Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

President Romney sure is under-bussing the Ukrainians

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 7 months ago

User Journal 55

Man, I wish the United States hadn't been so foolish as to elect that airhead Mitt in 2012. So many valid candidates, and we go with a no-talent vulture capitalist clown.

Man, I wish the United States hadn't been so foolish as to elect that airhead Mitt in 2012. So many valid candidates, and we go with a no-talent vulture capitalist clown.

cancel ×

55 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#46375511)

Yeah, the president has so many clearly all-winning, no-risk options available in this situation. We should have already won this situation using only the olympic delegates by now, obviously with any other president we would have already done that, right?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 7 months ago | (#46375563)

I'm not sure. You're the morally superior, elite being in this equation. You tell me.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46376247)

Are you not already saying that President Lawnchair has epically failed in this situation? Are you not trying to initiate momentum for another great conspiracy theory in hopes of ending his administration an hour earlier than scheduled in 2017?

Come on, if you want to run him out of the country over this, at least do enough armchair POTUS'ing to tell us what some other conservative would do about this from in the office.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46376385)

Shrug. I know what I'd do. Say it's none of our business, unless Ukraine wants to enter into a treaty with the United States (and as best I can tell, the Senate
never ratified one).

I might add that as a private person I think Russia needs to back the hell off, but as President, I've got my actual job to do.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46376429)

I guess the anti-Reagan has to un-win the Cold War, then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE [youtube.com]

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46376609)

HAHA.. You are hilarious... Reagan's real name is Chance, Chance the gardener...

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46376623)

It's funny to everyone who actually has knowledge and intelligence when the pretenders try to claim that Reagan was merely being there.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46376841)

Yes, it is funny that you imply any knowledge on your part, but it's okay, I understand. You and Smitty idolize the man, so the truth be damned. On the other hand, don't take it so personally, the same has been true of every president since Ford, at least. But there can be no doubt, Reagan did have the best writers, and he was groomed like an heir to the throne for a very long time. You guys cling like the Brits to the Queen. Some day, if your ego allows it (it will be very difficult to admit you've been had, I know), you might learn, that the show in DC is no less ceremonial than Buckingham Palace.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46377433)

Yes, it is funny that you imply any knowledge on your part

You're lying. Nothing I said implies a lack of knowledge.

You and Smitty idolize the man

You're lying.

so the truth be damned

That's your line, not mine. You ignore all of the things he said and did and manufacture a myth in your mind, without any serious evidence supporting it, that he was just a puppet.

But there can be no doubt, Reagan did have the best writers, and he was groomed like an heir to the throne for a very long time.

He did have excellent writers. But he also wrote most of his own stuff. We know this for a fact. His speeches before he took elected office, he wrote himself (that was his actual paid job for General Electric, to write and deliver speeches), and those are what propelled him into office in the first place. And, of course, his many letters throughout his life, he wrote, and some of his speeches in office he wrote too, including his first inaugural address.

"Truth be damned," indeed. You're the ignorant one, here. You appear to know less about Reagan than you think I know about Ukraine.

You guys cling like the Brits to the Queen.

You're a liar. And worse, you're literally asserting that saying you're factually incorrect about something -- which you are, as I've just demonstrated -- amounts to idolizing the man you're incorrect about ... that's not merely lying, that's being outright anti-intellectual. Which is par for the course for the left, I know, but still.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46377477)

:-) Watching you defend your illusions makes my day.

Re:So many good options here! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46377493)

The day that ANYTHING Pudge does "makes my day" is the day I shoot myself.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46377533)

:-) Watching you defend your illusions makes my day.

Yeah, I predicted you wouldn't actually try to defend your claim, and instead would make a dumb ad hominem response, because you so obviously can't defend your claim.

