Sunday, March 2, 2014

The Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons

The Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons instead of relying on the USA to intervene militarily if Russia invaded. It was just a matter of time before a patsy became US President. Thanks to Hillary's hubby and Obama we have this situation today. Liberal elitism at it's best. Guess what? Liberal American ideals don't work and they especially don't work outside the United States.

Did you hear Kerry whine about Putin not playing fair. Claims that Putin is playing by 19th century rules in the 21st century. That's embarrassing. That's the garbage liberal academics spout. It's also why the Muslims want to kick out ass too, because they don't play by 21st century rules either.

Kerry and Obama want to think that they can bully and bribe any country to do their biding. Obama thought by getting rid of the missile shield would obligate Putin to pay him back a favor, Chicago style. Putin on the otherhand said thanks for nothing. What have you done for me lately.

The entire world knows that Obama isn't going to do a thing. THe only thing that's going to happen is that the G8 meeting will be canceled. That is the ONLY CONSEQUENCE Obama will met out.

6 comments:

  1. Unreal. Obama who is desperate to appear Presidential with any foreign policy victory has pivoted to Iran and Israel and is once again pursuing a policy of appeasement by chastising Israel's alleged assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

    Instead of negotiating for a position of strength, Obama has always chosen to negotiate from a position of weakness in regards to our adversaries.

    Obama has unilaterally removed the missile shield and got nothing in return.
    Obama has ordered the destruction of most of our nuclear weapons and received nothing in return.
    Obama has turned his back on our traditional allies. Saudia Arabia and Egypt are now aligning with Russia. Israel he has left to dry. The UK (our strongest and most traditional ally) mostly abandoned in favor of Germany and the French.

    Obama punted on Syria and let Russia and Iran ally with Syria.

    Obama pulled troops and protective guards in Benghazi because he was afraid Muslims might riot or be offended by US Troops there.

    Islamists have gone to war in Africa against Christians. Obama's suggestion was to build more mosques. More "appeasement" but the new mosques have been used as recruiting grounds for terrorists. Obama is rebuilding mosques in 27 countries. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frank-crimi/obama-rebuilds-mosques-while-churches-burn/

    In Nigeria, the Obama administration has refused to label the Boko Haram group a terrorist organization. Instead, it gave the Nigerian government $600 MILLION to study the issue why Boko Haram was murdering Christians and suggest that more mosques be built there too.

    Nearly everything Obama does internationally is to weaken American. The facts speak for themselves.

    The only good news is that the Obama administration captured a drug lord who supplies 80% of Chicago's drugs. But these other problems dwarf that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is truly sad what he has done to our foreign policy. Yes, we did not need another Bush at the helm... he did not help build the image of a strong country that did not bully the world.... we didn't need a wimp as a replacement. When the president of the US puts down 'red' lines, they damn well ought to mean something... Putin knew who he was dealing with when he heard the words "Wait until after the election"...

    It will take years to regain the respect of the world... and perhaps an extremely dangerous confrontation with Russia or China .

    "The only good news is that the Obama administration captured a drug lord who supplies 80% of Chicago's drugs. But these other problems dwarf that."

    Did He?... or did he just put the DEA's biggest competitor out of business?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so we don't need a president like Bush who didn't build an image of a strong country that doesn't bully the world, but Obama sucks too. Bush did everything the neocons wanted. Now you are saying this is wrong and that there is a precise and perfect middle ground wherein we can somehow make the world tremble in fear at us without actually ever putting our boot up their ass to make sure they get the point.

      After reading the comments here and after listening to the outpouring of love and admiration the conservative right has for Putin right now, it further clarifies that the conservative base in America has gone so far right, they have basically become heavy handed leftists who believe they should simply impose their will on others.


      Though the majority of America's conservative base likely has no personal connection to the Ukraine, and on a bigger scale, America does not have a clearly defined national interest there, they nonetheless believe it is some sort of personal slap to them. The harsh reality is that we are talking about FORMER pieces of the Russian empire that contain millions of people who continue to speak Russian and have mixed loyalties. This is not a clear cut case wherein every member of the country wants to see it drift toward the EU.

      Taunting aside, is it clearly in our interest to commit troops to in a battle that is borderline a civil war type situation? The first response, of course, is that Obama is weak, an embarrassment and is literally inviting the entire world to come take our freedom away and force us all to be homosexual. Now that we have established that, anyone want to explain exactly how much we should be willing to commit to this situation and better yet, explain the precise example a US POTUS should live up to that seeming neither Bush nor Obama has met?

      Delete
  3. That time Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons

    Writing at The Globe and Mail, Lubomyr Luciuk remembers when Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for "territorial integrity" guarantees from NATO... and Russia:

    I recall what I wrote just before Ukraine re-emerged as an independent state in Europe, when the USSR disintegrated, in 1991. My views appeared in this very newspaper, Nov. 15, 1991, "Moderation and neutrality — but hang on to the nuclear arms." I argued Ukraine's independence would be compromised, perhaps fatally, if Kiev gave up its nuclear arsenal, unless the West guaranteed the country's independence and territorial integrity. The West gave exactly that guarantee. So did the Russian Federation. Ukraine then disarmed, the only country in the world to have ever given up its nuclear weapons, even as other states scrambled to acquire them.

    Today we know Moscow's promises are valueless. We shall soon learn what NATO's guarantees are worth. [The Globe and Mail]

    http://theweek.com/article/index/257315/speedreads-that-time-ukraine-gave-up-its-nuclear-weapons

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sarah Palin Warned in 2008 Russia Might Invade Ukraine if Obama Wins Election



    In October 2008, then-Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin warned that Putin, having been motivated by Obama's lack of response to the Russian invasion of Georgia, would proceed to invade Ukraine if then-Senator Obama was elected to the presidency.

    After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next.

    Foreign Policy dismissed this warning as "strange" and "far-fetched."

    As we've said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel.

    Yesterday, Russia invaded the Crimean peninsula of Ukraine and seized control of two airports.

    Seems as though Palin's prediction wasn't too far-fetched after all.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/03/01/sarah-palin-warned-in-2008-russia-might-invade-ukraine-if-obama-wins-election-n1802374

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney Predicted Ukraine's Invasion Years Ago
    PolicyMic ^ | March 1, 2014 | Matt Essert

    Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:55:47 PM by 2ndDivisionVet

    When Sarah Palin became the surprising vice presidential choice for the Republican ticket in 2008, a lot of people thought she was kind of loony. When Palin said she could see Russia from her house and couldn't name a single newspaper in a Katie Couric interview, some people were quick to write her and her opinions off.

    So when she made a few remarks about the Russia-Ukraine situation in the fall of 2008, a lot of people ignored her. Specifically she said, "After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."

    (VIDEO-AT-LINK)

    At the time, Foreign Policy called the comments "strange," saying "this is an extremely far-fetched scenario," and then-editor Blake Hounshell wrote in response: "And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine's pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don't see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel."

    Of course, the situation in Ukraine is still developing, but Palin's thoughts don't seem as far-fetched now.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3128426/posts

    ReplyDelete