Do Empty Threats Matter?

Vice Lord wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: "guys"..Its gonna be ok...Everythings gonna be alright-In a few days FOX News will move onto some other Obama drama, and you'll forget all about this whole Crimea thing.

First... Fox News has been about 24/7 with the Malaysian missing plane, not much about the Ruskis at all.

Calm down Grandpaw...I don't care what FOX News says, Obama was not piloting that missing airplane...


Now have some prune juice and go to bed

Don't believe it grandpaw- FOX News photoshopped it


http://o.onionstatic.com/images/19/1919 ... 0.jpg?0898




.

Bump City

WASHINGTON, March 19, 2014 – There must be consequences for Russia's actions against Ukraine, the NATO secretary general said at the Brookings Institute here today.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen told the think tank that "the only way for us to address these challenges is for Europe and North America to stand together."

Russia's aggression against Ukraine has changed the world, the secretary general said. "Russia's military aggression in Ukraine is a blatant breach of its international commitments, and it is a violation of Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity," he said. "The annexation of Crimea through a so-called referendum held at gunpoint is illegal and illegitimate, and it undermines all efforts to find a peaceful political solution."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/libra ... 66lk%2ez5s

NATO and the US are creating a power vaccuum. Who will fill it? China? Russia?
Who will suffer? Ukraine? The Baltic republics? Japan? Phillipines? Taiwan? Vietnam?

Rick wrote:

Cathy_Lee wrote: How about some alternatives?

Rick, you started this discussion. What do you think the president should, if anything, do about the situation in Crimea? I'm curious because I don't think it's any of our business. We can't afford to be the world's policeman. Beyond costs, we shouldn't be the world's policeman.

What's your idea about what should be done, Rick?

Thanks for the question Cathy, and the answer has to do with the title of this thread. If Obama wants to be a good leader he has to be a smart one. IMO, if he has no intentions of getting involved, he should not be drawing red lines and talking about "consequences" if those consequences are the equivalent of a hand slap. Obama has already set the stage for the US to "lead from behind"... especially in his Cairo speech where he said that not country should be elevated above another (in so many words). Everything Obama has done since being in office has signaled that the US will no longer be the world police... that's all well and good, but you then can't threaten consequences over and over if those consequences are not extremely painful.

He said that "Assad must go"... so where is Assad a year later and how many moore people have been killed? What were the consequences for crossing Obama's red line?

Now we have Putin and another threat of consequences from Obama... so what could Putin possibly fear from the US knowing full well there is zero chance of military intervention?

So my answer is NOTHING, if you're going to do nothing, then you should say nothing. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be working behind the scene with EU and other allies to work on painful sanctions that would work, but FFS, don't act like you're gonna drop the hammer on Putin if the hammer is made out of Chinese plastic.

With each and every empty threat, we become weaker and less able to influence these dangerous leaders. Once the US loses it's influence, that power vacuum will be filled by countries like Russia and China. Not good.

So Rick, your position is that the US should take no position against overt hostilities in other nations. That the President should have directly told Assad that he was free to gas and murder his citizens with impunity because the US would take absolutely no actions against him in any situation that he would undertake. That the President should have told Putin go ahead and invade Ukraine because we are powerless to take any action against you.

Of course if you had any interest in being honest, you would actually state the facts rather than falsehoods that have been used to politically smear the President. The President has never stated that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a red line that would cause him to invade Syria. That is simply a conservative lie that has been used in an attempt for political gain. Instead his statement was that the use of chemical weapons by those who would endanger Israel and other allies in the region would be a red line that would be a factor in his considerations of actions to take in that region. Here is his actual statement:

" I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. "


He did not state that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would trigger his decision to invade Syria. He stated that if there was a "whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized" would change his considerations on using force. This would be in connection with the interests of Israel and other allies in the region. Obviously there are other factors in his consideration, such as alliance with the other allies, such as Germany and England and the backing of Congress.

Furthermore, there is a red line in place on the use of chemical weapons that was set by 98% of the world's nations. Congress set a red line in place in December, 2003 by passing the Syria Accountability Act. When President Obama went to Congress requesting support for ending the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Congress refused to do so. That is on Congress.

