Pence won on style.

sear said:
#166
I virtually NEVER follow un-teased links. If it's not important enough for you to quote from it, it's not important enough for me.

Why not lobby from the East?
The sad thing is:
a) Putin wanted more respect for Russia. What he's gotten is the opposite. Russia is now a pariah.

b) The long suffering Soviets are now (in Russia, and perhaps in Ukraine) plunged back into needless loss of prosperity and hardship.

Putin got into the G7 in the first place, by whining.
Now he's out because of thuggery.

Lookit anatta: my apparent hypocrisy is not lost on me *. I'm asserting territory should not be obtained by military conquest, from a nation (the United States of America) that was obtained by military conquest.

None the less, Russia is paying a steep price for something it could have had that would have burnished rather than burned its reputation.

You've presumed.

Whatever the case (depending on wording and electoral corruption) likely more legitimate than rolling tanks. Votes express the will of the people. Tanks express the will of their commander. And the U.S. is Founded on at least the fig-leaf of doing the will of the People. Why should not even Crimeans have a right of self-determination? That's not what military annexation is about.

Right.
I didn't say there's no benefit to robbing a bank. The expression is "crime doesn't pay".
Fabulous. So Putin has improved his status among thugs, a den of thieves. Do you really think sucking up to Syria will benefit Russia 10 years from now more than being a reliable trading partner with the West?

Putin.
It's a club of economic titans. Putin got in not with economic prowess but with arm-twisting and pouting.

If that's the case then the U.S. should invade and conquer Canada immediately.

anatta added:

I know a thing or two about Germany.
I've owned German cars.
I've lived in Germany for years.
I married a German woman.

Think what you will. Obviously a plurality of the German electorate did not agree with you. And while Putin rolls tanks and drops bombs to get what he wants, Merkel is a bit more genteel.

* I did not vote for manifest destiny. I simply observe I am the apparent beneficiary, again, at enormous cost. The loss to humanity of the American nations wiped out by Westward expansion is incalculable.
Click to expand...
You really haven't shown where Merkel adds anything to Germany as a leader. Why is she better then someone else?
I give her some credit for negotiatiing with Putin after the annexation - when the hawks wanted to send in offensive weapons.
But she has also vetoed defensive weapons ( Uk forces communications can be target by Russian missiles - the transmissions act as GPS locators)
She also doesn't want TOW type weapons sent in - again she thinks she can negotiate with Russian armour)
Russia has some serious weaponry in the Ukraine's east.

The sanctions do hurt, that why the Crimean annexation is a gambit - but Russia looks at the Eurormaiden itself
as a violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

I don't know what you mean by "teased links" - so I'll not offer you links.

Generally Russia is reactive to NATO expansion. We treat Russia like an unwanted step-child on the world stage.
Putin isn't going to recognize Russia as a waning power like Yelsin and those goofballs.
It's time for everyone to settle down and quit the Cold War 2.0 posture -but it takes more then empty handed Russian resets to do it.

Clinton has no clue other then prosecuting the new Cold War.
 
Last edited:
sear said:
Ukraine was briefly Soviet. Does perpetuating military conquest constitute justice?

and

I'm vehemently, adamantly opposed to NATO expansion near the Russian border, PRECISELY because of this. It's an IDEAL pretext for Russian mischief.
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert on Russian history -thanks for the link.
The thing is Crimean is/was a significant part of Russia's national security -the naval base.
Putin had to secure access -and the only sure way to do it was by annexation.

I'm not happy about this constant expansion/reaction/ cold war build up -but until both sides recognize
they both have legitimate sphere's -it's only gonna get worse.

Don't forget about the buzzing of our naval exercises with Poland earlier this year.
 
"You really haven't shown where Merkel adds anything to Germany as a leader. Why is she better then someone else?"
Click to expand...
You haven't given me anything to disprove or refute.
Name a Western European leader beside Merkel or Pope Francis that's more popular, & then we can exchange on the topic.
"I give her some credit for negotiatiing with Putin after the annexation - when the hawks wanted to send in offensive weapons.
But she has also vetoed defensive weapons ( Uk forces communications can be target by Russian missiles - the transmissions act as GPS locators)
She also doesn't want TOW type weapons sent in - again she thinks she can negotiate with Russian armour)
Russia has some serious weaponry in the Ukraine's east."
Click to expand...
I'm former U.S. military.
I'm a former Cold Warrior.
Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; defensive weapons can be extremely destabilizing.

