Putin’s Nationalism Vs. Washington’s Blather

[Spike Trader]

Based on Romney's statement in the WSJ, even Romney doesn't know.

Wow . . . you are right, the guy is reciting Shakespeare. .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

 

[Martinghoul]

In my opinion, the right way to handle all of this is for the President to grow a set, go on TV and say, "I've spoken to President Putin, and he has expressed his reasoning to me for the dealings in the Ukraine. While I do not agree they are in the best interest of the Ukraine, I understand Mr. Putin's position. Furthermore, none of this is the concern of the United States, and there is certainly no reason to adhere to calls to escalate this militarily. No US interest is threatened, it does not destabilize US Security. Instead, we have expressed our concern through the appropriate channels, and will follow in our European partner's footsteps of issuing concern, and nothing more."

Then, he should call Putin up and say "there you go, Vladimir. Do what you need to, but keep us apprised.

Sure, this makes a whole lot of sense to me...

However, how would the American public view this? Do you not think that they would take this unwillingness to get involved as a sign of more weakness? I have seen enough evidence that would suggest that the neocon viewpoint is once again gaining influence in the public debate arnd US foreign policy.

 

[Ricter]

Wow . . . you are right, the guy is reciting Shakespeare. .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a juncture when America had the potential to influence events. But we failed to act at the propitious point; that moment having passed, we were left without acceptable options. In foreign affairs as in life, there is, as Shakespeare had it, "a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries."

As I recall, this line is in Godel, Escher, Bach: "This sentence, about Shakespeare, has delusions of grandeur."

 

[LEAPup]

I am really curious... What outcome would you expect if America were led by someone who is not a "pussy"?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok... If we had a President with BALLS, he would have let Putin know that he doesn't "care for" what he's doing. Putin ONLY respects power, balls, and money. 'If' Putin would ignore a ballsy President's dislike for what he's doing, then that President could stop ALL American banks from accepting the Ruble. Yep, that would leave a mark.:eek:
Btw, the serfs left YOUR country for FREEDOM here. We're sadly going right back to what we left, and you know it as you eat your fish & chips, laughing at America.

 

[LEAPup]

In my opinion, the right way to handle all of this is for the President to grow a set, go on TV and say, "I've spoken to President Putin, and he has expressed his reasoning to me for the dealings in the Ukraine. While I do not agree they are in the best interest of the Ukraine, I understand Mr. Putin's position. Furthermore, none of this is the concern of the United States, and there is certainly no reason to adhere to calls to escalate this militarily. No US interest is threatened, it does not destabilize US Security. Instead, we have expressed our concern through the appropriate channels, and will follow in our European partner's footsteps of issuing concern, and nothing more."

Then, he should call Putin up and say "there you go, Vladimir. Do what you need to, but keep us apprised.

I will agree with that COMPLETELY! It's even better than my idea above. Yes, I admit when someone else has a better idea than me, as I'm "like that" with common sense. Good post bro!

 

[LEAPup]

Sure, this makes a whole lot of sense to me...

However, how would the American public view this? Do you not think that they would take this unwillingness to get involved as a sign of more weakness? I have seen enough evidence that would suggest that the neocon viewpoint is once again gaining influence in the public debate arnd US foreign policy.

We need to STOP RIGHT NOW being the cop of the World! We can't afford it; it's wrong. And people hate us Globally for it. The American people would LOVE for us to stop being world cop, come back home, and defend OUR borders and Country!
That being said, we could pull our troops out of all these damned countries, and simply spend a few billions on the trillion we would save on some wicked intelligence programs that are aimed at protecting AMERICA.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Sure, this makes a whole lot of sense to me...

However, how would the American public view this? Do you not think that they would take this unwillingness to get involved as a sign of more weakness? I have seen enough evidence that would suggest that the neocon viewpoint is once again gaining influence in the public debate arnd US foreign policy.

Some certainly would. It, of course, depends on how respected the leader was. Obama could never, ever pull it off. The veil is up on his fraud. Reagan could have done it. Clinton could have, too.

 

[Scataphagos]

We need to STOP RIGHT NOW being the cop of the World! We can't afford it; it's wrong. And people hate us Globally for it. The American people would LOVE for us to stop being world cop, come back home, and defend OUR borders and Country!

Ditto.

America is 4% of the world population. We cannot afford to nor morally should we impose our values on other countries.... which, by the way, may have 5,000 YEARS of history behind their culture! (America is a mere 240 years old. What right do we have to tell the rest of the world how to live?)

America should....

1. Withdraw forces from overseas and stop the wars.

2. Properly defend OUR borders

3. With the money saved from "no longer warring around the globe"... hire unemployed Americans to work on repairing and building our infrastructure... including our electrical power grid.

Some patriot needs to run for President on this platform...

(You know, many Americans are OK and even favor our warring... but virtually ZERO of them have ever (1) Served in the military in any capacity, (2) Served in a combat zone, even "behind the lines", and (3) Faced hostile combat fire. If you've EVER done any of that, you have a different view of what "warring" means... America's so called "righteous principles" or not.)

 

[LEAPup]

Some certainly would. It, of course, depends on how respected the leader was. Obama could never, ever pull it off. The veil is up on his fraud. Reagan could have done it. Clinton could have, too.

Yes, I 'll agree that slick willy could have done it. Do I despise the bastard? Yes I do, but none the less, he could have gotten it done as he had a slight pair, but was also a top notch salesman. I was a kid when Jimmy Carter was in office. He was a spineless, worthless president. Obama? He's pure pussy, and ALL communist. Not a good combination for the rest of the World to take note of, as communists are NOT respected. Pussies are respected even less. Combine the two, and...:eek:

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Sure, this makes a whole lot of sense to me...

However, how would the American public view this? Do you not think that they would take this unwillingness to get involved as a sign of more weakness? I have seen enough evidence that would suggest that the neocon viewpoint is once again gaining influence in the public debate arnd US foreign policy.

Good question, and one I have asked myself a lot lately.

Actually, what you are hearing though is not the voice of the American people but the voice of the media and the various neo-con mouthpieces. What is interesting to me is how the mainstream, ie leftwing, media have fallen into line with Fox News and the neo-con chorus. All seem to share a common premise that Putin's actions are beyond the pale, threaten American vital interests, etc and it is incumbent on us to do something about it.

It is doubly ironic when one realizes that the mainstream media always had a huge soft spot for the USSR. The media here regularly issued warnings that Reagan was a dangerous fanatic and our only hope for peace was to accommodate the Soviets. Now they have done a 180, demanding that their president get into a confrontation with Putin.

Of course, the fact that Russia no longer is the face of world communism plays a huge role in the differing media treatment. I believe Putin's uncompromising attitude over homosexuality is an even bigger factor, since gay advocacy is a core value of virtually all US media.

There is legitimate concern among the public that Obama is a weak, indecisive leader who makes foolish decisions and seems to have an odd idea of how to advance America's interests. The public sees a danger in having such a leader, although, to be fair, Romney and Ryan were singularly unimpressive on foreign affairs inthe last election campaign. At the same time, I think public opinion is largely in line with LeapUp's post above. We are tired of being the world's policeman, and sick of getting bogged down in pointless wars with ambiguous outcomes.