Russian President Vladimir Putin (courtesy dailymail.co.uk)

“Our Western partners headed by the United States prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destinies of the world, that it is only them who can be right.” – Russian President Vladimir Putin, Putin says U.S. guided by ‘the rule of the gun’ in foreign policy [via Reuters]

128 Responses to Quote of the Day: Putin Gets It Exactly Backwards. Or Does He? Edition

    • It has also been Russia’s foreign policy since forever. It’s funny that he says that given his troops are killing unarmed Ukrainian soldiers. There was also that whole bit in Georgia (the country not the state) a couple summers ago.

      • I think his point is that it is hypocritical for the US to wax poetic about the international rule of law.

        And yes, he’s spot on.

        • No he isn’t. The U.S. doesn’t flagrantly violate international law for reasons of empire like he is doing. There is no comparison between getting together a multitude of nations and invading Iraq to topple a murderous dictator and not taking any of the natural resources there, versus Putin taking control of Crimea.

        • Sorry, i missed the part where Putin went to the UN and formed a coalition or even asked the Ukraine if they wanted to give back a third of the country while unmarked soldiers occupied it.

          Spot on my ass.

        • And who started the mess , we sent in BLACKWATER to shoot up both sides, and that is why Putin came to Aid the Russian peoples, we also have send in special forces to aid the rebels as ALWAYS, the whole process is a false flag for what ? THE NEW WORLD ORDER! and they asked the Russians for help, and Russia was the first to send in $12 million in aid, it’s all about lies to start world war 3………..

    • If it had balls, would we be conducting more wars than just Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Lybia, Ethiopia, or the other couple dozen countries the U.S. military is “helping”??

    • This probably comes as a surprise to you two but war is constant in the relationship between nations. From the at least 15th Century through the early 19th Century nations were more in less a permanent state of war. The 19th Century, which was formative in the American psyche, was an anomaly. Between Waterloo and the Marne there were no large scale continent wide wars in Europe. The two big wars were very localized affairs in the Crimea and the Far East. The isolationist tradition makes the mistake of assuming it was our physical isolation from Europe in the 19th Century that kept us out war. If that were true than how did we get involved in the Napoleonic Wars when we were more isolated in 1812 than we were in 1880? It wasn’t our isolation that kept us out of war, it was that there were no foreign wars to get into. The 20th marked an end to this peaceful interlude and the world has returned to its normal state of continuous warfare.

  1. Had we not had that belief then the world would have been a much different place without us to counter balance Stalin and Mao. Picture the world of today if at the end of ww2 the Americans had stood down their military and retreated from the world stage.

    Would we still have 1a and 2a rights to argue about? Would the argument itself land us in the gulag or worse?

    • I don’t think Putin looks at Stalin and Mao the same way we do. He probably does appreciate the freedom he has to say that in Russian and not German, though I doubt he’d admit it.

      • He speaks fluent German. I read once he learned to speak German at home before Russian, also that he was secretly baptized by his mother. My understanding is that Putin is a devout, life long Christian.

        It is very stupid for people to think that the Russians were all Godless Communists. That all ended under Stalin, he made Christianity legal again in the Soviet Union and it slowly came back to the fore in Russia as Marxism gradually moved west. Now we are the Communists and nobody wants to admit it! It will be plain to everyone in another couple of generations.

        “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

        • I don’t believe you. Commies are not godless, baby-eating, heathen monsters? I am afraid they might have gotten to you.

        • Wow Fug, way to miss the point! Let me spell it out for you; Without American hegemony, the USSR would have lost their little war with Germany 70 years ago. He’s bitching about our hegemony, but without it he wouldn’t have a country to be dictator of, at least not west of the Urals. I guess he could be King of Siberia, maybe. Putin’s ability (or lack thereof) to speak German is completely irrelevant.

          As far as the existence of God fearing communists, I guess it’s possible at first, but religion and communism can never coexist for long. Communism requires subservience to the state or it breaks down, and Christianity preaches service to God’s will above man’s. Any communist, once in power will soon realize that you simply can’t have large segments of the population following their conscience.

          And as to your remark about us being the communists now, I can’t much argue that one. I’d like to blame it all on Obama, but it’s been creeping in for a hundred years now.

        • First of all, there’s no evidence that USSR wouldn’t be able to stand up against Germany in WW2 without American aid. The series of crucial points at which the tide was stopped and turned don’t really have much to do with it.

          Second, it is entirely possible to have religion combined with statism – heck, historically that was always the norm. When Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, he also made a lot of “heathen” and “heretical” practices illegal. Eastern Empire took it further and developed an entire concept of the “symphonia”, which is the notion that state and religion should be closely intertwined, with religious leaders pronouncing on moral issues while secular powers codify those pronouncements into law, and at the same time secular leaders doing their usual politics (e.g. waging war on nearby states) will full support from the religion. This doctrine has a lot of adherents in Russia, as the latter sees itself as an inheritor of the Byzantine legacy in many things, including as a state and as a worldwide preserver and defender of Eastern Orthodoxy.

        • I guess the Alaska Highway was a huge waste of wartime resources then. I would concede that Hitler’s incompetence as a general was nearly as helpful to the survival of the Soviet Union as our help was, but even after he allowed a whole division to freeze to death, it would have been quite difficult to push back the German army without planes, tanks, rifles, ammunition, clothes, and food. Not to mention the opening of the western front. I would say that at the very least the Soviet Union would have lost a great deal more than the 20 million souls it sacrificed to shed itself from Nazi aggression.

          I never said STATISM couldn’t coexist with religion, I said COMMUNISM couldn’t coexist for long. The two are not synonymous. Constantine never dreamed of exerting the kind of control over his citizens that Stalin wielded. In the ancient Roman empire you were free to move, to start a business, to work wherever you pleased, you could seek higher education. Even slaves were allowed to buy their freedom. They had more economic freedom than we do today. Under communism you were assigned a job. Period. You didn’t pay taxes, you gave the state EVERYTHING and they returned to you everything they deemed necessary to your well being. There was no provision for improving your life except through political favor. The communist state doesn’t need the clergy to bless it’s tanks and missiles, it needs religion to crush the spirit of it’s citizens and that is antithetical to the whole purpose of religion.

        • William, all I can say is that you are extremely misinformed about how the Soviet political system worked (they never called it “communism”, by the way – it was “socialism”, and “communism” was the promised future paradise that was always twenty years away). I can assure you that people did pay taxes, for example. They also owned property, took loans from banks (or rather the bank, since there was only one), and did a great many other things. It cracked down on private enterprise, yes, but it was not anything like the picture you’ve just painted.

          How do I know? Well, I was born there, though it collapsed while I was still a kid. My mother lived in it for a good half of her life, though.

        • Yes, socialism was the path to communism. What I described may have been the latter, but that was the plan, now wasn’t it? In the later years the Soviet leadership softened their stance. You were born into Perestroika and Glasnost. Stalin’s USSR was more like North Korea of today. He killed more Ukrainians in one year than Hitler killed Jews in 12. Even the most insignificant citizen lived his life in fear of the gulags. No other system of governance has ever come close to that.

        • The “plan” for communism was actually the absence of government – the idea being that it is an artifact of a class-based society, that would become redundant once class distinctions are eliminated, according to Marxist theory.

          And I may have been a child f perestroika, but my parents and grandparents definitely weren’t. Yes, Stalin’s USSR was a lot like NK. But there were many decades after his death and before Gorbachev that were different.

