Obama the weak.

[boneyard bill]

When I was in college I got a summer job as a camp counselor. Before the campers arrived, the head counselor addressed the rest of us.

"Before long," he said, "you will get a camper who is very talkative and disruptive. And you're going to point to him and you're going to say, 'I don't want to hear another word.'
Well," he went on, "You're going to hear another word. And then what do you do? So don't put yourself in that position."

Obama is continually putting himself in exactly that position. If you draw a "red line" and then don't follow through on it, you look weak. If you make threats and then follow up with useless gestures, you look weak.

My point here is not that Obama should follow through on his threats. I'm not saying that he should enforce the red lines he has drawn. The mistake is in making the threats. His mistake is in drawing the red lines in the first place.

He should memorize Kissinger's lines. He would always say something like, "This could create a very grave situation." No threats, nothing specific, no commitments that you need to back down from.

So Obama threatens "sanctions" against Russia and what do we get. A few oligarchs are banned. This is the diplomatic equivalent of "unfriending" someone on Facebook. "Ooh, ooh, I'm scared," Putin has to be saying to himself.

And what has Putin threatened? Nothing with regard to Ukraine. But with respect to sanctions, he's threatened to bring down the dollar and has actually followed through on it by announcing that Russia will sell oil for rubles. Will that bring down the dollar? Very likely, though it may take a few years.

Obama has encouraged and abetted the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically-elected government and has inherited a bankrupt country that is also a political and economic basket-case. Putin has encouraged and abetted the secession of Crimea, (although it's questionable that he even needed to given the mess in Kiev).

Meanwhile, while that government massacres its own Russian-speaking citizens, Putin has threatened nothing even though Russia has claimed the right to protect Russian-speaking citizens in former Soviet states. Instead he offers negotiations and compromise.

Does he need to make threats? No. If he decides to intervene, he will simply do it. Why box yourself in? Why tip your hand?

Obama is weak, not because he actions are weak (on the contrary, they are forceful to the point of recklessness). He looks weak because he talks a tougher game than he can play. And John Kerry is even worse. In fact, one could argue that John Kerry's mouth is what makes Obama hand look so weak.

 

[bleubird]

Well,what do you want?USA to be the big bad enforcer of all that is free and right?Bush wars?LOOKS WEAK to whom?

 

[J842P]

Well,what do you want?USA to be the big bad enforcer of all that is free and right?Bush wars?LOOKS WEAK to whom?

I'm pretty sure he unequivocally stated the opposite of that.

 

[boneyard bill]

Well,what do you want?USA to be the big bad enforcer of all that is free and right?Bush wars?LOOKS WEAK to whom?

Personally, I'd like to see us mind our own business. But if we are going to stick our noses into all kinds of foreign controversies, I'd like to see us do it intelligently. Threatening sanctions and then telling a few Russian oligarchs that can't come over here is just a joke. We can't do sanctions because we hardly trade with Russia at all. Europe could do serious sanctions against Russia, but they won't because it would hurt them as much as it would hurt Russia. And you know what? Obama and Kerry knew those things before they opened their goddamed mouths. So why did they say it? It's just stupid.

 

[Metaphor]

And what has Putin threatened? Nothing with regard to Ukraine. But with respect to sanctions, he's threatened to bring down the dollar and has actually followed through on it by announcing that Russia will sell oil for rubles. Will that bring down the dollar? Very likely, though it may take a few years.

How many years? Less than 10? More than 10?

How will we know what will it look like when the US dollar has been 'brought down'? How many Euro will it buy?

Is there some point, boneyard bill, that your repeated failed predictions of the downfall of the US dollar will begin to give you pause about predicting its downfall again?

 

[TV and credit cards]

I interpret "mind or own business" as becoming more of a team player on the world stage and not being the superstar, top dog, big bully, however it may be seen through your eyes.
What would this mean for other nations if the US did? Would they not have to build up their militaries? Yes, and this would lead to a more unstable world. There is a greater risk of conflict when everyone has a gun rather than just the world's cop on the beat. Consider too, China and it's neighbors. Should Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, etc. throw more of their resources toward defense? You do see where this leads to a more unstable world?

Screw Russia. They export energy period Obama has advisors. He and Kerry are not making decisions in a vacuum. Because Russia is largely dependent upon it's energy exports, small measured steps is what is required. Obama does not loose any credibility for rattling his sabre, not amongst anyone that matters. Putin knows he is dependent upon this one export. All the important players know we should not hit Russia too hard at their one vital export. They would face economic instability and have no choice but to lash out.

