smittyoneeach's Journal: "We are actively evaluating. That's as distinct from passively evaluating."

Our foreign policy position is fetal, moving to fatal:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/04/15/Watch-What-Would-President-Krauthammer-Do-on-Ukraine
I should have worked harder against this no-talent rodeo clown.

Getting closer to one side of the argument?

[damn_registrars]

I pointed out before that your "rodeo clown" argument is diametrically opposed to your "evil dictator" argument. Nobody can be both a "rodeo clown" and an "evil dictator". If you are arguing that our country is in some sort of fetal position, that implies that you are gravitating away from the latter and more towards the former.

However, most of the conspiracy theories that you so enthusiastically advocate for in the hopes of bringing about an early end to the Obama Administration go out the window when

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It is possible to be both evil and incompetent. Most dictators actually are.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

It is possible to be both evil and incompetent. Most dictators actually are.

A clown, however, is not. A clown exists only to distract from power, never to wield it. And a failure of a clown is not a ringleader; he is only a clown that gets gored by the bull or allows the audience to see behind the curtain.

You cannot simultaneously wield power and distract attention from someone else wielding it, even if you have multiple personalities.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You can if the power you are given is entirely superficial. Like Obamacare.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You can if the power you are given is entirely superficial.

No, you cannot. If your power is entirely superficial then you are not an evil dictator overlord. You might aspire to be one, or maybe even believe yourself to be one, but if your power is entirely superficial you are not at the levers of power at all.

Again, you can wield power, or you can distract attention away from the person who does, but you cannot do both. There are, of course, other options, but these two completely contradictory options that smitty and others are constantly trying to pin on th

Krauthamer? A No Talent Rodeo Clown?

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Easily the nicest thing I could say about him.

Maybe if you understood the the business of war

[fustakrakich]

Then your comprehension of the situation might approach that of reality. The ideology is bullshit. Or maybe you prefer to obsess over this person. I will not endeavor to understand why, it's only to point out a factual observation that you are mirroring those blogs you read, and they get their crap from the same wire as the "liberal" press. I'll let you in on a little secret, the press releases hardly ever reflect what goes over secured communications. I believe you would need specific clearances to know wh

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I mean, I hold a Masters in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College, with an emphasis in the Law of Armed Conflict. I've also been around the block a little bit. I'll buy off on your "press releases hardly ever reflect what goes over secured communications" observation.
Nevertheless, the geo-strategy is as plain as the dumb on your Congressman's face: Russia is on the march, and the POTUS is in the fetal position. There is precisely shag-all going on, in a preparatory sense, to pr

Re:

[Arker]

"I will not endeavor to understand why, it's only to point out a factual observation that you are mirroring those blogs you read, and they get their crap from the same wire as the "liberal" press. I'll let you in on a little secret, the press releases hardly ever reflect what goes over secured communications. I believe you would need specific clearances to know what's happening. I'm going on the assumption you don't"

The logical conclusion to this argument is that you need a security clearance to form an opi

Sorry

[Arker]

""The answer is what is so obvious -- you immediately fly in major supplies of light weaponry and defensive weaponry, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, so you begin to arm the Ukrainians, so when Putin make a calculation, he understands there will never be any NATO troops in Ukraine to oppose him,†Krauthammer said."

/me facepalms hard.

I will not disagree that Obama has done an awful job here but this guy is nuts! What he's really saying is that he would double-down on Obamas foolish bets and del

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Hoping we don't get WWIII by assuming a fetal position--yeah, that's a swift call.

Re:

[Arker]

I just cannot buy the line that the only options are 'assuming the fetal position' and picking a fight with Russia. Surely there is some kind of middle ground where we can be tough when we have to be without taking every possible opportunity to prove it?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

This is where I'm going with the argument. It's one thing to say "we cannot take any direct action now". It's quite another to lay zero foundation for any future action. As an example, we have NATO allies in the Baltics. Have we signaled anything to them other than "You are effed"?
Let's see: we've had some Navy presence in the Black Sea. I guess that's not fully nothing.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Are you privy to all communications? If not, then I would suggest that you are engaging in speculation and gossip.. just like the "liberal" press. Like desperate used car dealers you all are trying to sell yet another war.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Of course I'm not. You're arguing that, short of complete knowledge, I should sit down and shut up?
Get bent. I'm a paying customer, and I'll call it like I see it.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Dude, you and your buddies are the Hee Haw Gossip Girls...

Now, we're not ones to go round spreadin' rumors
Why really, we're just not the gossipy kind!
Oh, you'll never hear one of us repeating gossip!
So you'd better be sure and listen close the first time.

You guys just don't stop

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

"Where, where are you tonight?"

Re:

[Arker]

"This is where I'm going with the argument. It's one thing to say "we cannot take any direct action now"."

THAT actually sounds very weak to me. The implication I would take is that you feel you should be taking action, but you've been deterred (for now.)

My position is really much stronger. If there were a good reason to be involved then fine, WWIII, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, I am down. I am one crazy mofo and I cannot be deterred when I choose to act.

But this? We have no vital interest to def

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Do you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO%E2%80%93Russia_relations [wikipedia.org]? I don't see where "WHY we've been violating our agreement with Russia and expanding NATO east" comes into play, unless there are other agreements.

Re:

[Arker]

No, this:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/13/a_diplomatic_mystery

That article is very short and does not really explore the implications but it does give a reference for what I am talking about.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I think that anecdote points to a broader, American Exceptionalism-based difficulty: we regularly hold peaceful revolutions at the ballot box. While the rest of the world, and Russians are arguably among the more egregious cases, have much greater policy time horizons, the U.S. has trouble remembering anything.
The State Department should provide a more "traditional" geo-political interface, but then you come to the question of to what degree agreements with the U.S.S.R. hold any sway. One might be tempted

Re:

[Arker]

"I think that anecdote points to a broader, American Exceptionalism-based difficulty: we regularly hold peaceful revolutions at the ballot box. While the rest of the world, and Russians are arguably among the more egregious cases, have much greater policy time horizons, the U.S. has trouble remembering anything."

Too much truth to that, but it does not mean we should not try to do better.

"The State Department should provide a more "traditional" geo-political interface, but then you come to the question of to

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

First off, why expand, instead of disband, NATO if we are not planning to attack Russia?

First, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour [wikipedia.org]. Since Bretton Woods, the U.S. dollar has enjoyed the advantage of being the world's reserve currency. In exchange for the privilege, we've provided a pax Americana for the non-Soviet world.
Second, the pax Americana has been a great cost avoidance for the European social welfare states, who can maintain smaller, localized defense forces, knowing that the 800lb gorilla is there.
Third, the EU has arisen in the meantime. You can't expand the EU (especial

Re:

[Arker]

"the pax Americana has been a great cost avoidance for the European social welfare states, who can maintain smaller, localized defense forces, knowing that the 800lb gorilla is there."

Sure the short term incentive for them is clear, but why should the US taxpayer be expected to go along with this?

Back in the day, it was because the Soviet Union was considered a credible and common threat. The Russian Federation is neither, yet the bill for confronting him only increases.

"Let's not be surprised at any of the