WSJ - Warnings From the Ukraine Crisis

[Texashiker]

Interesting article on the Wall Street Journal.

In short,

Mr. Putin moved on Ukraine when Barack Obama was no longer a charismatic character but a known quantity with low polls, failing support, a weak economy.

He'd taken Mr. Obama's measure during the Syria crisis and surely judged him not a shrewd international chess player but a secretly anxious professor who makes himself feel safe with the sound of his voice.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304185104579437630685108064

One big question the article brings up,

A great question for the future: Will Mr. Putin ever respect an American president again? He knows our political situation, knows we're a 50-50 nation, would assume we're blocked from consensus barring unusual circumstances such as a direct attack.

I suspect we are not even a 50/50 nation. Maybe more like 10/20/30/20/10/10 nation. We have become so divided we can not agree on anything. Special interest groups have formed voting blocks who vote for their own interest rather than then best interest of the nation.

This division opens the door for weak presidents, which in turn opens the door for dictators.

I seriously doubt that we will have a strong and take charge type of president for a long time. Because that type of person would threaten certain special interest groups.

We have put what we want ahead of what we need. We need a strong leader, but the people want a community organizer. I seriously doubt we are going to find both.

 

[CrackRabbit]

YATHT.

caps

 

[Genx87]

Or Putin realized nobody is going to war over Crimea. I don't think a strong US president would make a difference here.

 

[Texashiker]

YATHT.

Did you read the linked article?

 

[CrackRabbit]

I read two words of the headline "Peggy Noonan:". That was all I needed to read.

 

[AViking]

Yes Crimea is definitely Obama's fault. That makes total sense. Next up is a dictator. All hail our American overlord!

 

[CitizenKain]

Man, the right wing really wants to elect Putin with they way they fellate him.

 

[Bowfinger]

Did you read the linked article?

First, it's not an article, it's an opinion piece. Second, it's written by Peggy Noonan, one of the GOP's most dishonest propagandists (and that's no mean feat). Beyond that, unless you can show Noonan, et al, were equally critical of the sitting President when Russia invaded Georgia, a thoughtful person will ask what's the difference between then and now? (Hint: it's the 'D' after the current President's name vs. the 'R' then.)

In both cases, then and now, Russia acted knowing full well that the rest of the world would muster no response beyond token sanctions and lots of indignant squawking. That is for good reason. Going to war with Russia would be insane. Putin invaded not because Obama is weak, but because the world has no stomach for WWIII. Noonan's screeching is naked partisan hypocrisy, nothing more.

 

[Texashiker]

Noonan's screeching is naked partisan hypocrisy, nothing more.

You can discredit the messenger, but the message is true and straight.

Social divisions will prevent true leadership from being elected. Rather than having a strong leader, we will be left with the least common denominator.

Gay rights will vote their best interest.
Feminist will vote their best interest.
Minorities will vote their best interest.
The rich, poor, middle class, business owners, people on welfare,,,, will all vote for their own best interest.
As a result the nation as a whole will become weaker.

We no longer vote leaders into office, we vote for talkers and community organizers.

When a situation like Crimea, North Korea or Iran comes up, the president is ill-equipped to deal with foreign relations. Syria and Crimea have proven obama is not a leader. He talked about hope and change and the sheep believed him.

 

[CrackRabbit]

You can discredit the messenger, but the message is true and straight.

(Rest of rambling rant deleted.)

No, it isn't. That is the whole point.

 

[Texashiker]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

We as a nation are divided. As such, we are on a downward trend of electing weak leaders.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Yes it is.

We as a nation are divided. As such, we are on a downward trend of electing weak leaders.

The Iraq War didn't stop Putin from messing with Georgia.

Strong leaders or not Putin is playing his own game of Risk.

 

[Texashiker]

Strong leaders or not Putin is playing his own game of Risk.

Agreed.

One thing that gives Putin the edge, nobody wants to go to war with Russia.

But that does not mean obama and putin should not have a good relationship.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Yes it is.

We as a nation are divided. As such, we are on a downward trend of electing weak leaders.

You act like there has never been times in the nation's past when it has been divided, even more so than today. It has recovered, and thrived. We've also had presidents weaker than and less competent than the current one, and yet we have endured.

So you can't blame me for not buying into yet another of your self centered rants.
The only weak thing here is your mind, unable to think critically about what you are reading and taking what you see as fact when the messenger is giving you an opinion.

 

[sunzt]

Agreed.

One thing that gives Putin the edge, nobody wants to go to war with Russia.

But that does not mean obama and putin should not have a good relationship.

Merkel and Putin had a good relationship, but that didn't help.

 

[alzan]

Interesting article on the Wall Street Journal.

In short,



http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304185104579437630685108064

One big question the article brings up,



I suspect we are not even a 50/50 nation. Maybe more like 10/20/30/20/10/10 nation. We have become so divided we can not agree on anything. Special interest groups have formed voting blocks who vote for their own interest rather than then best interest of the nation.

This division opens the door for weak presidents, which in turn opens the door for dictators.

I seriously doubt that we will have a strong and take charge type of president for a long time. Because that type of person would threaten certain special interest groups.

We have put what we want ahead of what we need. We need a strong leader, but the people want a community organizer. I seriously doubt we are going to find both.

You really need to consolidate and think out your threads better. Do you want to discuss the crisis in the Ukraine or do you want to play the "I hate Barack Obama" game? Hint: the two are not intrinsically (or even remotely) linked.

We're all capable of making a thread about electing a "B" movie actor who is best remembered as a chimpanzee's sidekick. Or about entitled rich kids from the same family who screwed over both our country and Iraq. I could go on but I think (hope) you get the hint.

 

[Texashiker]

The only weak thing here is your mind, unable to think critically about what you are reading and taking what you see as fact when the messenger is giving you an opinion.