          And, by the way, even Stalin’s USSR had taxes.

        • The notion that governments could be eliminated after the classes had been erased is pure agitprop. First, no communist or Soviet style socialist (as opposed to western European social democratic) system has ever sustained itself without the ruler’s intimidation at the end of a gun. Even during Perestroika, leaving East Germany meant dodging bullets and landmines.

          Second, it is simply impossible to erase the classes, the classes can only be replaced with the same basic classes that exist in every society since the beginning of man, the ruling class and the country class. Capitalism is the natural state of free men. Without governments to tell men what to do, each man will fend for himself, i.e. capitalism. Without governments some men will be lazy and some will be adventurous. Some smart, some dumb. Some will do better than others and you will have classes. There’s simply no getting around that.

          As for the last nit I think I’ll pick tonight, whether or not the USSR had ‘taxes’ is irrelevant. If you work for the government it doesn’t matter if they pay you a hundred dollars and then take fifty out of your check or whether they just pay you fifty in the first place. If everyone is employed by the government then taxes are pointless. You could say the same for public workers in this country.

        • William, you’re still missing the point. Of course it was “agitprop”, I told as much already. The point is that the word “communism” was used to describe the future, supposedly ideal society. Of course, that society never came and couldn’t come. All I’m saying is that USSR was not “communist”, not even if you asked themselves. It was “socialist”.

          Regarding communism being a classless society, as noted, this is a cornerstone of the Marxist doctrine. Since Marxists define the entire history of humanity from class struggle, and explain rapid transformation from one economic system (which they refer to as “mode of production”) to another by appearance of new classes – e.g. the newly appeared worker class both caused by and accelerating the transformation from feudalism to capitalism – it follows that whatever the “next step” would be after socialism, Marxism would require that classes change further. Since everything bad in Marxism is also explained as results of class struggle, eliminating the bad requires eliminating class struggle, which is only possible with eliminating classes. At the same time, the resulting society would presumably be “final”, since, lacking classes, there’s nowhere further to evolve.

          This all is really quite similar to, on one hand, religion, except that here “class struggle” is the original sin that has to be overcome. And, on the other hand, to Fukuyama’s “end of history”, claiming that there is some high point of social development beyond which it’s not possible to go. Marxism unifies both, effectively promising literal heaven on earth at the end of that road, and “communism” is the name of that heaven – and therefore “communist” is the one who strives to achieve it. By the end of the USSR, all that stuff was pretty much religion in all but name, with its prophets and holy books and dogmas that you couldn’t question lest you be labeled a heretic.

          As for taxes, I was merely pointing out that your original post is incorrect as a statement of fact in many ways (the part about “betterment” is also patently false, for example – your salary would grow as your career progressed, which in turn was defined in large degree by your abilities and your desire to work hard), so the conclusions you draw from all that are also quite invalid.

          Communism, and any other form of statism, can easily coexist with religion, so long as said religion is sufficiently cooperative. All it takes is for religion to declare that the government has a direct mandate from God to rule according to his laws (which, if you read the Bible, is almost there – all it needs is a bit of word bending to adjust to any given situation), and for the government to make protecting and promoting that religion an explicit part of its mission. It doesn’t matter how intrusive the government can be, this can always be justified – in fact religion makes it easier, since you can always declare your enemies “heretics”.

          To give a specific example, in Imperial Russia since Peter the Great, the ruling monarch was also the head of the Church. And Peter, acting in that capacity, had personally ordered all his priests to report him any evidence of subversion that they encountered in confessions – and quite a lot of people were burned that way. Was Peter a communist? Hell no. He was definitely a very strong statist, though, and he successfully bent Christianity to serve his goals to that end.

  2. In 1938 Hitler annexed the Sudetenland because of the ethnic germans that lived there. A year later he invaded Poland and WWII started. I think Putin believes that Obama will act like Neville Chamberlain did and just shoot his mouth off rather than do anything else. The old Soviet Union may not be as dead as we think it is.

    • Russia isnt. And Putin certainly knows it. I dont know if Ive ever seen a politician other than Truman that was better at RealPolitik.

    • If only we had Neville Chamberlin. After all he did go to war over Poland.

      Putin is not trying to ressurect the Soviet Union. He is trying to rebuild the Great Russian Empire. There is a big difference because it isn’t based on a global ideology just Russian exceptionalism. See the 19th Century concept of Moscow as the “Thrid Rome.”

      • “Third Rome” is not a 19th century concept, it’s a 15th century concept. Still alive and well, though – and from Eastern Orthodox perspective it even makes some sense (Russia being the biggest Orthodox country today).

  3. “The very idea that the Soviet Union was defeated is disinformation in itself. The Soviet Union changed its name and dropped its façade of Marxism, but it remained the same samoderzhaviye, the historical Russian form of autocracy in which a tsar is running the country with the help of his political police…During the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within the state. Now the KGB is the state.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/02/10/highest-ranking-soviet-bloc-intel-officer-to-ever-defect-russia-today-is-the-first-intelligence-dictatorship-in-history/

    • Almost, but not quite. It is Tsarist Russia that never really collapsed and had the name and players change, and it is the Tsarist Russian Empire, not the Soviet Union he ultimately wished to resurrect around himself. I was there during Yeltsin’s slide and Putin’s rise. He is not a true Communist (very few ever were), he is a nationalistic opportunist. As for the disinformation campaign, that’s because when Putin needs to, he’ll gladly use his old training to accomplish his goals. It doesn’t mean he’s still a Soviet, only that he knows their tactics will still work to achieve his ends.

      Put simply, he has no desire to be Stalin when he can be Peter the Great.

  4. We are exceptional, in theory. Name one other country that has the same level of personal freedom that our constitution protects. This is especially true with the 2nd amendment.

    Sometimes the smartest person in the room has to keep the rowdy people in check… or is it out of Czech.

    Then again I believe we should be more isolationist than global nanny.

    • I think when people refer to “American exceptionalism” they are referencing the fact that the U.S. government does many of the same things that it invades other countries for doing. Sorta like, the U.S. can do it, but nobody else is allowed to.

      • No, American exceptionalism is the fact that America is capable of accomplishing great feats no other country can. Name me another country that’s landed men on the moon? Who else has rovers (plural) on Mars? What other country has a satellite that’s left our solar system? Who invented the computer processor, ushering in todays modern marvels and great discoveries? Who pulled everyones bacon out of WWI and WWI with our military and our money? When natural disasters hit other countries, what countries private citizens donate more money than other countries combined donations, or their own countries taxpayer funded aid for that matter? What other country has freed itself from the largest world power at the time, kept it’s freedom, then the leaders of the revolution wrote a document transferring that power to the people of the nation and not keeping it for themselves? Exceptional? I think we’ve earned that description.

        • Putin’s not using “execptionalism” as a compliment. I agree that’s how Americans see it, but people in other countries have a different point of view.

          No one may have nukes, except the U.S.
          No one may invade other countries, except the U.S.
          No one may meddle in another countries political process, except the U.S.
          No one may have a military presence all over the world, exept the U.S.

          That’s how U.S. “exceptionalism” is viewed from outside our borders.

        • Spot on, most of us don’t like the US because of the hypocrisy.

          US complains that China monitors it citizens…Later a guy confesses that the US spies on pretty much everyone, to top it off he is deemed a traitor and terrorist.

          Another guy shows proof of US war crimes only to be deemed a traitor and terrorist.