Re:So many good options here! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46377705)

What's to defend? The man is a sham who represents a significant decline, a cartoon war monger and bank robber who ruined the economy for everybody outside the aristocracy he served, with your friend Thatcher serving the same role on her side of the pond. It's all there in the press and the hearings, and other things that are notably absent. Besides, with you, what's the point? Your mind is made up. All disagreement with your preconceptions are nothing but lies. You have your plastic Reagan right next to your plastic Jesus. Tell me, is he on the right, or left?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46377733)

But hey, since we're all just so much meat, "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
That is, I can't seem to reconcile how you're hyper-materialist, bordering on Calvinist in your existential acceptance of the status quo on the one hand, and then bother analyzing matters to call #OccupyResoluteDesk "a sham who represents a significant decline". Not only: Why do you care?, but How do you care?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46379599)

That is, I can't seem to reconcile how you're hyper-materialist, bordering on Calvinist in your existential acceptance of the status quo on the one hand, and then bother analyzing matters to call #OccupyResoluteDesk "a sham who represents a significant decline". Not only: Why do you care?, but How do you care?

I know! Isn't it scary? It's kinda like Vincent Price in a Michael Jackson video...

Sooo, let me ask you a question.. Do you take the garbage out because your god (or your wife) told you to? Or because you don't like the smell and want to live in a clean house?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46380483)

Sooo, let me ask you a question.. Do you take the garbage out because your god (or your wife) told you to? Or because you don't like the smell and want to live in a clean house?

It's both unsanitary to live amidst trash, and I pay for removal service.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46381307)

Well then, you should have no trouble reconciling those issues you brought up, as well as answering your other questions.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46378229)

What's to defend?

The stuff you wrote I shot down in the previous post.

The man is a sham

Again, I already proved you're wrong.

It's obvious that:

a. you hate Regan
b. you don't know much about Reagan

Like, you claim he's a warmonger, even though he ended our longest running war. You claim he ruined the economy, even though he helped turn it around from when it was far worse, and it was pretty great in his wake. You claim your views are backed up "in the press and the hearings," even though the actual data disagrees with you.

Besides, with you, what's the point? Your mind is made up.

Shrug. I go by facts. You don't. You go by feelings. It's entirely true that my mind won't be swayed by feelings. But I base my views on facts, and you have none to offer to back up you your views. Don't pretend that you won't give facts because I won't be swayed: facts are the *only* things that can sway me.

All disagreement with your preconceptions are nothing but lies.

You're a liar.

You have your plastic Reagan right next to your plastic Jesus.

You're a liar.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46382007)

:-) Heh, ever the comedian you are...

I don't hate Reagan. I merely mock you moroons for believing the Hollywood facade created around him.. We knew what he was before he became governor. I believe that would be before you were born. So all you know is the squeaky clean propaganda shown to you by your favorite authoritarian figures tat you continue to appeal to for favored treatment. You have no "facts" to speak of, only fables. You idolize a false god. I do not lie. Unlike you, I have nothing to gain by doing so.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46405253)

I don't hate Reagan. I merely mock you moroons for believing the Hollywood facade created around him.

You're a liar. I gave facts. You ignored them and pretended that it was a facade. That's what actually happened.

We knew what he was before he became governor.

Right: we knew he was an actor and broadcaster who had certain well-thought-out political convictions, and could eloquently state them.

So all you know is the squeaky clean propaganda shown to you by your favorite authoritarian figures tat you continue to appeal to for favored treatment.

You're a liar.

You have no "facts" to speak of, only fables.

You're a liar.

You idolize a false god.

You're a liar.

I do not lie.

You're a liar.

Unlike you, I have nothing to gain by doing so.

You're a liar. I have nothing to gain by lying.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46405637)

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!

You recite fairy tales. That's all you know.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46407857)

You're projecting. And we know this, because I am the one who provided actual evidence, while you provided none at all.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46408099)

Well, you keep at it. I'm going to take a break from your schtick for a few minutes.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46408299)

Projecting.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46376671)

...I think Russia needs to back the hell off...

What the hell for? If a bunch a fascists take over, that would be a clear and present danger on their border. You know nothing of their history. You just repeat cold war rhetoric and propaganda. Would you tell the US government to back off if an anti-American government tried to take over Mexico by force?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46376789)

...I think Russia needs to back the hell off...

What the hell for?

You misunderstand. I said I *might* add that, were I President, and if, like the President, I disagreed with what Russia was doing.

I concede I was not entirely clear, but my intent was merely to say that even if I opposed it, I would say it only as a private citizen, and clearly distinguish that between the policy of the American government.