"I don't know what you mean by "teased links" - so I'll not offer you links."

a) Get a dictionary.

b) tease (têz) verb
To arouse hope, desire, or curiosity in without affording satisfaction.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

If you quote a sentence or two from the link, I can determine whether it's worth my time and EXCEEDINGLY limited and EXPENSIVE bandwidth to follow the link. The overwhelming % of the time, it isn't.
"Generally Russia is reactive to NATO expansion."
Click to expand...
Precisely as I observed; providing Russia a pretext for inexcusable military adventurism.

Lookit:
It's so simple even a grammar school student could understand!

NATO is nothing more than an agreement, a mutual defense pact.
An attack against any NATO member nation is deemed by the terms of the treaty to be an attack on ALL NATO member nations.

- splendid -

Well ?!?!

We don't have to make Ukraine a NATO member to defend it!
We can simply roll tanks, and kick @$$! period

Formalizing it with NATO membership is a clear, aggressive provocation, ideal for Russian military alarmists.
Why on Earth should we play into their hands ?! "It's INSANITY!" Andre Marrou
"We treat Russia like an unwanted step-child on the world stage."
Click to expand...
b) Appropriately so.

a) I fault President Bush (elder). It was his 4 year term during which "the wall" fell.
He should have swooped in, and offered at least a perfunctory Marshall Plan style economic rescue package for the former Soviets.

Had Bush welcomed them to Western society, they might all be powerful, trusted allies today.

But because we stiff-armed them in Cold Peace as we did in Cold War, we are where we are today. How excruciatingly unnecessary!
 
"the only sure way to do it was by annexation."
Click to expand...
piffle
We had a military base in the Philippines. They wanted too $much to renew our lease, so we left.

We've got bases in Cuba, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and elsewhere.
We didn't annex them.
Russia had numerous options.

But Putin is former KGB.
He's in the rut of Cold War mind-set.

And the world is worse for it.
 
anatta said:
man what is with the facile statements? The Ukraine is historically Russia -Mexico and the US are not .
Putin has NATO expansionism up his western border - we got a shitload of illegals, but they don't mass at the border..
++
I mean that is one of the most silliest statements you've ever posted..My time is short before the hurricane takes me off the grid.
I'll not waste it responding to such junk
Click to expand...
Perhaps your down time will give you time to rethink your position re. aggression against your neighbors. We have a problem with Mexico. Putin would invade. Why shouldn't we?
 
sear said:
He should have swooped in, and offered at least a perfunctory Marshall Plan style economic rescue package for the former Soviets.

Had Bush welcomed them to Western society, they might all be powerful, trusted allies today.

But because we stiff-armed them in Cold Peace as we did in Cold War, we are where we are today. How excruciatingly unnecessary!
Click to expand...
Going from memory...didn't Gorbachev attempt a Western style capitalist/democratic society that left many in Russia starving?

I thought that's how Putin ultimately gained power?
 
Althea said:
Perhaps your down time will give you time to rethink your position re. aggression against your neighbors. We have a problem with Mexico. Putin would invade. Why shouldn't we?
Click to expand...
Putin had legitimate access needs to Sevastopol. The threat of European/US
denial of access was at least his pretext for annexation. He can't take chances that Uk. troops would try to block the way thru Crimea proper.

What "problems" with Mexico do we have by limiting access that would be soled by annexation?
Why in god's name would we want any Mexican territory?
 
anatta said:
Putin had legitimate access needs to Sevastopol. The threat of European/US
denial of access was at least his pretext for annexation. He can't take chances that Uk. troops would try to block the way thru Crimea proper.

What "problems" with Mexico do we have by limiting access that would be soled by annexation?
Why in god's name would we want any Mexican territory?
Click to expand...
Kind of a silly question, considering Manifest Destiny.
 
sear said:
You haven't given me anything to disprove or refute.
Name a Western European leader beside Merkel or Pope Francis that's more popular, & then we can exchange on the topic.
Click to expand...

she hasn't been all that popular since the Syrian refugee mess - but regardless what does popularity have to do with effectiveness?
I'm not saying she isn't effective vis-à-vis negotiating an end to the last stalemate with Russia, that leaves the Uk federated-
but she mostly acted to restrain defensive weapons for an 'in place' cease fire. It still holds, so I give her that much.
But the cost is a federated Uk.
I'm former U.S. military.
I'm a former Cold Warrior.
Know it or not, believe it or not, like it or not, admit it or not; defensive weapons can be extremely destabilizing.
Click to expand...
when injected into an already stable situation..but the Uk took big loses,and was unable to stand up to Russian missile batteries and armour.
In this case the defensive weapons would have acted more of a stabilizer, by helping equalize against Russian superiority.