          US says that everyone should get rid of their nukes, while keeping their own and trying to deny other countries from deveoloping nuclear power for non-weapons purposes.

          Regarding WW2: The US didn’t save everyones bacon in WW2, neither did Russia. They did it together (why does this feel like an 80’s movie?).

        • I may disagree with your other stuff but your last statement on WWII is more or less correct. Actually the country that saved Stalin’s bacon was Japan. When Japan made the decision to go South in September, 1941 this information was prompty reported to the Soviets by Richard Sorge. Now that Stalin knew that Japan would not attack in the Far East he was able to send the bulk of these force to launch the counterattact that save Moscow in December 1941. Had Japan gone north game over for the Soviet Union.

          While you are more or less correct about the nature of WWII the United States with key player. We projected immense amounts of combat power on a global scale in all warfare domains. Nobody could do that. However, had Japan stayed neutral in the World War and settled the China War the US could have devoted all that combat power to the war in Europe. We would have rolled over the Germans and if necessary the Soviets without any problems.

        • If the Axis powers had acted like a team, the Allies would have been in a world of hurt. Japan failed to help Germany put Russia in a two-front war; on a smaller scale, Finland failed to help Germany at Leningrad. And of course there was rivalry between the Duce and the Fuhrer, which caused Germany to have to spread its resources to even more fronts in Southern Europe and Africa. It’s kind of amazing the Nazis got as far as they did.

        • Empty headed, yes, but what is a comment on the internet anyway? An message sent into the void that noone will remember in 10-20 years.

          Finland didn’t screw up, they didn’t want to be part of it. They just played both Russia and Germany for their own benefit.

        • No one may have nukes, except the U.S.
          No one may invade other countries, except the U.S.
          No one may meddle in another countries political process, except the U.S.
          No one may have a military presence all over the world, exept the U.S.

          That’s how U.S. “exceptionalism” is viewed from outside our borders.

          Plenty of countries can have nukes if they want, so long as they are liberal democracies who respect human rights and freedoms. If they are authoritarian systems that do not do so, then the U.S. has a problem, as it should. Saying that all countries should be allowed nukes regardless is like saying that the murderers, rapists, and terrorists in society all have a right to guns.

          As for invading other countries, the only countries in the world that have the capability to invade other nations are ones that do so for reasons of empire and oppression, not freedom. Not sure what countries you are referring to regarding the political process.

          The U.S. does not stop any countries from having a military presence all over the world, it’s just that none do, and the last one that did was an horrendously evil authoritarian system. If another free country had a military comparable to the U.S. military and wanted to split underwriting global security, the U.S. would likely welcome it.

          So most of these arguments are nonsense.

        • Japanese didn’t decide to bow out from the war with Soviets just cuz, you know. They still remembered the ass whooping that they had received not long before at Khalkhin Gol.

    • Is Putin holding a Stechkin pistol? The one which takes a buttstock and fires full auto, like a Mauser 912?

      Yes, and we can’t have one.

    • He’s playing chess and the US is playing Mario Cart. I’ve believed since day one this is all over but the theater. Putin’s won, and we’re just finding a way to “save face” (and it won’t work, we’ll lose more).

      • In that case he’s a horrible chess player. He made bad gambits on Libya, Egypt and Syria and almost lost their last warm water port by making “deals you can’t refuse” with the Ukrainian leadership and antagonizing the citizens to revolt. But never mind that analogy as chess is an ineffectual model for international relations. As clearly demonstrated, international diplomacy is multidimensional irrational and nuanced in a way chess is not.

        • that’s not why we call some people “chess players” in the context of international relations. It’s used to describe someone who can anticipate their opponent(s), stay 1 or 2 moves ahead of them, and understand what they can and cannot do (or are willing to do) and use it against them.

          Putin demonstrates his ability to put Obama in check (he can do what he wants and Obama is unable, or unwilling to counter) that’s why Putin is a better chess player than Obama.

  5. Putin is a statist, but at least he’s a nationalist statist. It’s internationalist statists that will REALLY screw up the world.

  6. “Putin says U.S. guided by ‘the rule of the gun’ in foreign policy”

    Yeah, that sounds about right.

    In my limited understanding of things I don’t approve of that policy. Who knows, maybe I would advocate for the exact same approach if I had all the facts.

  7. Putin knows Obama is a wimp on Foreign Policy because the administration never had any Foreign Policy to begin with. Obama has been so focused on populist progressive issues or playing golf he has no time for the domestic economy nor foreign policy — his entire presidency has been a farce and Putin knows that he has the upper hand.

    Deep in debt, a crappy economy and no plan means the USA/EU are toothless and Putin can do whatever he damn well pleases and he knows it.

    How is Libya doing? Egypt? Iraq? — our foreign policy sucks!

    • You are funny.

      They do have democracy in Russia. Just call it what it is, you want to invade Russia and create another clusterfvck there like you did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don’t forget the drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan. I shouldn’t even mention all the proxy wars and indirect conflicts you caused.

      • We have democracy in Russia, really? Last time there were parliamentary elections, the fraud was so massive that “146%” (that’s the number of people who voted for the “right guys” in one of the regions, according to the official rolls) became a national meme.

  8. If only Americans had a leader that projected strength and diplomacy and real leadership..

    instead we ended up with a community activist rolling up to the east entrance of the white house in a clown car..
    Putin OWNED Obummer the day he stepped foot in the Whitehouse, we have a KGB trained agent with plenty of confidence, trying to do business with with a Chicago based community organizer.. and this is the best we can do…

  9. Obama is the modern day Neville Chamberlain of foreign policy, and the world is in a great deal of danger as a result. He’s cutting military spending at a time that Russia and China have beefing theirs up for 8 – 10 years. You can either believe Obama and his cabinet is actually this stupid, or realize he’s been setting our country up for a fall since day one.

  10. It’s kinda funny Putin is talking about the rule of the gun or whatnot and gear he is at the range. Last time I checked it’s very difficult to acquire firearms in Russia. But Obama, please stop listening to whoever you “listen” too on FP. it’s clearly not working

    • “Last time I checked it’s very difficult to acquire firearms in Russia.”

      Not really.

      It’s definitely not “walk into a store and buy one” as in the US, but it’s definitely not as bad as some other Euro countries. The dumbest part is there is a graduated licensing program, and you have to demonstrate proficiency with a specific type of firearm (i.e. shotguns) over time before you can move up to rifles, and so on.

      But, in Russia and many neighboring satellites, unregistered ownership is rampant. For example I believe Serbia has one of the highest gun ownership levels in the world.

  11. I know the Neocons and Obamahawks insist that this is not about turning Ukraine into another EU slave state and more importantly a NATO “ally” bordering western Russia, but we weren’t any happier about the USSR trying to put nukes and other military assets on Cuba… ~50 miles off the US coast.

    The reality is that the TPP fell through and destabilizing Russia’s supply of gas to the EU is the next best way to get deals signed to get the EU onboard with building the infrastructure required for us to ship and sell them our newly found wealth of fracked natural gas.

    On December 13, 2013 Victoria Nuland stood in front of Exxon and Chevron signs at the National Press Club in Washington and bragged about how we have spent US$5 BILLION to destabilize Ukraine. Then of course the “revolution” in Ukraine was timed specifically to occur during the Sochi Olympics, a time when there wasn’t much Russia could do to respond since they were the sole focus of the international spotlight.

