Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, both of them might say they want war, or imply it, but there is no doubt in my mind they'd be doing exactly the same thing Obama is doing right now. There is no support in this country for more war; that wouldn't change with someone else in the Oval Office.
Then Romney should've been cooler instead of the stiff that he was.
It's not like he didn't know that young people vote too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2
When did Romney say "get your butt up and work?"
It was about race in your case.
So what if Britain is a close ally? Thatcher hadn't been the PM in decades.
Besides, what in the hell does that have to do with this crisis?
It was right...before this crisis. Now it's not right.
So what? What do you propose that we do in Russia? Go to war?
I'm not going. You know where the Ukraine is...make your way there and volunteer to fight.
There is the philosophy of peace through strength, or walk quietly and carry a big stick, as some former presidents have had, but what we have with the Obama presidency is weakness breeds aggression and contempt.
If you can't grasp the simple fact that Britain has been our closest ally and that South Africa has never been an ally at all, I can't help you. It's not always about race you know.
Well, Romney probably wasn't going to be the best choice for repping the US vis-à-vis the UK. He tried to act like the smartest guy in the room when he went to London on a courtesy call before the election and offended Cameron and other British officials expressing his doubt about the London Olympic games and bragging about his role in the SLC winter games in 2002.
OTOH, Obama and Cameron get along very well, and you might have seen them doing a selfie at Mandela's funeral.
He might ratchet up the geriatric sabre-rattling a bit more than Romney, but in the end he would still have no support for intervention. This isn't 2002/2003 when a lot of people were still scared of 9/11 and bought into Bush's tire fire.
There is the philosophy of peace through strength, or walk quietly and carry a big stick, as some former presidents have had, but what we have with the Obama presidency is weakness breeds aggression and contempt.
And when Obama hinted about military intervention in Syria, the GOP started going hysterical about it.
C'mon, coming from you anything Obama does is 100% no good, never mind logic and context.
And when Obama hinted about military intervention in Syria, the GOP started going hysterical about it.
C'mon, coming from you anything Obama does is 100% no good, never mind logic and context.
Tell me what was Obama's reasoning for invading Libya.
Having no coherent foreign policy or national security policy, and the Willy Nilly invading of countries, destroying their military and disposing their government, is what I oppose, it just so happens that describes Obama.
Hints and red lines are meaningless when there's no action of substance to back it. So far Putin is laughing at Obama while doing his own thing.
Well, aside from rhetoric - what options, realistically, are available to the US in this case? What are the motivations/considerations of actions for Russia? For the US?
Look, decisions are never made in a nutshell or on a whim at the national level. Putin obviously felt, in terms of the political calculations, that it was a risk worth taking to intervene in the Ukraine. That would still apply no matter who the leader in the US is.
And on the other hand, the USA is also constrained by a cost-benefit analysis of certain actions or policies.
Well, aside from rhetoric - what options, realistically, are available to the US in this case? What are the motivations/considerations of actions for Russia? For the US?
Look, decisions are never made in a nutshell or on a whim at the national level. Putin obviously felt, in terms of the political calculations, that it was a risk worth taking to intervene in the Ukraine. That would still apply no matter who the leader in the US is.
And on the other hand, the USA is also constrained by a cost-benefit analysis of certain actions or policies.
Just as if Texas succeeded it would not be in Russia's interest to intervene either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