I don't currently have an opinion about what Russia should do.

If a bunch a fascists take over, that would be a clear and present danger on their border.

Perhaps.

You know nothing of their history.

False.

You just repeat cold war rhetoric and propaganda.

Bullshit. If that were the case, I'd have been much more forceful in what I wrote. Please have some sense of reason.

Would you tell the US government to back off if an anti-American government tried to take over Mexico by force?

It depends on what "anti-American" means. But, probably.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46377955)

I know what I'd do. Say it's none of our business, unless Ukraine wants to enter into a treaty with the United State

Can you clarify how that differs from not doing anything? So far, as best I can tell, the US government has officially not done anything other than allow a few officials to make a few general statements. I'm not sure how to distinguish what you are saying you would do from what has been done so far.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46378235)

I know what I'd do. Say it's none of our business, unless Ukraine wants to enter into a treaty with the United State

Can you clarify how that differs from not doing anything?

It's about what you say and project. Obama is wagging his finger and making completely impotent threats. He weakens us instead of strengthening us. In international politics, what you say and how you say it is more important than what you actually do. Obama may know that, I don't know; but he certainly doesn't know what the hell to do with it.

So far, as best I can tell, the US government has officially not done anything other than allow a few officials to make a few general statements. I'm not sure how to distinguish what you are saying you would do from what has been done so far.

The Russians, and all career diplomats, see a massive difference between what I said, and what Obama said.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46379425)

So far, as best I can tell, the US government has officially not done anything other than allow a few officials to make a few general statements. I'm not sure how to distinguish what you are saying you would do from what has been done so far.

The Russians, and all career diplomats, see a massive difference between what I said, and what Obama said.

Well sure, what you said has no meaning to any diplomat because you're just some guy on slashdot. However, what Obama has said doesn't really carry much weight either. He said something about "a price to be paid" if Russia sends troops in to Ukraine. However some of us recall that not-too-long ago when talking about the regime in Syria he mentioned "a line that should not be crossed", which was of course crossed. Being as no consequence came from crossing that line, why should anyone expect there to be consequences this time - especially when the country whom the comment targets is vastly more powerful?

We could also compare this most recent comment to the comments of "you're either with us, or against us" or "axis of evil" that came from a certain recent international leader. I don't recall you being bothered by those lines.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46379549)

Well sure, what you said has no meaning to any diplomat because you're just some guy on slashdot.

Um. The hypothetical is the President saying what I wrote.

However, what Obama has said doesn't really carry much weight either.

Exactly the point. Obama projects weakness. If he said what I wrote -- assuming he had been saying such things all along, and if he stuck by what he said -- then that would not project weakness, even if the result in both cases is no action.

We could also compare this most recent comment to the comments of "you're either with us, or against us" or "axis of evil" that came from a certain recent international leader. I don't recall you being bothered by those lines.

Bush followed through. Bush did not project weakness. Say what you want about Bush, but despite the cries of the left, the rest of the world continued to respect us, and fear when the President gave warnings. That doesn't mean Bush had the right policy, it just means he did it the right way: saying what you would do and following through on it. Note that even in the midst of the Iraq War, the Arab League still looked to the U.S. to lead in regards to the Palestinian issue. China and Russia looked to us to lead regarding North Korea. We projected power under Bush. We don't under Obama. And that is almost wholly separate from what the actual policies are: you can project power with Obama's policies, or with Bush's, or with mine. And you can project weakness with any of them, as well.

And Bush saying, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," was not in any way a wrong thing to say. I don't see how that compares at all to what Obama said. Bush was marking the beginning of a new world war, and if you refused to help in a way we needed help -- such as not cutting off funding for, or not sharing intel about, or harboring, the terrorists -- then you were with the terrorists. That's perfectly reasonable. His very next words, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime," were spot-on, both then and now, regardless of who is President.

Perhaps you don't understand the context of what Bush said, and you -- like so many of the illiterati on the left -- think Bush was saying you generally have to agree with Bush, or you're an enemy. But that's idiotic.

As to "Axis of Evil," meh. It didn't mean much. It was simply a way of describing the enemies we face, and, again, it was spot-on in that regard.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46381145)

However, what Obama has said doesn't really carry much weight either.