    I still don’t understand whether “we” actually expected Putin to roll over or whether we’re intentionally going “Canadian Bacon” here and trying to start another new armed conflict that has nothing to do with our national security interest beyond selling natural gas and trying to punish Russia for granting Edward Snowden asylum.

    • A nice twist on the war for oil conspiracy theorist. Now that we are the energy kings we start wars to sell fuel instead of buying it. You clowns ought to go back and see what the “anti-war” activists were saying in the 1930s. Pete Seegar had a great anti-war song that he released just in time for the German invaision of the USSR. Boy, did he scramble to get that off the shelves because the party line had changed. The more the change the more the stay the same.

    • Really? Somebody needs to tell the subjects of NY, CT, CA, and various other post Constitutional states that.

    • There’s been no “taking over” in Crimea. 95% of Crimeans (who are ethnically Russian) voted in their referendum to join Russia.

      Is democracy only valid when it’s accomplished through U.S. invasion?

      Besides, why should we care if they join Russia? Even if it was a take over, should we really risk nuclear war over such an insignificant land grab?

      • You may be right. I have not idea what’s really going on over in Ukraine. My comment was more about our president and his priorities, like going on TV to talk about his NCAA bracket.

        • I agree. He’s a buffoon. My statement was more directed toward the tired rhetoric which various warmongers keep spouting in the MSM. I didn’t mean anything against you and your point does have validity.

      • If you believe that was the real number. 15% of the population is Tartar. Theyabsolutely hate the Russians for what Stalin did to them. Another 25% is Ukrainian and they also absolutely hate the Russians for the same reasons the Tartars do. Some might still long for the good old days. Those few would be undoubtedly balanced by some Russians who don’t want to be part of Putin’s empire. Did Anschluss carry the day? Probably, but not by that kind of lopsided vote that was posted. Putin actually would have been able to claim more legitimacy if the vote was something like 70-30 than 95%. Nobody gets 95% the vote with these demographics.

        • Crimea, historically, was never part of the Ukraine. It was once part of Turkish Empire, then conquered by the Tsars. It was added to Ukrainian territory as a “gift” from Premier Khrushchev in 1954, and except for a tiny isthmus, has no connection to Ukraine proper. As many have noted, it has a huge ethnic Russian population. Yes there are the Tartars–who fairly recently returned after having been forcibly removed by Stalin (they were trouble makers.) Russia has direct national security interests in the Crimean peninsula–the US has no interest in Crimea at all except as a political tool pointed at the heart of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The US has no significant military assets in the region, and there is no viable military solution to the Russian occupation except WWIII. Ukraine cannot invade to “recapture” this territory–even assuming it had an actual military and not a bunch of untrained volunteers–because Russia can easily cut off any source of reinforcement or resupply. If Obama is toothless, it is because that is the political and military reality, not any personal failing.

          In my view, the brouhaha about Ukraine/Crimea is the same old geo-political posturing that powerful nations engage in, and has nothing to do with what the people that live there think, nor any interest they have in self-determination. And after our support for the Arab Spring and the “revolution” in Syria seeking “freedom,” our support of the mujahidin in Afghanistan when it was controlled by Russia, our contempt of the Crimean separatists and their vote is hypocritical in the extreme. The only reason the US is involved at all is because “we” are attempting to establish a government friendly to us and inimical to the interests of its vast Russian neighbor.

        • You mean inimical to the interests of a tyrannical government of said neighbor. There is no moral equivalency between the United States and the free nations of the world and a country like Russia. And why shouldn’t we establish a government that respects human rights and freedoms and is friendly to us, to counter the Russian menace further?

        • The point that Americans do NOT UNDERSTAND is we do not OWN the world and get to run it for the PROFIT of a FEW ONE WOLDERS , not for American interest, WE pay the bills in BLOOD AND MONEY and Americans can not understand why the WHOLE WORLD hates us. OUR country is being destroyed by PLAN , NO JOBS, everything is falling down and apart here to bailout a few BANKSKERS ! WAKE UP AMERIKA , WE are the ANTI-CHRIST…(the real evil empire).and FOX and CNN will never tell the TRUTH.

        • First of all, it’s “Tatar”, not “Tartar”. Tartar is an old, antiquated version that is corruption of the actual name.

          Tatars actually had an independent state there for a while, Ottomans only came later. Even then they weren’t strictly a part of the Ottoman Empire, but rather a vassal state – which basically means that they paid taxes to Porta, but little else. Oh, and also, those are close relative to other Tatars which have a republic for themselves in Russia called Tatarstan.

          Regarding demographics, it’s not all that simple. Yes, if you go by ethnic self-identification, you have 60% Russian, 25% Ukrainian, 12% Tatar. However those labels don’t necessarily correspond to political leanings. A great many of those 25% of Crimean Ukrainians, for example, speak Russian exclusively, and generally consider themselves to belong to the Russian cultural sphere – really, the only thing Ukrainian about them is their last name, which they inherited from their great-grandparent. It’s kinda like 3rd generation immigrants in US who are Polish-American or something, but really they are just Americans of Polish ancestry.

          Tatars… it’s not clear how they actually voted because we don’t have trustworthy independent numbers. But there are some reasons why they could vote in favor. As noted, Tatars already have their own republic as part of Russia (remember, it’s a federation), Tatarstan. That republic actually has Tatar as its official regional language, it’s mandatory in schools etc. All in all, they are faring pretty well. If similar degree of autonomy would be promised to Crimean Tatars, I can see how some would be swayed with that, rather than be a minority in a unitarian Ukrainian state (Ukraine is NOT a federation, and the special status of Crimea can be revoked as quickly as it was granted by the central parliament). There were some rumors about discussions along those lines, but it was all hush hush.

          Anyway, the official numbers are 96% in favor, with a turnout of 80%. Which gives 76% of actual votes in favor of those eligible to vote. So basically, if the russophone Ukrainian vote was split in half, that alone would expect the results.

      • There is no risk of nuclear war. Putin is not going to get into a nuclear war over something like that. And no, Crimea doesn’t have a right to democratically vote itself to be part of Russia. Imagine the following scenario:

        On the border of Mexico and the US are two cities, Juarez (Mexico) and El Paso (US). They are separated by the Rio Grande river, which at some places you can pretty much walk across. They are, in essence, the same city. El Paso is home to Ft Bliss, an Army installation. People from both cities move about fairly freely. Let’s pretend a bunch of Texans took up residence in Juarez. Now let’s say they start bitching that they don’t like the Mexican government, and want Juarez to join the US. Now let’s say Obama orders several divisions of Soldiers and Marines into Juarez, simply to “protect English speaking Americans.” Now let’s say Obama encourages a “free election” for the residents of Juarez to choose their own way (yes, with the 30K U.S. Soldiers there to make sure things say peaceful.) Now, all those ex pat Texans vote to join the US, and Obama says democracy has been served.

        I would think that every person who rails about America’s global presence on this board would be screaming about what a blatant move of imperialism this was on the part of the U.S.

  12. Biblical prophecy unfolding as I type. This is NOT the 1930’s. Hitler had no nuclear weapons. Putin does. Obama is not Neville Chamberlain. More like JUDAS. Some dark days ahead. Hope you’re ready.

  13. US intervention in Panama…turned a third world cesspit into a 2nd world nation, aspiring to be a first world nation.
    Nicaragua, if US allies were funded it would resemble Panama today.
    East and West Germany

    Russia goes in without a plan and screws things up for both the locals and them.

    When the US goes in without a plan it screws up too…so when we go gun totting the american way people benefit, when we try to emulate russia crap happens.

