DC Tom Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 But they had special rights written into the Constitution, and those people on the streets of the Crimea had just as many human rights as the people that overthrew the Ukranian government. And...really, so did the Sudenten Germans Why were they suppose to be in a country they did not want to be in. Hitler may have been evil but Germans still wanted to live with Germans. Most people with the small Tom knowledge of history don't know stuff like that There is no clear wrong committed here Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland on specious racial grounds justifies Putin invading the Crimea? Your ignorance is completely boundless.
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Nazi annexation of the Sudetenland on specious racial grounds justifies Putin invading the Crimea? Your ignorance is completely boundless. I never said it justifies it. So the Germany majority in the Sudentenland had a "specious" argument for wanting to join Germany? WTF?
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Oh, what's a matter? Are you mad at me for showing how stupid you are in another thread? What's your little Liber playbook say about big bad Putin? Don't you anti-government nuts want us to totally ignore world affairs? The amount of times you've made any poster here look stupid, much less me, can be counted on the fingers of a man with no hands. This latest burst from you is no different, once again demonstarting a complete lack of understanding surrounding why your reasoning is being criticized. Your defense of the Administration's foriegn policy, and the "what should have been done differently in this situation" are akin to this: A man veers off the road and drives his car into the livingroom of a house, killing the family dog. The man was drunk, high on crack, driving 120 MPH, on icy road conditions, at 3:00 AM in a stolen car. He swerved at the last minute to avoid a deer that was crossing the road, driving across the lawn and into the quiet house. The man attempts to defend his actions by saying, "I had to swerve to avoid the deer! In that situation anyone would have done the same thing! None of you would have driven intentionally into the deer!" To which the proper resonse is: No one else would have been in that situation, becuase we wouldn't have been drunk, high on crack, driving 120 MPH, on icy road conditions, at 3:00 AM in a stolen car.
Maury Ballstein Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22749979&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F Col. Igor Manchur and his Navy are ready to fire a few rounds off.
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I can't tell if you're being serious. Let me save you the trouble: he is being serious, unless you ask him to specifically support what he's saying, in which case he can't be serious with someone who clearly must Teabaggercruz to the Rummycheney while the Palinbush is on the Romney Horse to the Tyranny Sea!
DC Tom Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 I never said it justifies it. So the Germany majority in the Sudentenland had a "specious" argument for wanting to join Germany? WTF? You didn't read what I posted, you idiot.
Nanker Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 All Hail! Vlad the Impaler! Obama's new puppet master. George Soros must be pizzed. Well, maybe not. He's probably a Vlad puppet too.
B-Man Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 For those "why do you want to send U.S. troops to the Ukraine" robots, there is frustration here because a decisive leader does have some moves that he could do to demostrate United States, and world resolve. These moves would be nearly impossible for someone like Mr. Obama, who has denied U.S. exceptionalism throughout his career. Without America, Ukraine is slowly being torn apart. The EU pontificates. China takes notes for its own ambitions in the Pacific. The emerging powers of Brazil and India apparently couldn’t care less. And the rest of the world is silent. But just as American power is the critical component of global order, the absence of our power is the portal to despotism. First, the president could make use of the military staging options at his disposal. Were Obama to order the George H. W. Bush on a short detour to the Eastern Mediterranean, or the 75th Ranger Regiment’s quick-reaction battalion to Kiev (or both), he’d send an unmistakable warning to Putin. He’d also render his red lines as something more than 50 shades of invisible. The historical overtones would be undeniable: Just as America once stood the watch in West Germany, America would stand ready to support its allies in Eastern Europe. Mr. Obama also needs to greatly increase his diplomatic response. By replacing his worthless condemnations, which only reinforces the Kremlin’s confidence in the lack of American courage to do anything substantive, the president could begin proceedings to expel Russia from the G8. At the same time, he could join Kerry in making a tour of Eastern Europe (including Ukraine) in order to offer his solidarity with America’s allies. Were the president to unleash America’s energy boom into the export sector, fast-tracking energy supplies to Europe, he’d pull the rug out from under Putin’s feet. No longer subject to Putin’s energy protection racket, Europe would be free to take a tougher stand against his intimidation. More important, removed of the foreign capital flows born of his own energy exports, Putin would be unable to support his increasing military expenditures and continuing support for Assad’s rampages in Syria. It would take time, but with commitment and leadership, the constitution of American power would find unprecedented new meaning. Sadly, I do not see much of this happening. .