Exactly the point. Obama projects weakness. If he said what I wrote -- assuming he had been saying such things all along, and if he stuck by what he said -- then that would not project weakness, even if the result in both cases is no action.

At this point, if we measure the age of the Ukrainian conflict in days since the protests started to gain the attention of the global media (a few days before Ukrainian sharpshooters started picking them off), we can say the situation is a couple weeks old. It has been a few days since Obama said there would be "a price" for Russia to send troops into Ukraine. It is worth noting that the agreement for Sevastopol between Russia and Ukraine allows for about twice as many Russian troops as were there before the conflict began; hence Russia could send quite a few more troops in before they would be beyond the agreed-upon range the two countries negotiated.

Now, if Russia exceeds the number in their agreement, Obama could do one of two things in response; either go for military action or not. If you are accusing him of "projecting weakness", do you mean that you are assuming he will not use military action? At what point in time would you say you could confidently say that no military action was used? By comparison it was almost a full month after 9/11 before we invaded Afghanistan [wikipedia.org] , which makes your assumption of projecting weakness seem a bit premature at this point.

We could also compare this most recent comment to the comments of "you're either with us, or against us" or "axis of evil" that came from a certain recent international leader. I don't recall you being bothered by those lines.

Bush followed through. Bush did not project weakness.

I'm not accusing him of projecting weakness. And frankly, in the current situation you don't have enough time between the present moment and Obama's comment to make an argument for him doing the same yet either.

Say what you want about Bush, but despite the cries of the left, the rest of the world continued to respect us, and fear when the President gave warnings.

Fear? Probably. Respect? That is debatable. Considering the millions around the world who protested against our policies you don't have a very good argument for the rest of the world respecting us. For that matter the world was coming to realize that the US military was over-extended with the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had very limited ability to handle any other military conflicts at that time should another arise.

China and Russia looked to us to lead regarding North Korea.

I'd be interested to see an example of that. Being as we don't even have formal relations with North Korea, and hence our actions were limited to what we could do without actually interacting with them directly, I'm not sure why other countries would look to us to lead.

And Bush saying, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," was not in any way a wrong thing to say.

Really? A bullying comment as a rallying cry for two wars? I realize you will support the Bush administration until the end of time (which, frankly somewhat surprises me considering how many other conservatives don't even like to acknowledge that there ever was one). A comment as nonspecific as this is dangerous for public policy.

His very next words, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime,"

So then why didn't we have consequences for Saudi Arabia, where the lion's share of the 9/11 attackers came from? How about Somalia, where many terrorists are training to this day? The notion of this being a statement supported by consistent action is laughable.

As to "Axis of Evil," meh. It didn't mean much.

So then why attack only one member of the Axis? And being as an axis suggests connections, why suggest it between two states with a history of hostility (Iraq and Iran) and a third state that tends to rarely communicate with anyone (North Korea) outside a very small circle that includes neither of the other two "axis" states?

As for not meaning much, that comment is probably one of Bush's most quoted internationally.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46381449)

It has been a few days since Obama said there would be "a price" for Russia to send troops into Ukraine.

My point is that Obama has always projected weakness. That's not to say he's never acted, but he often hasn't, and no one believes he will engage in any serious action now.

If you are accusing him of "projecting weakness", do you mean that you are assuming he will not use military action? At what point in time would you say you could confidently say that no military action was used? By comparison it was almost a full month after 9/11 before we invaded Afghanistan [wikipedia.org] , which makes your assumption of projecting weakness seem a bit premature at this point.

If this were the first year of his presidency and he had not already been projecting weakness for several years, you'd have a point.

Say what you want about Bush, but despite the cries of the left, the rest of the world continued to respect us, and fear when the President gave warnings.

Fear? Probably. Respect? That is debatable.

No, it's not. Again, the world continued to look to the U.S. to help solve problems all over. It was respect. Dislike, disagreement ... but, on balance, respect.

Considering the millions around the world who protested against our policies you don't have a very good argument for the rest of the world respecting us.

I am not talking about the man in the street, I'm talking about the leaders. The man in the street is ignorant. Calling a spade a spade here.