"I don't know what you mean by "teased links" - so I'll not offer you links."
a) Get a dictionary.

If you quote a sentence or two from the link, I can determine whether it's worth my time and EXCEEDINGLY limited and EXPENSIVE bandwidth to follow the link. The overwhelming % of the time, it isn't.
Click to expand...
meh. I threw it out there for support and clarification.
you can open it or not. machts nichts if you do or not.

Precisely as I observed; providing Russia a pretext for inexcusable military adventurism.

Look it:
It's so simple even a grammar school student could understand!

NATO is nothing more than an agreement, a mutual defense pact.
An attack against any NATO member nation is deemed by the terms of the treaty to be an attack on ALL NATO member nations.

- splendid -

Well ?!?!

We don't have to make Ukraine a NATO member to defend it!
We can simply roll tanks, and kick @$$! period

Formalizing it with NATO membership is a clear, aggressive provocation, ideal for Russian military alarmists.
Why on Earth should we play into their hands ?! "It's INSANITY!" Andre Marrou
Click to expand...
do you think we would roll to defend the Ukraine? I don't. We'd scream and hem and haw, but the final analysis is we'd say
"it's not part of NATO so Article 5 does not apply".

To be clear the last thing I want is conflict with Russia over the Ukraine.

(& really there is no use to getting snippy -i'm quite aware of NATO structures and dictionary def's.
I did not understand your use of "teased" in context) ..

.....to the bolded above...
There is no"pretext" for Putin to move into Crimea. Once again you fail to consider Russian security needs as being legitimate.
It's the same practice, and the same policy Obama and Clinton are using - and it's failing.
Until we can treat Russia as a legitimate world military power -with legitimate 'spheres' we are not going to be able to come to a detente

I fault President Bush (elder). It was his 4 year term during which "the wall" fell.
He should have swooped in, and offered at least a perfunctory Marshall Plan style economic rescue package for the former Soviets.

Had Bush welcomed them to Western society, they might all be powerful, trusted allies today.

But because we stiff-armed them in Cold Peace as we did in Cold War, we are where we are today. How excruciatingly unnecessary!
Click to expand...
the whole fall of the wall was handled poorly. We deluded ourselves into thinking Russia was going to be a shrinking violet
and not assert itself after the Soviet Union.

My point is this has to stop, or we're gong to have these continual unnecessary hot spots.
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
Kind of a silly question, considering Manifest Destiny.
Click to expand...
c'mon. we are talking about now..
Manifest Destiny wasn't just conquering the SW -it was the entire expansion from"sea to sea" (ocean to ocean ).

what purpose would be served by any contemporary US - mexican intervention/annexation?
Are you up for some kina reconquista ?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Hillary's a career politician so you expect her to grasp the issues. But grasping issues is just part of: there's judgement, like when to act, when not to act and how to act.

And based on her mile long record as a politician, she sucks in that regard. The only she has done well is milk the system.

Hillary's wealth she's accumulated at the public's expense is a hill of beans compared to Trump's billions.
Click to expand...

I thought cons said she (and Bill) got wealthy by writing books, going on the lecture circuit and "overcharging" for speeches to Wall Street. If you call that getting rich at the public's expense, Trump's done it even more.
 
tsuke said:
"Some think I won last night's debate. I'll leave that to others. From where I sat, @realDonaldTrump's vision for America was the real winner"

Pence on twitter. Wow I cant believe im actually starting to like the guy.
Click to expand...

20161006_Naked_Aggression.jpg
 
Rana said:
So, Iraq doesn't have a government? I thought that was one of Bush's accomplishments?
Click to expand...

Iraq had a government and it [as opposed to Coalition forces] was running Iraq before we pulled out, so we couldn't have been 'occupying' Iraq. We wouldn't have been 'occupying' Iraq had Obama secured a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government anymore than we currently 'occupy' Germany or any of the host of countries that have US bases on them.

In other words, the objection that we would have had to 'occupy Iraq' forever had we gotten the SOFA is lame.
 
"We wouldn't have been 'occupying' Iraq had Obama secured a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government anymore than we currently 'occupy' Germany or any of the host of countries that have US bases on them." DHO #196
Click to expand...
I gather you're quibbling over when a foreign military has a persistent if not semi-permanent presence in a nation other than its own.
In any quibble over a word's definition, it's best to let a dictionary settle it. For American English I prefer AHD.
occupy (òk´ye-pì´) verb, transitive
occupied, occupying, occupies
1.To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2.To dwell or reside in.
3.To hold or fill (an office or a position).
4.To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
5.To engage, employ, or busy (oneself): occupied himself with sculpting.