    • So far the locals (if you mean Crimeans specifically) sound pretty happy, given how e.g. the pensions are going to quadruple…

  14. Say what you want, but Putin is Anti-NEW WORLD ORDER , Christian, A Peace maker, and is for the Russian people , Now Obama is PRO-New World ORDER, Anti-Christian/JEW, hates the Bill of Rights, and the American way! Is the picture upside down????????????

    • Right. The only upside to Putin is that he likes Jews and has good relations with Israel. I wouldn’t be surprised if everytime he sells a toy to Iran or Syrian he makes sure the israelis know how to counter it.

  15. Okay, now that all of that is out of the way, someone tell us what is the make/model of the pistol he is holding. You know, the important stuff.

    • As noted earlier, it appears to be the Stechkin 9mm automatic pistol, with an attachable holster/buttstock & full auto capable. Model of 1951.

      (Drool, drool)

  16. I recently had a nightmare of nuclear war that started exactly the way people thought it would (escalation) where men who knew what was coming and hated the idea of it still couldn’t stop it because they were afraid of being considered “wimps” (by the sorts of people who posted that above). It’s been quite some time since that has been a threat on the horizon worth being scared over. Getting into an international pissing match is how a cold war starts; refusing to back down is one way it ends. Before we start talking about the manliness of a leader based on foreign policy, can we ask ourselves: is it wise? Is it wise to demand that someone whip out his dick (or threaten to use our military) over an issue? What if it comes down to nuclear war? Is Crimea worth that? If not, stfu and stop trying to score political points (looking at you republicans that did nothing when Putin took Georgia). If so… I certainly hope you’re in the military ready to go over there.

    There are times to risk war. But is it reasonable and prudent to do so when Russia is doing what would be akin to us invading mexico (again)? We are not all Ukrainians, McCain. And this is a great reason why we shouldn’t be tying ourselves in knots expanding NATO where it doesn’t belong.

    • Going to war over the Crimea is isolationist stawman. Nobody is talking milirary intervention. There are far more effective ways of punshing Russia. Russia is a petrostate run by Oligarchs. The way to apply pressure is economic. Exporting natural gas from the US and application of fracking technology in Europe will be sufficient to reduce the wealth and ambition of the Russia Oligarchs.

  17. Interesting that there is so much man lust for Putin as a studly man and so little clear-headed analysis of his intentions and track record.

    Russian gun laws are strict for a reason, and that reason is not expanding the rights of citizens or allowing for protections from criminals (read bankers, oligarchs and mafia).

    My feeling is that Ukraine will rapidly liberalize their gun laws like the Chech Republic because they’ve seen what Russian-style strongman rule Putin has to offer and want to see none of that again.

  18. I have to respect Putin for a whole list of reasons – there’s no shame in respecting your enemy and he’s formidable. He’s Steve Jobs to Microsoft in the late 90s coming back to Apple so he can kick some @ss. Putin while not a communist is a Russian Nationalist and a strong proponent of Russian Nationalism and he blames the US for Russia’s economic woes of the 80s and 90s and wants to make us suffer. In essence he’s looking for ways to rub our noses in it.

    Russia has a strong sense of nationalism much stronger than we currently have in the US if you don’t believe me go watch the recently released Stalingrad movie. It’s the modern Russian version of a John Wayne flick that was so over the top with nationalistic pride I laughed through it. Their attitude is that they are the underdogs but kicked the Nazi @sses and that’s exactly the Russian mentality towards the US. We should be concerned and even a little frightened because they’re not an enemy we can just roll up on and kick the sh!t out of (and if you think they are think again) and they’re just looking for an excuse for a fight with us.

    We won’t go to war over Crimea but this annexing of smaller countries on his border is vaguely reminiscent of 1930s Europe only difference is Putin isn’t insane and has ready access to oil. My guess we’ll be at war with Russia at least indirectly (think Korea 1950s) in the near future.

    • We could very much kick the daylights out of Russia in a direct military confrontation. It would be foolish to try something like invading Russia however.

  19. Yeah, Putin’s right. The USA uses force of arms whenever it wishes to do so, like when we were killing Christians in Kosovo to protect people who wanted us dead.

    We used to be exceptional. Now we’re struggling just to be relevant.

    • …and our erstwhile allies now realize that we’re no longer dependable, much less relevant.

  20. Looking at this forum it is clear to see why the US is so shitty internationally.
    You have great number of useful idiots who don’t know much of history and don’t seem to recognize that the US is not the world’s police, is not the proverbial city on the hill, that there is no such thing as “american exceptionalism”, and that the US is just as bad as Putin is, if not worse.

    Putin is 100% on the money and it has nothing to do with Obama, because Bush did the same thing, as did Clinton, as did Bush Sr, as did Reagan, and we can probably go back to the revolutionary war as to when it all started going down. smh.

    Non-interventionism is something we should go back to folks. Let Ukrainians handle their own issues.

    • The U.S. is very much the world’s police. It is the United States that has underwritten the freedom of the free world since the end of World War 2. It is the United States that underwrites global trade and global security and which provides the defense infrastructure for the militaries of the other free countries to use (as they have virtually no real military capability—witness France begging us to airlift their troops into Mali).

      Nor is the U.S. as bad or worse than Putin. The U.S. does not seek empire. You did not see the U.S. stealing the resources from Iraq for example. Non-interventionism is a fool’s errand. For one, it means that we leave all of our liberal democracy allies at the mercy of nations like China and Russia, from which they will not be able to defend against. Two is that it takes the notion that the U.S. can be non-interventionist and not have its national security affected. Three, it will lead to utter chaos and possibly another major world war if the U.S. stops being interventionist, thus forcing us to fight in said war ultimately.

      • You seem to have world police confused with sole super power. The US hasn’t underwritten freedom at all. It has underwritten what is best for its business, nothing more and nothing less. If that means supporting murderous dictators, killing/discrediting popular leaders, or using its military to ensure the profitability and protection of the businesses with access to the reins of power it will do so. That you think WW2 was about freedom, when the US supported Stalin who killed more people than Hitler and was allied with Hitler in the invasion of Poland, tells us all we need to know about the depth of your intellect and knowledge.

        As for trade and security, explain to me how trade existed before the US and why the US oddly tries to invade and destablize countries that want to trade around it and not become a slave to the IMF? You can’t can you, doesn’t fit your narrative. Stop believing propaganda and open your eyes.

        Yes the US is just as bad as Putin. The US does not seek empire? Idiot, the US is an empire.
        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_x7xNgfhbbWo/TLxelasZ3uI/AAAAAAAAAxI/vXjiH6TT6e0/s1600/bases55.jpg
        We have bases on every continent except Antarctica. We monitor the world through the nsa, unilaterally attack any country we deem a threat without providing any evidence of the claim. What is the difference between what the US did in Libya, Syria, the Ukraine and Iraq and what Russia has done with Crimea? Atleast there was a open election held, even if it was doctored, compared to the either the arming of rebels or aiding of rebels to overthrow elected government like the US did in the 4 other nations I posted. That you don’t have the capability to even see that speaks to the depths that you have been indoctrinated and are incapable of offering up any rational thought.

        The US didn’t steal Iraqi resources,
        http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html
        Yeah those western oil firms that setup business after Saddam was deposed that, just happened, it wasn’t aided by the US invasion. Same with LIbya right, their oil was nationalized and they were talking about leaving the dollar and switching to a gold backed currency and next thing you know Ghaddafi is dead and Libyas are murdering each other and good old western companies just walk on in and setup shop. Come on man, wake up.