I'd be interested to see an example of that.

Huh. You don't remember the multilateral talks under Bush? North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Russia, China, all led by the U.S.?

I'm not sure why other countries would look to us to lead.

First, because we are the primary protector and defender of South Korea and Japan. Second, because we are one of the three major powers of the Pacific. Third, because they respected us.

And Bush saying, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," was not in any way a wrong thing to say.

Really? A bullying comment as a rallying cry for two wars?

No serious person takes "if you harbor and support terrorists, you are our enemy" as bullying. That's idiotic.

A comment as nonspecific as this is dangerous for public policy.

No, it's not, as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't.

His very next words, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime,"

So then why didn't we have consequences for Saudi Arabia, where the lion's share of the 9/11 attackers came from?

That question literally makes no sense. You're claiming that because the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, that Saudi Arabia harbored or supported them or other terrorists. That's just stupid.

How about Somalia, where many terrorists are training to this day?

The government of Somalia doesn't support or harbor them: it simply lacks ability to control them. We support the Somalian government because they oppose the terrorists (who regularly attack the government). You're just saying stupid shit.

The notion of this being a statement supported by consistent action is laughable.

What's laughable is that you think you know what you're talking about, and you can't give a single example of the action being inconsistent.

There's one actual primary example of inconsistency: Pakistan. But that's because Pakistan has nukes and if we make them an enemy we risk Islamists taking control of the country and a much worse outcome than terrorism: GTW. No serious person thinks we should not treat Pakistan as a bit of an exception, not Democratic or Republican leaders, not the Pakistanis, not the Indians ... nobody.

That's not to say Obama is necessarily wrong to treat Pakistan has hostile, because it largely is. If he worked with Pakistan on the raid to get Bin Laden, someone probably would have leaked it to Bin Laden, just as had happened in the past. But we can't treat them as an enemy like we have Iran and Syria and other state supporters of terrorism, because the consequences for doing so are just far worse.

As to "Axis of Evil," meh. It didn't mean much.

So then why attack only one member of the Axis?

Another stupid thing for you to say. Just because someone is an enemy doesn't mean you necessarily use military force against them. Bush never said or implied anything like that. We have used -- significant -- political and economic force against Iran and North Korea. Whether that's the right thing is debatable; whether it's consistent with Bush's words and actions is not. It isn't inconsistent at all.

You remind me of the idiots who think that all military actions have to be declared war by Congress. Military actions and declarations of war are not the same thing, and not even subsets of each other, not by design, history, or implication. Different things are different. Saying someone is in the Axis of Evil doesn't mean you treat them all the same. That's just stupid.

And being as an axis suggests connections, why suggest it between two states with a history of hostility (Iraq and Iran) and a third state that tends to rarely communicate with anyone (North Korea) outside a very small circle that includes neither of the other two "axis" states?

I already answered this.

As for not meaning much, that comment is probably one of Bush's most quoted internationally.

And ... ?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46382337)

no one believes he will engage in any serious action now.

If no one believes he will engage, then why even say anything at all? If honestly no one believes, than even Obama himself does not believe he will engage, which makes his very statement pointless.

If you are accusing him of "projecting weakness", do you mean that you are assuming he will not use military action? At what point in time would you say you could confidently say that no military action was used? By comparison it was almost a full month after 9/11 before we invaded Afghanistan, which makes your assumption of projecting weakness seem a bit premature at this point.

If this were the first year of his presidency and he had not already been projecting weakness for several years, you'd have a point.

My point is that the conflict hasn't gone on long enough for us to be reasonably certain that nothing will come from Obama's statement. You also did not answer the questions that I asked, I ask you to please consider them.

Fear? Probably. Respect? That is debatable.

No, it's not. Again, the world continued to look to the U.S. to help solve problems all over. It was respect. Dislike, disagreement ... but, on balance, respect.

In case you didn't notice, there were plenty of problems that went through in that time that the US was not consulted on.

I am not talking about the man in the street, I'm talking about the leaders. The man in the street is ignorant. Calling a spade a spade here.

Just because you don't like the common man doesn't mean he is of no importance. Even more so, there were plenty of international leaders who also opposed the US strategy and administration.