[Middle English occupien, alteration of Old French occuper, from Latin occupâre, to seize : ob-, intensive pref.. See ob- + capere, to take.]
- oc´cupi´er noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...
You are correct DHO that definition #4 does NOT apply to the generations long U.S. military presence in Germany.

BUT !!

But definition #2 does.
And therefore, BY DEFINITION, it is a "military" "occupation".
"In other words, the objection that we would have had to 'occupy Iraq' forever had we gotten the SOFA is lame." DHO
Click to expand...
Almost certainly correct, presuming the SOFA didn't explicitly require it. But that's so unlikely it can be dismissed as an absurdity.
 
sear said:
I gather you're quibbling over when a foreign military has a persistent if not semi-permanent presence in a nation other than its own.
In any quibble over a word's definition, it's best to let a dictionary settle it. For American English I prefer AHD.

You are correct DHO that definition #4 does NOT apply to the generations long U.S. military presence in Germany.

BUT !!

But definition #2 does.
And therefore, BY DEFINITION, it is a "military" "occupation".

Almost certainly correct, presuming the SOFA didn't explicitly require it. But that's so unlikely it can be dismissed as an absurdity.
Click to expand...

Military occupation is actually a legal term:

Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily. While hostilities continue, the occupying state is prohibited by International Law from annexing the territory or creating another state out of it, but the occupying state may establish some form of military administration over the territory and the population. Under the Martial Law imposed by this regime, residents are required to obey the occupying authorities and may be punished for not doing so. Civilians may also be compelled to perform a variety of nonmilitary tasks for the occupying authorities, such as the repair of roads and buildings, provided such work does not contribute directly to the enemy war effort.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Military+Occupation
____________________

You're using 'occupation' in a colloquial sense. Obviously, if US troops are in Iraq or anywhere else, their base 'occupies' space or whatever. But unless they subvert ruling authority from the local government they aren't engaged in a military occupation.

Hence, there would have been no need to occupy Iraq had Hillary and Obama secured a SOFA with the Iraqis. And yes, they could have but Obama put politics first: he campaigned in 2008 on pulling out of Iraq---consequences be damned.

And some of the consequences proved pretty damnable.
 
sear said:
Almost certainly correct, presuming the SOFA didn't explicitly require it. But that's so unlikely it can be dismissed as an absurdity.
Click to expand...
Absurd? Obama is being blamed for the size and scope of ISIS. Do you honestly believe that any insurgency will be ended with troops in Iraq? No. They'll just wait until we believe it is safe to leave.

What Bush never understood, is that the rival factions in Iraq were existing in a very unstable, but somewhat agreeable fashion. Removing Hussein created a horrible mess. I don't know if it is possible amass a sizable enough Iraqi army to fight against..in many cases...their own people.

Expecting Iraq to establish its own army that will be called upon to defend against insurgents is a silly notion. Expecting the U.S military to end the insurgency forever is absurd.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Military occupation is actually a legal term:

Military occupation occurs when a belligerent state invades the territory of another state with the intention of holding the territory at least temporarily. While hostilities continue, the occupying state is prohibited by International Law from annexing the territory or creating another state out of it, but the occupying state may establish some form of military administration over the territory and the population. Under the Martial Law imposed by this regime, residents are required to obey the occupying authorities and may be punished for not doing so. Civilians may also be compelled to perform a variety of nonmilitary tasks for the occupying authorities, such as the repair of roads and buildings, provided such work does not contribute directly to the enemy war effort.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Military+Occupation
____________________

You're using 'occupation' in a colloquial sense. Obviously, if US troops are in Iraq or anywhere else, their base 'occupies' space or whatever. But unless they subvert ruling authority from the local government they aren't engaged in a military occupation.

Hence, there would have been no need to occupy Iraq had Hillary and Obama secured a SOFA with the Iraqis. And yes, they could have but Obama put politics first: he campaigned in 2008 on pulling out of Iraq---consequences be damned.

And some of the consequences proved pretty damnable.
Click to expand...
Hah! Consequences be damned? I believe that's what Bush was told before he invaded.

Why don't you tell us how troops in Iraq are going to do away with ISIS. Please be very explicit when you describe your exit strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top