        China and Russia are nations out to act in their best interest just like the US, to criticize them for throwing their weight around, and ignore the fact that the US does it more so and across a wider geographic scope is missing the forest for the trees.

        You know the best thing the US can do for its US citizens, stop wasting our money on useless foreign endeavors which only benefit the pockets of washington connected fatcats and waste the lives of young american men and women.

        • You seem to have world police confused with sole super power. The US hasn’t underwritten freedom at all. It has underwritten what is best for its business, nothing more and nothing less. If that means supporting murderous dictators, killing/discrediting popular leaders, or using its military to ensure the profitability and protection of the businesses with access to the reins of power it will do so. That you think WW2 was about freedom, when the US supported Stalin who killed more people than Hitler and was allied with Hitler in the invasion of Poland, tells us all we need to know about the depth of your intellect and knowledge.

          There is so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin. For one, the U.S. has underwritten freedom for decades, from World War II to throughout the entire Cold War, where is served as a check on the Soviet Empire. Yes, the U.S. has supported dictators throughout the world, but that was almost always about countering the Soviets. Sometimes one doesn’t have much in the way of options. It would be nice if we could pick and choose between liberal democracies and dictators, but sometimes you just have to go with the dictator that is the least bad. So if one dictator supports the Soviets and one will side with you, you support the one that sides with you. The U.S. was allied with the Soviets in World War II because we were both fighting Hitler.

          As for trade and security, explain to me how trade existed before the US and why the US oddly tries to invade and destablize countries that want to trade around it and not become a slave to the IMF? You can’t can you, doesn’t fit your narrative. Stop believing propaganda and open your eyes.

          What are these countries that the U.S. tries to invade and destabilize? As for how trade existed before the U.S., it was underwritten by the British Empire. But even, that didn’t stop a lot of wars from occurring between nations.

          Yes the US is just as bad as Putin. The US does not seek empire? Idiot, the US is an empire.
          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_x7xNgfhbbWo/TLxelasZ3uI/AAAAAAAAAxI/vXjiH6TT6e0/s1600/bases55.jpg
          We have bases on every continent except Antarctica. We monitor the world through the nsa, unilaterally attack any country we deem a threat without providing any evidence of the claim. What is the difference between what the US did in Libya, Syria, the Ukraine and Iraq and what Russia has done with Crimea? Atleast there was a open election held, even if it was doctored, compared to the either the arming of rebels or aiding of rebels to overthrow elected government like the US did in the 4 other nations I posted. That you don’t have the capability to even see that speaks to the depths that you have been indoctrinated and are incapable of offering up any rational thought.

          No, it isn’t an empire. Yes, we have bases all over the place, but to underwrite security, not to enforce empire. IN FACT, the bases we have do the opposite of what an empire seeks, which is gives away money. Everywhere there exists a U.S. military base, that local economy gets subsidized with U.S. taxpayer money. The idea of empire is to EXTRACT wealth from the areas where one has a presence, not give it away. And some of these countries where we have bases have asked us to leave, such as the Philippines back in the 1990s, which we did. The Philippines then got a taste of some real bullying from China and now have asked the U.S. to come back in.

          Nor do we unilaterally attack any country we deem a threat without providing any evidence. Regarding the difference between the U.S. in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Iraq, well Syria and Libya the U.S. didn’t do a whole lot at all. To the extent anything was done with Syria, it was primarily the U.S. leading from behind. Regarding Iraq, you do realize that Iraq was headed by a brutal dictator who was highly oppressive to his people? And that the U.S. sought to implement a liberal democracy in the country, so the people could vote for their own government? And that the U.S. did not take any resources from the country but rather let the Iraqis decide for themselves how to auction off their oil contracts? You see Putin doing anything like that? Not sure what you are referring to with regards to Ukraine.

          The US didn’t steal Iraqi resources,
          http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html
          Yeah those western oil firms that setup business after Saddam was deposed that, just happened, it wasn’t aided by the US invasion. Same with LIbya right, their oil was nationalized and they were talking about leaving the dollar and switching to a gold backed currency and next thing you know Ghaddafi is dead and Libyas are murdering each other and good old western companies just walk on in and setup shop. Come on man, wake up.

          I would suggest it is yourself who needs to “wake up” and stop swallowing all of this conspiratorial nonsense. Iraq auctioned off its oil to companies it chose, not to companies it was told to. Many oil companies from countries that had opposed the invasion, such as Russian oil companies, received contracts. Ghaddafi was killed by his own people because he was a brutal oppressor.

          China and Russia are nations out to act in their best interest just like the US, to criticize them for throwing their weight around, and ignore the fact that the US does it more so and across a wider geographic scope is missing the forest for the trees.

          There is no comparison between the United States and the likes of China and Russia. China and Russia you are correct are interested solely in themselves, but they have no interest in promoting freedom. They are both about empire. The U.S. does not “throw its weight around” moreso than China or Russia. No free nation panics over the idea of a U.S. presence in a region. They do get very concerned over a Russian or Chinese presence however. Tell me, if the U.S. is so interested in conquering other countries, why haven’t we just gone and conquered the big one, Canada? They only have thirty million people and a load of natural resources.

          You know the best thing the US can do for its US citizens, stop wasting our money on useless foreign endeavors which only benefit the pockets of washington connected fatcats and waste the lives of young american men and women.

          Prudence in foreign endeavors is important, but to claim they are all useless shows a great deal of misunderstanding on your part.

        • The U.S. and England started WW2 , there would not have been any Hitler , had we not kept Germany as a slave to war payments etc, and Japan would not have attacked the US except US trade police was destroying Japan, not that Japan or Germany were good guys, but we pushed both into war. Same as what is being done now,,,,Follow the MONEY…. We build up communist Russian from the 1920’s on US aid has always saved communist or it would have failed because Socialism has never worked , Russian Putin keeps saying to the US that Socialism in any form does not and can not work… Obama on the other(NWO) wants ever more Socialism …The World is turned up side down , and Amerikans think that can still make SOCIALISM work ….no . no.

        • To the extent anything was done with Syria, it was primarily the U.S. leading from behind.

          Meant to say to the extent anything was done regarding Libya. Regarding Syria, nothing was done. No real aid or support was given to the rebels or anything. Putin took advantage of it and essentially replaced the U.S. as the main power in that region.

        • Sorry buddy you can repeat a mantra of the us being freedom for the world all you want, doesn’t make it true and reality disproves that contention wholly. Just look at the dictators the US propped up in the wake of WW2 you love talking about so much, same with the Cold War. You think aiding Pol Pot is a victory for freedom? You think cancelling Vietnamese elections that were going to put Ho Chi Min as the elected leader of Vietnam is aiding freedom? What about the thug the US put in South Korea, Park chung hee? We can go on if you like, even down to the US supporting Saddam Hussein as he gassed Iranians and providing funding and training for the mujahadeen. For some reason you think using pepole as pawns is noble and in support of freedom, it isn’t. The US wasn’t saving or supporting freedom it was playing a game of international chess against the USSR and there is a difference between the two. Sadly you don’t see to be capable of understanding that difference.

          Countries the US has invaded and/or destrablized, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Mexico, and Venezuela are a few recently. Before that you had Grenada, Domincan Republic,Cuba, Panama, Hondorus, Haiti, phillipines, and I can add more if you like. As for the British Empire ruling trade before the US emergence in WW2, that is false. Pre-WW2 the US had a very solid international trading base, as did Japan, Germany, and etc The Brits and US hegemony was not needed to ensure trade nor “freedom” of trade internationally.