No serious person takes "if you harbor and support terrorists, you are our enemy" as bullying. That's idiotic.

Discarding criticism with insults does not aid your argument.

His very next words, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime,"

So then why didn't we have consequences for Saudi Arabia, where the lion's share of the 9/11 attackers came from?

That question literally makes no sense. You're claiming that because the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, that Saudi Arabia harbored or supported them or other terrorists. That's just stupid.

I'm sorry that your lack of familiarity with the intelligence of the 9/11 attack leads you to reduce yourself to slinging silly insults. The Saudi terrorists were Saudi citizens who had been under observation and had free passage in and out of their home country with no questioning from their home government. They moved money and people between their home land and terrorist hotbeds and nobody cared. They were being harbored in Saudi Arabia.

How about Somalia, where many terrorists are training to this day?

The government of Somalia doesn't support or harbor them: it simply lacks ability to control them. We support the Somalian government because they oppose the terrorists (who regularly attack the government).

Somalia still does not have a functioning government, and has not had one for at least 20 years. That is why it is a hotbed for terrorist training. That is why it would have made orders of magnitude more sense to attack Somalia than Iraq under Bush's statements (though I would prefer to attack neither).

you can't give a single example of the action being inconsistent.

I just gave two and there are plenty more. Just because you are a hyperpartisan hack doesn't mean that no mistakes were made.

We have used -- significant -- political and economic force against Iran and North Korea.

Really? Particularly with North Korea we have no economic or political ties to them. We can't trade less than zero with them.

Saying someone is in the Axis of Evil doesn't mean you treat them all the same.

Why put them in the same group - when they don't have any meaningful political ties between each other - if not because you want them treated the same? Is that not basically what you are doing right now, with you perma-hate list [slashdot.org] ?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46405369)

If no one believes he will engage, then why even say anything at all?

I meant no one who matters -- domestic and international politicians, mostly -- believe it. Putin certainly doesn't. But the masses? Hell, they still believe that our current economic problems are Bush's fault. They'll believe anything.

My point is that the conflict hasn't gone on long enough for us to be reasonably certain that nothing will come from Obama's statement.

*My* point is that due to his history, we have no reason to think anything WILL come from his statement. And THAT is the problem.

You also did not answer the questions that I asked, I ask you to please consider them.

I already did consider them, and decided they were not worth directly answering.

In case you didn't notice, there were plenty of problems that went through in that time that the US was not consulted on.

No more than before or after Bush, no.

Just because you don't like the common man doesn't mean he is of no importance.

Non sequitur.

Even more so, there were plenty of international leaders who also opposed the US strategy and administration.

Non sequitur.

No serious person takes "if you harbor and support terrorists, you are our enemy" as bullying. That's idiotic.

Discarding criticism with insults does not aid your argument.

Giving an idiotic criticism as your argument does not aid your argument. Seriously, what the hell? You really think that saying people who harbor and support terorrists are our enemy is "bullying"? You think that makes any fucking sense?

I'm sorry that your lack of familiarity with the intelligence of the 9/11 attack

You're a liar.

They were being harbored in Saudi Arabia.

You gave no evidence to support this dishonest claim. Maybe you don't know what "harbor" means. But I doubt it. You're just lying.

Somalia still does not have a functioning government, and has not had one for at least 20 years. That is why it is a hotbed for terrorist training. That is why it would have made orders of magnitude more sense to attack Somalia than Iraq under Bush's statements (though I would prefer to attack neither).

You're, as usual, making no fucking sense. The purpose of the invasion of Iraq served a specific purpose -- removal of a hostile government, to replace it with a functioning democratic one -- a purpose which could not possibly have been served with a similar action in Somalia.

I just gave two

You're a liar.

Just because you are ... hyperpartisan

You're a liar.

We have used -- significant -- political and economic force against Iran and North Korea.

Really? Particularly with North Korea we have no economic or political ties to them. We can't trade less than zero with them.