Russia is a distraction. China is the concern. The world having one cop and one currency brings stability and the world recognizes this.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

When I was in college I got a summer job as a camp counselor. Before the campers arrived, the head counselor addressed the rest of us.

"Before long," he said, "you will get a camper who is very talkative and disruptive. And you're going to point to him and you're going to say, 'I don't want to hear another word.'
Well," he went on, "You're going to hear another word. And then what do you do? So don't put yourself in that position."

Cool story bro.

Obama is continually putting himself in exactly that position. If you draw a "red line" and then don't follow through on it, you look weak. If you make threats and then follow up with useless gestures, you look weak.

My point here is not that Obama should follow through on his threats. I'm not saying that he should enforce the red lines he has drawn. The mistake is in making the threats. His mistake is in drawing the red lines in the first place.

Please enlighten us, what are these "red lines" he has drawn? Is it like Qaddafi's line of death? Or is it some minor nit-pick you have because he is a Democrat and you feel you must criticize him at all points?

He should memorize Kissinger's lines. He would always say something like, "This could create a very grave situation." No threats, nothing specific, no commitments that you need to back down from.

So Obama threatens "sanctions" against Russia and what do we get. A few oligarchs are banned. This is the diplomatic equivalent of "unfriending" someone on Facebook. "Ooh, ooh, I'm scared," Putin has to be saying to himself.

So you think a quick escalation and brinkmanship diplomacy is the way to go in a region that could be easily destabilized?

And what has Putin threatened? Nothing with regard to Ukraine. But with respect to sanctions, he's threatened to bring down the dollar and has actually followed through on it by announcing that Russia will sell oil for rubles. Will that bring down the dollar? Very likely, though it may take a few years.

So what you are saying is that Russia is threatening nothing, but we should respond by escalation of the situation?

And how long is a "few years"? 5? 10? 100? 500?

Obama has encouraged and abetted the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically-elected government and has inherited a bankrupt country that is also a political and economic basket-case. Putin has encouraged and abetted the secession of Crimea, (although it's questionable that he even needed to given the mess in Kiev).

Please post statements by Obama encouraging the overthrow of the Ukraine's democratically-elected government. Also post how Obama "inherited a bankrupt country that is also a political and economic basket-case". <-Are you speaking about the United States?

Do this and we can discuss his actions.

Meanwhile, while that government massacres its own Russian-speaking citizens, Putin has threatened nothing even though Russia has claimed the right to protect Russian-speaking citizens in former Soviet states. Instead he offers negotiations and compromise.

Does he need to make threats? No. If he decides to intervene, he will simply do it. Why box yourself in? Why tip your hand?

Obama is weak, not because he actions are weak (on the contrary, they are forceful to the point of recklessness). He looks weak because he talks a tougher game than he can play. And John Kerry is even worse. In fact, one could argue that John Kerry's mouth is what makes Obama hand look so weak.

You really need to study up on diplomacy.

 

[ksen]

Looks like BB has a hard-on for Putin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And what has Putin threatened? Nothing with regard to Ukraine. But with respect to sanctions, he's threatened to bring down the dollar and has actually followed through on it by announcing that Russia will sell oil for rubles. Will that bring down the dollar? Very likely, though it may take a few years.

Oh noes! BB is predicting the death of the dollar.... again!

Meanwhile, while that government massacres its own Russian-speaking citizens, Putin has threatened nothing even though Russia has claimed the right to protect Russian-speaking citizens in former Soviet states. Instead he offers negotiations and compromise.

You seemed to have not notice the passive aggressive nature of Putin's policy. You must be getting your news from Shirtless Russian Leader magazine. Do you have a pin up of the March issue on your wall?

Does he need to make threats? No.

Threatening the supply of gas and oil to the Ukraine would be considered a threat by most people.

If he decides to intervene, he will simply do it.

Like putting uniformless troops in Crimea?

Why box yourself in? Why tip your hand?

Actually he tipped his hand. Problem is, he has four 8's. There is little that can be done, other than diplomatic rattling. Diplomacy is a mind game, that you clearly know nothing about.

Obama is weak, not because he actions are weak (on the contrary, they are forceful to the point of recklessness).

What does that make W's actions? A big portion of the US's inability to assert some dominance of opinion is directly from how poorly the W admin rattled sabres, insulted out allies, and trusted in the soul of Putin.

He looks weak because he talks a tougher game than he can play. And John Kerry is even worse. In fact, one could argue that John Kerry's mouth is what makes Obama hand look so weak.

And in other news, in an alternate universe, BB complains about Obama not talking hard enough about Putin's actions.

 

[untermensche]

The inability to change with changing circumstances is the sign of a disturbed petty mind.

Just because the ape makes a threat is NO reason the ape must follow through on it. Some threats are bluffs.

And one thing that excludes one from rational discourse is praise of that murderous psychopath, Kissinger.

 

[ksen]

"the ape"

:golfclap:

 

[boneyard bill]

And what has Putin threatened? Nothing with regard to Ukraine. But with respect to sanctions, he's threatened to bring down the dollar and has actually followed through on it by announcing that Russia will sell oil for rubles. Will that bring down the dollar? Very likely, though it may take a few years.

How many years? Less than 10? More than 10?

How will we know what will it look like when the US dollar has been 'brought down'? How many Euro will it buy?

Is there some point, boneyard bill, that your repeated failed predictions of the downfall of the US dollar will begin to give you pause about predicting its downfall again?

Actually, there are different ways in which you could claim that the dollar has fallen. I don't claim that the dollar has fallen, but I do claim that it is falling. It is in the process of coming down but, as they say, "The fall doesn't hurt you, it's the sudden stop at the end." In this context I would interpret Putin's claim to mean that he will bring down the dollar as the reserve currency and that he will do this by agreeing to sell oil for rubles and perhaps even for other non-dollar currencies. The dollar has been valued as a reserve currency because you needed it to buy oil from OPEC countries, but now you can buy oil with rubles and probably yuan as well.

However, many contracts are already written in dollars, and dollars are the currency of choice for most international transactions because the financial infrastructure that is currently in place uses dollars. So Russia and China are setting up alternative financial infrastructures to replace them. I don't know how long this would take exactly. I imagine a few years but maybe it would take more than five.

But then you have the other problem of the dollar's value relative to other currencies. It's relative purchasing power. It could collapse before the Russians and Chinese bring it down due to our own excessive money printing. The IS collapsing. In 2000 it was valued at about 120 on the dollar index. Today it is about 80. If it would drop by another third it would be at about 67. I would define that as a collapse. Import prices would go up by about third for American consumers. We can't continue our present rate of money creation unless our major trading partners do the same thing and lately they have been accommodating us, but I don't think that will last forever. But putting a date on the collapse is difficult because if we have a depression, and we may be heading into one right now, the dollar would likely INCREASE insofar as our trading partners were able to avoid a depression or suffer less badly. (Because debt liquidation decreases the money supply). But, while a depression might delay a collapse (it depends on how policy-makers respond), I would suggest that we would still have a dollar collapse within the next decade simply due to our enormous debt. And I assume that, when no one will lend us money, policy-makers will print the money to pay bills and that would collapse the dollar. But any precise prediction in impossible because we have too many other problems going along with dollar weakness.

 

[Ford]

Obama is weak, not because he actions are weak (on the contrary, they are forceful to the point of recklessness). He looks weak because he talks a tougher game than he can play. And John Kerry is even worse. In fact, one could argue that John Kerry's mouth is what makes Obama hand look so weak.

If this is the definition of weak, the Putin makes Obama look like a strongman.

Putin is attempting to re-assert Russia as a superpower on par with his former employers in the KGB. He's talking tough, walking tough, and using the apparatus of his state effectively on a local level, but to pretend that he's returning Russia to the world stage on the same level as the former Soviet Union is to buy into his bullshit completely.

Russia is causing considerable grief for their neighbors, but the idea that Putin is the next Lenin or Stalin or even Kruschev is laughable.

Forceful to the point of recklessness? That's Vlad Putin. Talks a tougher game than he can play? That's Putin. The guy is clearly out of his depth, and struggling mightily to remain relevant. He's helped by an inept government in Kiev but also by brainless cheerleaders in the West who think he's somehow "beating" Obama by being a tough guy.

 

[boneyard bill]

I interpret "mind or own business" as becoming more of a team player on the world stage and not being the superstar, top dog, big bully, however it may be seen through your eyes.
What would this mean for other nations if the US did? Would they not have to build up their militaries? Yes, and this would lead to a more unstable world. There is a greater risk of conflict when everyone has a gun rather than just the world's cop on the beat. Consider too, China and it's neighbors. Should Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, etc. throw more of their resources toward defense? You do see where this leads to a more unstable world?

Screw Russia. They export energy period Obama has advisors. He and Kerry are not making decisions in a vacuum. Because Russia is largely dependent upon it's energy exports, small measured steps is what is required. Obama does not loose any credibility for rattling his sabre, not amongst anyone that matters. Putin knows he is dependent upon this one export. All the important players know we should not hit Russia too hard at their one vital export. They would face economic instability and have no choice but to lash out.

Russia is a distraction. China is the concern. The world having one cop and one currency brings stability and the world recognizes this.

Your first sentence got it right, and in case you hadn't noticed, other countries ARE building up their defenses. China has the second largest military budget in the world but it also has the fastest growing. Russia has invested heavily in military technology, partly because it is their major industrial export, but also to stay competitive with the US technologically.

It was incredibly foolish of us to admit the old Warsaw Pact countries into NATO. It was a great provocation to Russia. Then we even admitted the Baltic States and urged NATO to admit Ukraine and Georgia. These are all former Soviet Republics and all of this is provocative toward Russia as well as our construction of anti-missile bases in Eastern Europe. Offensive missiles can easily replace the anti-missile missiles and pose a serious threat to Russia's ballistic missile forces. Syria is another threat to Russia because they have a naval base their.

Meanwhile, on the Chinese front we have taken too great an advantage of China's dependence on the US market. Our easy money policies have forced the Chinese to create inflation in their own domestic market or face a devaluation of the dollar relative to the yuan. This would force up the price of Chinese goods in the US and decrease their exports. At the same time this policy reduces the value of the Chinese holdings of US Treasuries. They have now ceased to buy US Treasuries because they are losing value to quickly, but they still roll over their old bonds. If they ceased rolling over the old ones, we would be in a world of hurt. The Chinese also have noticed our aggressive policies toward Russia and in the Middle East. This has led Russia and China to bury the hatchet. They have resolved their border dispute, and have joined Russia in forming Shanghai Cooperation Organization and, perhaps partly in response to the Ukrainian situation, have just signed a $400 billion gas deal with Russia.

So yes. That's why I say we should mind our own business. Our aggressive foreign policy has created a new Cold War in which Russia and China are united against us and even India may emerge as a new junior partner. India is already buying Iranian oil in violation of our sanctions and have supported Russia against the US in the Ukrainian situation. So much for "isolating" Russia.

 

[boneyard bill]

Nice Squirrel writes:

Cool story bro.

Obama is continually putting himself in exactly that position. If you draw a "red line" and then don't follow through on it, you look weak. If you make threats and then follow up with useless gestures, you look weak.

My point here is not that Obama should follow through on his threats. I'm not saying that he should enforce the red lines he has drawn. The mistake is in making the threats. His mistake is in drawing the red lines in the first place.

Please enlighten us, what are these "red lines" he has drawn? Is it like Qaddafi's line of death? Or is it some minor nit-pick you have because he is a Democrat and you feel you must criticize him at all points?

Not been paying much attention to foreign affairs, have you? The "red line" is a reference to Obama's "red line" in Syria on the use of chemical weapons which he was to back down on. The sanctions are a reference to the threats he made regarding Russia's actions in Crimea which didn't stop Putin doing what he wanted to do and the laughably trivial "sanctions" that he actually imposed. Serious sanctions were not a serious threat, so why make any threats at all? You're gonna hear another word.

Apparently you weren't on these boards when I was denouncing Bush's policies in the middle east including, and especially, the Iraq War. Our policies under Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have all been disastrous for the US.

He should memorize Kissinger's lines. He would always say something like, "This could create a very grave situation." No threats, nothing specific, no commitments that you need to back down from.

So Obama threatens "sanctions" against Russia and what do we get. A few oligarchs are banned. This is the diplomatic equivalent of "unfriending" someone on Facebook. "Ooh, ooh, I'm scared," Putin has to be saying to himself.

So you think a quick escalation and brinkmanship diplomacy is the way to go in a region that could be easily destabilized?

No. Where the hell do you get that idea? I'm suggesting hands off in Eastern Europe. We've got enough on the table with the expanded NATO nations. We have no vital interests in either Ukraine or Georgia. Russia does. Let them have their little sphere of influence there. We have little to gain and a whole lot to lose.

And what has Putin threatened? Nothing with regard to Ukraine. But with respect to sanctions, he's threatened to bring down the dollar and has actually followed through on it by announcing that Russia will sell oil for rubles. Will that bring down the dollar? Very likely, though it may take a few years.

So what you are saying is that Russia is threatening nothing, but we should respond by escalation of the situation?

No! We should get the hell out. (And yes, we ARE there. We have Blackwater mercenaries their and CIA agents at a minimum. Not to mention that we've poured 5 billion dollars into "democracy promotion" for a country that already had a democratically elected government).

And how long is a "few years"? 5? 10? 100? 500?

Probably tomorrow if the Chinese were willing to help. I suppose 3 to 5 years, but I really don't know. They need to build an alternative financial infrastructure, but both China and Russia are working on it.

Obama has encouraged and abetted the overthrow of Ukraine's democratically-elected government and has inherited a bankrupt country that is also a political and economic basket-case. Putin has encouraged and abetted the secession of Crimea, (although it's questionable that he even needed to given the mess in Kiev).

Please post statements by Obama encouraging the overthrow of the Ukraine's democratically-elected government. Also post how Obama "inherited a bankrupt country that is also a political and economic basket-case". <-Are you speaking about the United States?

The US spend 5 billion dollars on democracy promotion and we defined the protestors in the Maidan as democracy protestors. In fact, many of those demonstrators were admitted neo-Nazis and many others were ultra-nationalist Ukrainians known as the Right Sector. Many of them were armed. The intercept of Asst Sec of State Victoria Nuland's phone call to our Ambassador clearly demonstrates that we were seeking to de-rail the EU negotiations that we trying to establish a peaceful settlement. The state department issued "warnings" to the democratically elected Ukrainian government not to use force to suppress the demonstrators in the Maidan. That government and its majority wound up fleeing for their lives from the "democracy forces" that we were promoting. There's lots about this on the internet but if you have kept up, you'll have to make the effort to get up to speed on your own.

Do this and we can discuss his actions

.

Meanwhile, while that government massacres its own Russian-speaking citizens, Putin has threatened nothing even though Russia has claimed the right to protect Russian-speaking citizens in former Soviet states. Instead he offers negotiations and compromise.

Does he need to make threats? No. If he decides to intervene, he will simply do it. Why box yourself in? Why tip your hand?

Obama is weak, not because he actions are weak (on the contrary, they are forceful to the point of recklessness). He looks weak because he talks a tougher game than he can play. And John Kerry is even worse. In fact, one could argue that John Kerry's mouth is what makes Obama hand look so weak.

You really need to study up on diplomacy.

I'll wager that I've studied a good deal more diplomacy that you have.

 

[boneyard bill]

Ford writes:

Obama is weak, not because he actions are weak (on the contrary, they are forceful to the point of recklessness). He looks weak because he talks a tougher game than he can play. And John Kerry is even worse. In fact, one could argue that John Kerry's mouth is what makes Obama hand look so weak.

If this is the definition of weak, the Putin makes Obama look like a strongman.

Putin is attempting to re-assert Russia as a superpower on par with his former employers in the KGB. He's talking tough, walking tough, and using the apparatus of his state effectively on a local level, but to pretend that he's returning Russia to the world stage on the same level as the former Soviet Union is to buy into his bullshit completely.

Russia is causing considerable grief for their neighbors, but the idea that Putin is the next Lenin or Stalin or even Kruschev is laughable.

Forceful to the point of recklessness? That's Vlad Putin. Talks a tougher game than he can play? That's Putin. The guy is clearly out of his depth, and struggling mightily to remain relevant. He's helped by an inept government in Kiev but also by brainless cheerleaders in the West who think he's somehow "beating" Obama by being a tough guy.

You should apply for a job at the NY Times. You've got the party line down pretty well. The problem is, it's a complete fantasy. As I noted, Putin has made exactly ONE threat, and that is to bring down the dollar, and he will follow through on that eventually. Meanwhile he has offered compromise and negotiations and John Kerry has rejected all of his overtures. If Putin had wanted Ukraine, he could have been in Kiev before Kerry could have pronounced "invasion." But Putin didn't invade Ukraine or even Crimea. Putin is biding his time because he knows that the Kiev regime will not last.

 

[laughing dog]

As I noted, Putin has made exactly ONE threat, and that is to bring down the dollar, and he will follow through on that eventually.

Talk about having the Party line down and living in a fantasy world. Putin neither has the power, means nor inclination to bring the dollar down. The Russian economy is barely 2nd world at this juncture, and crumbling fast. Starting an economic war with the world's strongest economy would be economic suicide for Russia, and Putin is smart enough to know it.

 

[Ford]

You should apply for a job at the NY Times.

At least that would be a paying gig. You're promoting Putin's line for free.

Why?

 

[barbos]

Promoting "democracy" in Ukraine but not in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.
Hypocrisy of US foreign policy is pretty mind boggling.

 

[barbos]

In fact Russia should start promoting democracy in Bahrain (absolute monarchy). It would make much more sense than US "promoting" it Ukraine. Especially considering the fact that US has an important naval base there.