          Yes the US is an empire, as much as Britain was a empire, as much as Spain, France, and Rome were empires. You think saying “projection of force globably” for security some how changes the fact that the us has a global projection of military force and uses it against all who doesn’t play their game changes things, it doesn’t. The US is an empire already. The goal of an empire differs with regard to the empire, territory or sphere of influence could be the main concern, not sole wealth generation, we saw this with Alexander the Great, or would you claim that he did not have an empire? As for nations asking us to leave, well the Japanese, especially in Okinawa have been begging us to leave, S. Koreans have asked us to leave, we are still there. Iraqis asked the US to leave, we are still there. Afghans ask the US to leave we are still there. Pakistan tells the US to respect its national sovereignty and stop bombing its people, the US ignores them and contines to kill its citizens. You simply now speak outside of reality to affirm your delusions.

          You seem to have excuses for the US acting unilaterally but none of it is of substance. The US placed and supported Saddam so any attack on Saddam as a brutal dictator blows back on the US for putting him there. I forgot though he was for freedome right? US was bombing and providing air cover for the CIA trained rebels in Libya. US was arming rebels in Syria on top of providing intelligence. US had ties to arab spring taking place in the ME the same way it had ties to the coup in the Ukraine.

          As for US/Western businesses looting Irais of their natural resources, handing contracts to the politically connected is still looting, it seems absurd to now try to claim it isn’t and it is something the Iraqis wanted.

          Putin respected the vote of the Crimeans who had a vote to become part of the Russian federation. What vote took place in the US backed coup against the elected Ukranian government? Answer that for me and then get back.

          Reality is a conspiracy theory. Really Iraq auctioned off the rights to international business. When did Iraqis vote on this, or was this the actions of the puppets the US put in power. The same ones losing control of their country as we speak to terrorists we armed and trained in Syria and Libya coming back home? That you can’t even see what is clearly happening and think passing it off as “conspiracy” takes the place of a actual argument is telling.

          US/Western military bombed Ghaddafi destroying his military force and means of counter attack, pinned him down and let the local militia capture and torture and murder him. After the US murdered his youngest son and 3 grandchildren, all 4 having no connection to the government of Libya. Yeah, US had nothing to do with that at all, it was the Libyan rebels, who the US armed, provided military aide, training, and intelligence to that did it.

          How is there no comparison between the US, China, and Russia? Your actual reply boils down to when China and Russia does the same thing the US does they do it for different reasons, so it is different even though the actions are the exact same. The sad part is you don’t even realize how ignorant you are and you think that is actually a logical argument.

          I’ll play a game with you though, how many nations have China, US, and Russia invaded since 1990? I bet you the US has invaded more than both nations combined.

          If your actual argument is the US isn’t a empire because they have not invaded Canada, I think we are coming to the end of the conversation, you clearly are running on fumes intellectually now.

          I remember one of the founders of the US saying something like this

          “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

          Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

          Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

          It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. ”
          –Washington knew what he was talking about.

        • The ONE WOLDERS keep playing these GAMES , and all CHINA AND RUSSIA has to do is dump the FED. petro dollars and we are history over night… MY problem is I love America and do not want our people hunt and destroyed .. and the real enemy is the MASS MEDIA and public education systems not tell the truth, and OBAMA has NEVER ever told the truth….

        • The U.S. and England started WW2 , there would not have been any Hitler , had we not kept Germany as a slave to war payments etc, and Japan would not have attacked the US except US trade police was destroying Japan, not that Japan or Germany were good guys, but we pushed both into war.

          Hitler started WWII. It is true that the harsh reparations policies that were pushed onto Germany created an environment ripe for radical politics that led to a radical party taking control of the country and starting a second major war. John Maynard Keynes warned of this in his “Economic Consequences of the Peace.” But the war was started by Hitler. As for Japan, the U.S. cut off Japan’s oil.

        • Sorry buddy you can repeat a mantra of the us being freedom for the world all you want, doesn’t make it true and reality disproves that contention wholly. Just look at the dictators the US propped up in the wake of WW2 you love talking about so much, same with the Cold War. You think aiding Pol Pot is a victory for freedom? You think cancelling Vietnamese elections that were going to put Ho Chi Min as the elected leader of Vietnam is aiding freedom? What about the thug the US put in South Korea, Park chung hee? We can go on if you like, even down to the US supporting Saddam Hussein as he gassed Iranians and providing funding and training for the mujahadeen. For some reason you think using pepole as pawns is noble and in support of freedom, it isn’t. The US wasn’t saving or supporting freedom it was playing a game of international chess against the USSR and there is a difference between the two. Sadly you don’t see to be capable of understanding that difference.

          It seems unfortunately that you are unable to see that if one must choose between supporting dictators to counter something as dangerous and terrible as the Soviet Union versus doing nothing at all, that you have to support the dictators. The U.S. intervention in Vietnam was because the Communists were going to take control, considering that they 1) outnumbered the non-communists and 2) were going to rig the elections anyway as communists were infamous for. Democracy is pointless if it is merely rule by the mob. It is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. South Korea is a liberal democracy today if you haven’t noticed. We supported a dictator there, in Taiwan, and in Chile, and yet all are liberal democracies today. We supported such people to counter communists, unless you think it would have been fine to let communism take control over all of those places. The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein to counter Iran yes, and we supported the Mujahadeen to counter the Soviets.

          You are right that much of it is a form of international chess, but you seem to be of the view that if one has to support dictators or just wash their hands and let murderous communism take over, then they should let murderous communism take over.

          Countries the US has invaded and/or destrablized, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Mexico, and Venezuela are a few recently.

          When did the U.S. “invade” or destabilize Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Mexico, or Venezuela?

          Before that you had Grenada, Domincan Republic,Cuba, Panama, Hondorus, Haiti, phillipines, and I can add more if you like.

          All of which were about countering communism and/or authoritarians. None were thriving liberal democracies and none were turned into colonies of the U.S., as opposed to the Soviets who created multiple overseas colonies.

          As for the British Empire ruling trade before the US emergence in WW2, that is false. Pre-WW2 the US had a very solid international trading base, as did Japan, Germany, and etc The Brits and US hegemony was not needed to ensure trade nor “freedom” of trade internationally.

          Britain was the underwriter of global trade and global security pre-World War II. Japan did not have much to be worried about back then as there was no threat to them from China—it was they themselves who were the threat.

          Yes the US is an empire, as much as Britain was a empire, as much as Spain, France, and Rome were empires. You think saying “projection of force globably” for security some how changes the fact that the us has a global projection of military force and uses it against all who doesn’t play their game changes things, it doesn’t. The US is an empire already. The goal of an empire differs with regard to the empire, territory or sphere of influence could be the main concern, not sole wealth generation, we saw this with Alexander the Great, or would you claim that he did not have an empire?

          This is nonsense. The U.S. doesn’t use military force against “all who doesn’t play their game.” The global U.S. military presence is about underwriting global peace. We are nothing like the Spanish, British, French, or Roman empires, which were grounded in exploitation of peoples and acquiring territories to enrich themselves, and oppressing the peoples of the lands.