You have no idea what you're talking about, as usual. No economic or political ties? Never heard of the Agreed Framework, from Bill Clinton (and Jimmy Carter), under which we shipped them millions of tons of oil? That's both political and economic ties. And further, we used political weight to prevent trade with other countries and North Korea, and we used political weight with China to force North Korea to the table, and so on. Just stop, because you're completely ignorant here.

Why put them in the same group - when they don't have any meaningful political ties between each other - if not because you want them treated the same?

Once again: asked and answered. The answer is very simple, and I already gave it. Stop being stupid.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46408845)

You also did not answer the questions that I asked, I ask you to please consider them.

I already did consider them, and decided they were not worth directly answering.

If you came here to talk to yourself - rather than participate in a discussion where questions are asked and ideas are shared - then there is no point in continuing this. Perhaps you like to speak in an echo chamber, but I did not post to this JE to set one up for you.

You're a liar.

... and back to the regularly scheduled program.

If ever you want to have an actual discussion, where people are allowed to voice their opinions and ask reasonable questions with the expectation of receiving responses from the other person to them, come back later and we can try that. You have demonstrated yet again that you are not currently interested in such a discussion with me and I'm not going to let you waste more of my time in this thread.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46409051)

If you came here to talk to yourself - rather than participate in a discussion where questions are asked and ideas are shared - then there is no point in continuing this.

You are implying that if I respond to anything you say, I need to respond to everything you say. That's fucking stupid.

Stop being fucking stupid.

and back to the regularly scheduled program.

Yes. You lie. A lot. Regularly. Nothing new here.

If ever you want to have an actual discussion, where people are allowed to voice their opinions and ask reasonable questions with the expectation of receiving responses from the other person to them, come back later and we can try that.

No, you're the one who needs to leave, if that's what you expect. There is not, and never has been, ever, in any way, an expectation that someone will respond to every question you have, in any casual discussion, whether online or in person. You're full of shit.

Those questions are simply not worth answering. You were implying, with both questions, that a short amount of time had passed. I pointed out that I was basing what I said on his past history. That made answering those two questions directly pointless.

Not that I have to tell you why I won't answer a question, because this is a casual discussion, and that is never expected or required, ever.

You have demonstrated yet again that you are not currently interested in such a discussion

A discussion with expectations of answering every question? NO ONE is interested in such a discussion. You're a liar.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46409967)

If you came here to talk to yourself - rather than participate in a discussion where questions are asked and ideas are shared - then there is no point in continuing this.

You are implying that if I respond to anything you say, I need to respond to everything you say.

No, I am not. I am indicating that a discussion between sensible and mature adults involves the exchange of ideas and responses to queries. You do neither of those in good faith. You come here and state your opinion and then proceed to lob accusations and insults at anyone who dares to disagree with you.

In short, you are not here for discussion. You are here to state your opinion and call everyone else inferior human beings for not sharing your opinion.

There. I replied without even asking you any questions. This time you can't avoid answering my questions as none were asked - though I expect you will avoid my statements as much as possible and respond with more fact-free accusations and petty insults.

Go ahead, knock yourself out. Take the last word, I don't really care what you accuse me of in your next reply or what kind of insults you will shit all over reality in attempt to justify the use of.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#46384525)

It's a poker game and it appears our President is no better at poker than he is at Constitutional Law.

He didnt start this, of course, the US government has been placing bets in Ukraine for some time. But they're foolish bets. We have no vital interest to defend here, no reason to be in the hand at all, but there we are.

Also, why should Russia back off? Unlike the US they do have a clear and important reason to be there (which is a good reason we should never have bet on this pot to start with) and it's hard to see how they could have been any less aggressive in defending it without simply giving up entirely.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46384653)

>He didnt start this
No, but BHO's generally supine position on foreign policy sure is a setup for humiliation.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#46384773)

I am not sure that a less supine position would really be an improvement though.

I mean, he could certainly act stronger and look better doing it but that would only bring disaster more certainly. If we had Romney or McCain in his place instead the nukes might even be flying already.

The US has no critical interest here, nothing on the line but prestige foolishly wagered. The Russians on the other hand are looking at the possibility of losing Crimea, which means they are staying in this hand regardless, they are going to have to call any bet placed and they are not going to fold.