So if you are going to attack the President, why not do it honestly and with the true facts.

In regard to Crimea, the President told Putin that there would be consequences, and those consequences are being put in place. The President was upfront that those consequences would be in the form of economic and diplomatic sanctions. He never threatened military engagement nor should he. The economic and diplomatic sanctions take time to put in place and for their effectiveness to take place. To demand that immediate results should occur is simply idiotic.

So what would President Rick do, just say go on and do what you will, that the US will do nothing in response to terroristic or military intervention by Syria and Russia?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Rick wrote:

Cathy_Lee wrote: How about some alternatives?

Rick, you started this discussion. What do you think the president should, if anything, do about the situation in Crimea? I'm curious because I don't think it's any of our business. We can't afford to be the world's policeman. Beyond costs, we shouldn't be the world's policeman.

What's your idea about what should be done, Rick?

Thanks for the question Cathy, and the answer has to do with the title of this thread. If Obama wants to be a good leader he has to be a smart one. IMO, if he has no intentions of getting involved, he should not be drawing red lines and talking about "consequences" if those consequences are the equivalent of a hand slap. Obama has already set the stage for the US to "lead from behind"... especially in his Cairo speech where he said that not country should be elevated above another (in so many words). Everything Obama has done since being in office has signaled that the US will no longer be the world police... that's all well and good, but you then can't threaten consequences over and over if those consequences are not extremely painful.

He said that "Assad must go"... so where is Assad a year later and how many moore people have been killed? What were the consequences for crossing Obama's red line?

Now we have Putin and another threat of consequences from Obama... so what could Putin possibly fear from the US knowing full well there is zero chance of military intervention?

So my answer is NOTHING, if you're going to do nothing, then you should say nothing. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be working behind the scene with EU and other allies to work on painful sanctions that would work, but FFS, don't act like you're gonna drop the hammer on Putin if the hammer is made out of Chinese plastic.

With each and every empty threat, we become weaker and less able to influence these dangerous leaders. Once the US loses it's influence, that power vacuum will be filled by countries like Russia and China. Not good.

So Rick, your position is that the US should take no position against overt hostilities in other nations. That the President should have directly told Assad that he was free to gas and murder his citizens with impunity because the US would take absolutely no actions against him in any situation that he would undertake. That the President should have told Putin go ahead and invade Ukraine because we are powerless to take any action against you.

Of course if you had any interest in being honest, you would actually state the facts rather than falsehoods that have been used to politically smear the President. The President has never stated that the use of chemical weapons in Syria was a red line that would cause him to invade Syria. That is simply a conservative lie that has been used in an attempt for political gain. Instead his statement was that the use of chemical weapons by those who would endanger Israel and other allies in the region would be a red line that would be a factor in his considerations of actions to take in that region. Here is his actual statement:

" I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation. "


He did not state that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would trigger his decision to invade Syria. He stated that if there was a "whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized" would change his considerations on using force. This would be in connection with the interests of Israel and other allies in the region. Obviously there are other factors in his consideration, such as alliance with the other allies, such as Germany and England and the backing of Congress.

Furthermore, there is a red line in place on the use of chemical weapons that was set by 98% of the world's nations. Congress set a red line in place in December, 2003 by passing the Syria Accountability Act. When President Obama went to Congress requesting support for ending the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Congress refused to do so. That is on Congress.

So if you are going to attack the President, why not do it honestly and with the true facts.

In regard to Crimea, the President told Putin that there would be consequences, and those consequences are being put in place. The President was upfront that those consequences would be in the form of economic and diplomatic sanctions. He never threatened military engagement nor should he. The economic and diplomatic sanctions take time to put in place and for their effectiveness to take place. To demand that immediate results should occur is simply idiotic.

So what would President Rick do, just say go on and do what you will, that the US will do nothing in response to terroristic or military intervention by Syria and Russia?

That was a lot of hot air, but what you are saying I said or meant was not what I said or meant. Try again.