicely.

TennPaGa wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:
If indeed, we all agree that there's actually nothing that Obama could have done, then all this complaining about his weak foreign policy is just a bunch of hot air from his typical critics looking to opportunistically blame everything they can on him. God knows I'm no fan of Obama but I don't shake my fist at him when I get caught out in the rain with no umbrella.

+1

+2

There is a huge difference between

--keeping your mouth shut and doing nothing, and

--making noises which turn out to mean nothing.

Try e.g. taking care of a child for a period of time.  If you say things e.g. if you do x or y you will be punished, and the child learns that you don't mean anything you say, what do you think will happen?

Benko wrote: There is a huge difference between

--keeping your mouth shut and doing nothing, and

--making noises which turn out to mean nothing.

Try e.g. taking care of a child for a period of time.  If you say things e.g. if you do x or y you will be punished, and the child learns that you don't mean anything you say, what do you think will happen?

Benko I appreciate what you're trying to say here. Yes there is a huge difference between those two and yes, the child will learn they don't need to listen to you.

How does this relate to Putin though? What is it you're actually concerned about here? What is your worst case scenario for how you think things will play out should Obamanation and the US government stand aside vs. stand up to?

Benko wrote: There is a huge difference between

--keeping your mouth shut and doing nothing, and

--making noises which turn out to mean nothing.

Try e.g. taking care of a child for a period of time.  If you say things e.g. if you do x or y you will be punished, and the child learns that you don't mean anything you say, what do you think will happen?

So Obama is the father and Putin is the child? I'm getting confused here. Because I still don't know what Obama could actually do. I get that he looks stupid when he makes idle threats, but frankly, we all know Obama is a buffoon who likes to hear himself talk. That isn't news. I'm still wondering what he could have actually done. Again, if the answer is, "nothing" then frankly, all this hullabaloo about his rhetoric is just domestic political posturing by people who don't seem to realize that they are wearing their credibility thin by attacking him in cases where their arguments look tired and forced. They should save their political capital for when he really messes up, which frankly is often enough that they likely won't have to wait very long.

Don't worry, the US is doing something.

John Kerry just pledged 1 BN from the US taxpayer to go buy stuff and give it out in Ukraine.

I'm sure the contracts will go to some real nice people and the BN will be well spent?

Where will he get the money you ask? I heard he's going to borrow it from Russia. hah!

If you continually show your words mean nothing, you invite being taken advange of by anyone and everyone on the international stage e.g. chinese, north koreans, really anyone we have to deal with.  This has nothing to do with Ukraine and I don't feel he should have done anything differently except keep his mouth shut. 

How do they take advantage? I don't mean it snarky, and it might just be that I'm dumb, but I literraly don't know how they can take advantage of us.

Kshartle wrote: How do they take advantage? I don't mean it snarky, and it might just be that I'm dumb, but I literraly don't know how they can take advantage of us.

Not to put words in Benko's mouth but I suspect he means this along the lines of how your kids will take advantage of your forbearance more and more if you don't take action when they disobey your rules.

If so, it highlights what I see as a fundamental difference in thinking about the U.S. role in the world because I don't see the U.S. as having been appointed to play that role. I know that others disagree and unfortunately they are currently ruling the day.

TennPaGa wrote: I agree that he should say less.  But if the best option is to do nothing, how does what he says matter?

(Except that it makes Obama himself look bad).

I think ns3 hit the nail on the head. What he says matters if he is an authority figure whose words carry weight because he is somebody who the people he controls or influences should respect and fear (e.g. a parent). I think the disconnect is that you and I and ns3 and others do not believe that Obama/the POTUS in general is or should be the "father figure to the rest of the world" while Reub, Benko, and other foreign-policy hawk folks believe that he is or should be.

It's ironic how both right-leaning and left-leaning people see the government as a parental figure, either to the rest of the world (for right-leaning people) or for the domestic citizens (for left-wing people).

If either of my parents had been as abusive to me as the U.S. government has been to its own people and the people of other countries, I would hope for someone to rescue me from them. But who rescues the abused children of the world when parent governments decide to threaten, abduct, or murder them? Should I be hoping for Russia to invade and relieve me of my enormous tax burden?

I think what he's saying is you're better off not saying anything if you don't intend to back it up.

If you don't intend to back it up and you get called on your bluff you invite more of the same.

If you reserve opening your mouth only for when you intend to or are capable of backing it up then you don't into those problems.

Benko has clearly said he doesn't think Obama should do anything.....just that he should keep his mouth shut if that's really the case.....if I get it correctly.

Also I don't think he's suggesting Obama is the daddy or the US should dominate everyone. Again, just keep your mouth shut unless you're going to act.