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 The amount of times you've made any poster here look stupid, much less me, can be counted on the fingers of a man with no hands. This latest burst from you is no different, once again demonstarting a complete lack of understanding surrounding why your reasoning is being criticized. Your defense of the Administration's foriegn policy, and the "what should have been done differently in this situation" are akin to this: A man veers off the road and drives his car into the livingroom of a house, killing the family dog. The man was drunk, high on crack, driving 120 MPH, on icy road conditions, at 3:00 AM in a stolen car. He swerved at the last minute to avoid a deer that was crossing the road, driving across the lawn and into the quiet house. The man attempts to defend his actions by saying, "I had to swerve to avoid the deer! In that situation anyone would have done the same thing! None of you would have driven intentionally into the deer!" To which the proper resonse is: No one else would have been in that situation, becuase we wouldn't have been drunk, high on crack, driving 120 MPH, on icy road conditions, at 3:00 AM in a stolen car. Again, no real argument from you. Just nonsense. But at least this argument is less unrealistic than your usual libertarian vomit you cough up
B-Man Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 Walter Russell Mead: Putin Invades Crimea: Obama Hardest Hit? The foundations of Obama’s foreign policy have taken a serious beating over the weekend, with his desire to see a nuclear-free world perhaps one of the biggest casualties. Disappointed Syrians Warn Ukrainians Not To Seek U.S. Help: “Do not develop strategies that are based on any assumption that the U.S. or EU will demonstrate assertive leadership to deter Russian aggression.” Remember when it was said that a Jimmy Carter rerun was a best-case scenario? Yeah, well, that’s pretty much off the table now anyway And on a lighter note........I know that it must be tough losing the "Oscar", But what the hell is Leonardo Di Caprio doing in Ukraine?
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) Again, no real argument from you. Just nonsense. But at least this argument is less unrealistic than your usual libertarian vomit you cough up Heh, again, I don't argue with you; as you've displayed a devout reluctance to engage in an honest discussion of ideas. I, and nearly every other poster here, simply ridicule you, because that's all you deserve. If you'd like an actual argument, begin by arguing honestly, and address facts as they are presented to you. Edited March 3, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
meazza Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 Heh, again, I don't argue with you; as you've displayed a devout reluctance to engage in an honest discussion of ideas. I, and nearly every other p;oster here, simply ridicule you, because that's all you deserve. If you'd like an actual argument, begin by arguing honestly, and address facts as they are presented to you. That ship has sailed.
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 (edited) That ship has sailed. I don't think it even made sail. It sunk in port, like a non-buoyant turd. Edited March 3, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 59% of the population of the Crimea is Russian, so this is hardly a clear cut case of invasion. The area voted for the deposed President also. This is a family squabble
meazza Posted March 3, 2014 Author Posted March 3, 2014 I don't think it even made sail. It sunk in port, like a non-buoyant turd. 2 for 2 today. 59% of the population of the Crimea is Russian, so this is hardly a clear cut case of invasion. The area voted for the deposed President also. This is a family squabble Is Mexico going to take over California?
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 59% of the population of the Crimea is Russian, so this is hardly a clear cut case of invasion. The area voted for the deposed President also. This is a family squabble It is? So you're saying the Ukraine is part of Russia? I guess someone who thinks four Embassy employees left for dead is funny would also consider Russian invading a sovereign state as a squabble. Is Mexico going to take over California? What do you mean goint to? But it's actually China that is taking over California. One goddamn house at a time.
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 It is? So you're saying the Ukraine is part of Russia? I guess someone who thinks four Embassy employees left for dead is funny would also consider Russian invading a sovereign state as a squabble. What do you mean goint to? But it's actually China that is taking over California. One goddamn house at a time. What's your solution here doofus? Heh, again, I don't argue with you; as you've displayed a devout reluctance to engage in an honest discussion of ideas. I, and nearly every other poster here, simply ridicule you, because that's all you deserve. If you'd like an actual argument, begin by arguing honestly, and address facts as they are presented to you. Not true, you throw your silly Libertarian nonsense at me all the time. So are you saying your Liberataran craziness is not honest discussion? I can actually agree with that.
Chef Jim Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 What's your solution here doofus? It's not my job to come up with solutions. That's not my area of expertise. Out government on the other hand............................... Having said that I think it has been expressed here many times but you refuse to listen if our government had been acting a bit tougher in several situations leading up to this we may not be discussing solutions at all.
Tiberius Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 That ship has sailed. Did it sail on the Budapest Memorandum you idiot It's not my job to come up with solutions. That's not my area of expertise. Out government on the other hand............................... Having said that I think it has been expressed here many times but you refuse to listen if our government had been acting a bit tougher in several situations leading up to this we may not be discussing solutions at all. Tougher how? Militarily?
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 3, 2014 Posted March 3, 2014 What's your solution here doofus? Not true, you throw your silly Libertarian nonsense at me all the time. So are you saying your Liberataran craziness is not honest discussion? I can actually agree with that. I don't speak to you; I speak at you, or more accurately: I speak at a spot roughly two miles over your head. The reason I do this is not for your benefit. It's for the benefit of others who may not even post on this section of the boards, but rather choose to lurk; some of whom may not be familiar with libertarianism. I also post in response such that other left leaning posters, far more intellectually honest than yourself, might read my thoughts and engage in a conversation about them. Yours is a truely lost cause; speaking with you is a fool's errand. I hope you enjoy the reputation you've crafted for yourself.
Recommended Posts