          As for nations asking us to leave, well the Japanese, especially in Okinawa have been begging us to leave, S. Koreans have asked us to leave, we are still there. Iraqis asked the US to leave, we are still there. Afghans ask the US to leave we are still there. Pakistan tells the US to respect its national sovereignty and stop bombing its people, the US ignores them and contines to kill its citizens. You simply now speak outside of reality to affirm your delusions.

          The U.S. is removing soldiers from Okinawa. South Korea has not asked us to leave because that would leave them on their own regarding North Korea. The U.S. has left Iraq for the most part. The people of Afghanistan do not want the U.S. to leave as that leaves them as targets of the Taliban. And the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is about stopping terrorists. Same with Pakistan, who need to stop harboring terrorists (like Osama bin Laden).

          You seem to have excuses for the US acting unilaterally but none of it is of substance. The US placed and supported Saddam so any attack on Saddam as a brutal dictator blows back on the US for putting him there. I forgot though he was for freedome right? US was bombing and providing air cover for the CIA trained rebels in Libya. US was arming rebels in Syria on top of providing intelligence. US had ties to arab spring taking place in the ME the same way it had ties to the coup in the Ukraine.

          Disposing of Saddam wasn’t solely about his being a dictator., it was about his being a threat to global security and peace. And no where did I ever say he was for freedom. And the U.S. did not do much in Libya, the other countries of the world took action there. It was very multilateral. I have no idea what you mean about the U.S. arming rebels in Syria. We did virtually nothing to arm the rebels in Syria, leaving Assad able to keep a hold on power while Russia and Iran provided him with resources. What “ties” do you speak of regarding the Arab Spring and the coup in Ukraine?

          As for US/Western businesses looting Irais of their natural resources, handing contracts to the politically connected is still looting, it seems absurd to now try to claim it isn’t and it is something the Iraqis wanted.

          It is absurd to claim that it ever happened in the first place. More non-U.S. oil companies have benefitted from invading Iraq then U.S. companies. Furthermore, invading Iraq for oil would have been a fool’s errand. There were far easier countries to invade if oil was the goal, such as Bahrain or Kuwait. Going into Iraq for oil would have been the height of idiocy.

          Putin respected the vote of the Crimeans who had a vote to become part of the Russian federation. What vote took place in the US backed coup against the elected Ukranian government? Answer that for me and then get back.

          It wasn’t any U.S.-backed coup. It was Ukrainians rebelling against a government that turned out to be nothing but a lapdog of Putin. When Putin saw what was happening, he decided to use force.

          Reality is a conspiracy theory. Really Iraq auctioned off the rights to international business. When did Iraqis vote on this, or was this the actions of the puppets the US put in power.

          If they are puppets of the U.S., then why not auction the contracts off to the U.S. companies as opposed to Russian companies and the like?

          The same ones losing control of their country as we speak to terrorists we armed and trained in Syria and Libya coming back home? That you can’t even see what is clearly happening and think passing it off as “conspiracy” takes the place of a actual argument is telling.

          Conspiracy theorists always talk like this. They claim only they can see the “truth” while everyone else is blind to what is really happening.

          US/Western military bombed Ghaddafi destroying his military force and means of counter attack, pinned him down and let the local militia capture and torture and murder him. After the US murdered his youngest son and 3 grandchildren, all 4 having no connection to the government of Libya. Yeah, US had nothing to do with that at all, it was the Libyan rebels, who the US armed, provided military aide, training, and intelligence to that did it.

          It was a mob of Libyan people that killed him. The murder of his son and grandchildren was an accident, but that is what can happen to your family when you are a brutal dictator and cause a military conflict to occur against you.

          How is there no comparison between the US, China, and Russia? Your actual reply boils down to when China and Russia does the same thing the US does they do it for different reasons, so it is different even though the actions are the exact same. The sad part is you don’t even realize how ignorant you are and you think that is actually a logical argument.

          It is a very logical argument, as the reasons very much count. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could make a comparison between the U.S. and Russia and China with a straight face even. Two are evil countries that oppress their people and seek to do so to nearby countries, while the United States is a respecter of human rights and freedoms and that no one panics when it is close by.

          I’ll play a game with you though, how many nations have China, US, and Russia invaded since 1990? I bet you the US has invaded more than both nations combined.

          How about, how many nations has the U.S. invaded for imperialistic purposes since 1990? The answer is none. We invaded Iraq in 1991 to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, went into Europe to stop the war that was occurring there as the Europeans wouldn’t do anything to stop it, we wrongly allowed a genocide to occur in Rwanda, we went into Afghanistan in 2001 because of 9/11 to get the terrorists, we went into Iraq in 2003 because of the threat of Saddam. Neither Russia nor China has had the military capability to invade, although China very much bullies and oppresses the people in Tibet, and tried to cajole Taiwan in the mid-1990s, which prompted Clinton to move the Navy in which stopped China. Now a resurgent Russia is making imperialistic actions.

          In no U.S. invasion was it done for purposes of empire. It was always about stopping brutal oppressors.

          If your actual argument is the US isn’t a empire because they have not invaded Canada, I think we are coming to the end of the conversation, you clearly are running on fumes intellectually now.

          That’s not a response. If the U.S. is so interested in conquering countries all over for reasons of empire and natural resources and all of that, then why not make a play for Canada?

          I remember one of the founders of the US saying something like this

          “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

          Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

          Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

          It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. ”
          –Washington knew what he was talking about.

          At the time, sure. The modern world is a wholly different animal. The U.S. tried taking an isolationist approach during the 1930s, and we were forced into war. Even under Jefferson, we were forced to send the Marines into Tripoli.

    • Are we talking about the same Vlad the Bungler whose 0.5 to 4 in big crisis the past two years? I have to give credit where credit is due: Obama is the Nutty Professor of international security. He doesn’t look the part but he’s a genius at promoting U.S. interests without getting bogged-down in entanglements and killing terrorists with quiet and ruthless efficiency.

      • He is nothing of the sort. He is incredibly weak in terms of dealing with countries such as Russia and has only served to undermine U.S. interests around the world, along with the security of the free world as a result. Having a stronger foreign policy regarding dealing with such countries does not at all mean having to get bogged down in conflicts.

  21. Obama and his cronies are responsible for the situation going on with Russia , they are also hypocrites for not wanting Crimea to decide for themselves what form of government they want , a lot of it goes back to the pipeline that the Saudis want through Syria to Europe , the US and Europeans want control over the pipeline through Ukraine and the Naval bases in Crimea to pressure Russia into a box , this situation could start a war that could escalate into a world war , if it stays conventional we don’t have a chance because we will be facing Russia , China and armies of other nations allied with these major players , just think about the movie Red Dawn , one that a lot of folks said would never happen well we shall see , Mr. Putin is not a man to try to bluff , he will not back down like the former Soviet leaders did . Be prepared and ready. Keep your powder dry.

    • I agree with the first part very much. I also agree with the second. Mr. Putin does NOT strike me as a bluffer in the least. He recently said that if the West attacked Russia conventionally, Russia would use nuclear weapons in response. Don’t doubt it for a second. If World War IV breaks out (the Cold War being WWIII), don’t blame him. He didn’t make the initial threats, and he will not be to blame.

    • “Assignation” does not mean “assassination”. It means to assign something, a secret meeting between lovers, or rendezvous. I can find no reference to it meaning “assassination”. Whaddaya got?

  22. Historically speaking he isn’t wrong and the past several administrations have made a serious hash of our foreign policy, but a Russian plutocrat and KGB thug like Putin has zero ethical weight when it comes to criticizing the U.S.’s behavior abroad. Physician, heal thyself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *