Badger.. nice nit picking to no avail. Sorry Michael, for writing
Dan. My bias is showing. I hope so that's the point of an
opinion piece. Now Badger, let's see something of substance
from you. Just what does standing up to Russia mean?
On our foreign policy, and Nuclear disarmament...Remember Obama's
Speech in Berlin (June 19, 2013)..."We may no longer live in
fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not
truly safe". (Applause.)...Peace with justice means pursuing
the security of a world WITHOUT nuclear weapons; no matter how distant that
dream may be. And so, as President, I've reduced the number and role of
America's nuclear weapons. Because of the New START Treaty, we're on
track to cut American and Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest
levels since the 1950s. (Applause.)But we have more work to do. So
today, I'm announcing additional steps forward. I intend to seek
negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.
(Applause.)At the same time, we'll work with our NATO allies to
seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe".... ===I hope we have a list of lessons learned on Russia, as we
negotiate nuclear disarmament in the Hague today.
Prag - your massive bias is showing. This is Michael's piece, not
Dan's.It must be hard to see straight when all you see is
red.When you put words in quotes, they should be the actual words
used by the writer. "reasonable" and "responsible" are not the
What inaction? The only thing that could be provided as an answer is that we
didn't go to war. Let's compare. Syria - OK, assume 100,000 Syrians
dead. We can pursue sanctions and diplomacy and try to get that to work. Or we
can go in like we did in Iraq, where 4486 U.S. soliders died and upwards of
500,000 Iraqi citizens died. The vibrant Christian community was wiped out.
Why? Either revenge by Bush or for oil, or both. U.S. intervention in Iran in
the early 1950s still plagues us today. As soon as we leave Afghanistan, after
spending billions (the stories about waste are astou9nding!), it will likely
revert back to the way it was. What did we gain, especially as the problem was
really centered in Pakistan? Did we just want a toehold in that region?
Ukraine? We think there is anything we could have done to stop Russia? What?
All I see is whining and criticism, all of which would be silent if a Republican
occupied the White House.
Well Dan's at least well versed in the Fox talking points. First of all he picked the world atrocities that fit his theme, then he told
the nice and neat sanitized version of them. I like the part about
if we had just supported the "more reasonable" rebels in Syria. I
suppose that means groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan. There are no
reasonable groups in that kind of war Dan. It's a political talking point
and that's it. Pick them if you will to further your goal, but don't
be deluded to think they're going to be your friend and or a proponent of
western democracy after the fight. It also not just the country is
weary of war, but the country looked out and said why. What did we create with
Iraq and Afghanistan? Over ten years ago Amy Chua wrote a book
"World on fire". The premise, which has proved again and again to be
correct was, the citizens of the world will be who they are and democracy
won't change that. In fact it will worsen the situation in many cases.
American military involvement is an ego centric fools errand.
Now that it is clear that getting and having WMD makes a country more powerful,
I hope the Obama doesn't go try to negotiate with Putin to get rid of ours.
I don't want to be annexed to Russia, nor do I want a world filled with
impotent countries who cannot/will not stand up to Russian, Iranian, North