Regardless of what I post it will fall on deaf ears. Everything I post you dismiss with no rhyme or reason, known only to yourself.

If you want to get into details here is my deeper take on the issue.

True we have been a nation divided for a long time. With the passage of various free trade treaties in the 1990s, and the collapse of 2008, we are further divided. The nation as a whole is been hemorrhaging jobs and factories to China since the 1970s.

Desperate people take desperate actions. And right now people are desperate. They are desperate for not only jobs, but also for answers. Generation X is worried about social security being around in 20 - 30 years. we are worried about the national debt, we are worried about our kids and grandkids having jobs.

Not only middle class generation X, but also gays wanting equal rights, minorities, amnesty seekers and their families,,,, everyone is voting on factors that directly affect them.

30 years ago we had a strong middle class, who voted for strong leaders. As people become desperate, we are faced with electing the least common denominator rather than the greatest common denominator.

When was Regan elected? When the nation had a strong middle class and strong manufacturing base.

When did Hitler come into power? When the people were desperate.

When was obama elected? When the people were desperate for hope and change.

If you raise the people up, the quality of their elected officials will also go up.

If you take the people down, the quality of their elected officials will also go down.

The 2016 presidential election will not be about qualifications. The election will be about how desperate people have become.

Our desperation enables dictators to take advantage of our weakness. The President of Syria. Where is he? Where is this red line obama talked about? We elected a weak president who is going to allow a strong dictator to rise to power.

 

[werepossum]

I'd suggest that Putin moving on Ukraine right now has a lot more to do with Ukraine appearing to be eluding his sphere of influence than with Obama. Admittedly there is much more risk for Russia in taking Ukraine than in taking Georgia and I don't doubt that Putin had more respect for and wariness of Bush than Obama, but I doubt either figures largely in his calculations. Had Ukraine's president remained strong and pro-Russia, Putin would not have invaded. Conversely, no President short of a Reagan would stop him from invading now, when his hand-picked choice was ousted and Ukraine leadership was exhibiting a hard pro-Western turn. We can always bemoan the lack of a Reagan today, but Presidents are not elected in a vacuum. His particular strengths were well-displayed against Carter's "this is our new normal, get used to it" and an increasingly aggressive Soviet Union. We arguably have pretty much the same situation now, but did not in 2008 and 2012. (Or at least we were not admitting it in 2012.) Maybe we'll get another Reagan, but we're not nearly the nation we were in 1980. And that's the beauty of democracy: we get the government we deserve.

Personally I'm hoping this crisis is but a dim memory in fall 2016.

EDIT: One other thing comes to mind: If one accepts that Putin would do this regardless of who the American President happens to be, one can argue that a stronger, more warlike President might actually elicit a stronger move by Putin, as a deterrent toward armed action but also because he might more likely be denied the opportunity to take Ukraine incrementally.

 

[CrackRabbit]

(Another rambling rant snipped).

Reagan was elected for the same reason Obama was; they are and were charismatic and followed the terms of unpopular presidents.
And then re rest of your post is Godwin'ed nonsense.

 

[Texashiker]

And then re rest of your post is Godwin'ed nonsense.

Then debate me.

Our worst presidents have been elected when the nation was at its lowest point.

When was Nixon elected? When the nation was in the middle of vietnam.

FDR, terrible president who put tens of thousands in camps. When was he elected? During the depression.

When was JFK elected? During the post-WW II economic boom.

Clinton was a vote against george senior.

Desperate people resort to desperate measures. the people were desperate when they elected obama, and are really going to be desperate for the 2016 elections.

Reagan was elected for the same reason Obama was; they are and were charismatic and followed the terms of unpopular presidents.

Bush was unpopular?

Wow, when did that happen?

 

[CrackRabbit]

Then debate me.

Our worst presidents have been elected when the nation was at its lowest point.

When was Nixon elected? When the nation was in the middle of vietnam.

FDR, terrible president who put tens of thousands in camps. When was he elected? During the depression.




Bush was unpopular?

Wow, when did that happen?

Debate you on what exactly? The fact that you Godwin'ed the thread?
Can't do that, your post speaks for itself there.

That G.W. Bush and Carter were unpopular at the time their successors were elected. Pretty sure that is factual too.

If you want a debate, chew on this for a bit.
While Nixon and Franklin Roosevelt were bad presidents in many ways, so were the good ones.
Eisenhower is generally regarded as a 'good' president, yet did nothing to stem the growing racial disparity that lead to the riots of the 60s.
Even the almighty Reagan himself had the Iran-Contra scandal and numerous excursions into South America.
All of them are humans, and imperfect and must make due with the situations they are dealt with.

 

[Agent11]

Bush was unpopular among liberals and libertarians. Personally I think it's hilarious that Obama doubled down on the topics that most enraged these groups. NSA, patriot act, drones. Combined with his anti gun policy and petulant mewlings regarding marijuana Obama is the least freedom loving president we have had.

 

[BUnit1701]

...


Bush was unpopular?

Wow, when did that happen?

Like, 2003. Have you ever stepped outside of your house?

 

[Texashiker]

Debate you on what exactly? The fact that you Godwin'ed the thread?
Can't do that, your post speaks for itself there.

Do you have anything to contribute to the thread or not?

Like, 2003. Have you ever stepped outside of your house?

Well yea, I had a full time job and family.

 

[irishScott]

Nothing short of parking the 6th fleet off of Crimea and loading landing craft would cause Putin to rethink what he's doing.

At the end of the day, however, this isn't about us. Ukraine defied Putin when it ousted its pro-Putin prime minister. Putin, being the mob boss that he is, is hurting Ukraine however he can as punishment. He knows no one's going to war over Crimea, and he might even be able to do the same to Eastern Ukraine without a western response.