So basically, without trying to be dramatic, either Obama folds or we eventually go to the showdown and go to war with a nuclear-armed power for... face. Prestige. Nothing more.

He's in a tough spot. He needs to find a way to fold without looking too bad doing it and that's a whole lot easier said than done at this point.

I am not saying I would be going about it the way he is mind you. I would have taken steps early in my first term to avoid this day, had I been he, but now? What would you do?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46385061)

The lack of options on Ukraine goes back to our impotence over in Georgia. Failure breeds failure.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#46388643)

Georgia was a very similar situation.

US put prestige on the line where it didnt need to, in Russias backyard, where they could not back down, and pushed... until Russia pushed back and we folded. Now I agree that weakened us but it almost seems you are implying the McCain position - that was should have gone to war with the Russian Federation on behalf of the corrupt government Georgia, and I have to say, that would have been an even bigger disaster.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46389227)

And then you pull back and look at the Green Revolution in Iran, or Zelaya in the Honduras, and see that our Foreign Policy has a strange affection for thugs.
If we're at least supporting reform, stability, and free/fair elections as carrots, then Americans can support the big military stick.
But we've opted for confusion and sucking up to the Bad Guys.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

Arker (91948) | about 6 months ago | (#46390783)

Rather apropos to your comment, I was just reading this: http://original.antiwar.com/chris_ernesto/2014/02/28/look-who-the-us-is-siding-with-in-ukraine-egypt-and-syria/

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46392271)

Yep. I don't think our Community Organizer in Chief has a real foreign policy clue of any sort. None.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46404237)

...our Foreign Policy has a strange affection for thugs.

Please, tell us something new. And where has Obama been any different on such matters? The people that matter to him are very happy.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46406787)

The people that matter to him are very happy.

Well, if that's the standard, then I guess I should lay by my dish.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46410897)

What are you complaining about? You vote for him when you vote for either faction of the party. If you are so against the status quo as you say, then it would seem to me you would have to show it.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46415299)

Are you arguing that one should not vote at all? Indeed, you can cast a ballot, and neglect choices at your leisure. This lets you follow your conscience, while remaining innocent of failure to participate in our representative democracy. Is this your point?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46376417)

So, your argument is that the no-talent rodeo clown lacks talent, but so does everyone else, so, enjoy?

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46378005)

That wasn't even as amusing as the worn-out

when did you stop beating your wife

meme. Once again, though, I will point out that you are avoiding the question. You are trying for a conspiracy theory here that you can latch on to, to try to launch an overthrow campaign upon. However if you really want anyone outside the conservative blogosphere to believe that there is reason to see a conspiracy here you need to - at the very absolute least - provide a plausible alternate option that Obama could have exercised leading up to this point.

You should be armchair POTUS'ing the matter. Instead you're just flinging poo and hoping that you can land it on a target that you dislike and somehow use that hit to fuel a nation's outrage enough to bring about the early end of an administration without concern for the rule of law.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46379149)

You're roughly the last person on /. equipped to bemoan any high-mileage memes.

You are trying for a conspiracy theory here that you can latch on to, to try to launch an overthrow campaign upon.

If I didn't enjoy such belly-laughs from you blowhard, lunatic variations on the theme of paint-huffing idiocy, I'd have to ignore you. You just stay sexy, girl.

Re:So many good options here! (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46381405)

You have championed more anti-Obama conspiracy theories on slashdot than anyone else I have ever seen the writings of. You happen to have a couple favorites that you put more energy into than others, but you have shown that you are more than willing to latch on to a new one when it comes along. Hence the most reasonable expectation here is that you don't actually give a shit about the plight of the Ukrainians, Russians, or anyone else in that part of the world but rather you are looking for another way to cheerlead for an early end of the Obama administration.

So really, just cut to the chase. What is it that you believe President Lawnchair has done in regards to this evolving situation that you believe he should be run out of town for? You don't even have to provide alternate options for him (not that I would expect you to), just tell us what you think he has done, thought, or felt that is sufficient to warrant his extralegal removal from office.

Weak (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 6 months ago | (#46376937)

You can do better than that!

Re:Weak (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46377745)

I'll let you know when my buddy is done recording "Poor, Poor Pitiful Reid".
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>