There is more uproar in the world, which happens at regular intervals. Some are flash points that come and go without major consequence, others are the start of something long and bad.
The Ukraine and Syria/Iraq (and throw in Gaza) are problems. Which one is likely to cause the most world turmoil?
We do not have the national leadership to simply pay a few of the Oligarchs to remove Putin and solve the problem.
Make no mistake about it, you can buy pretty much anything you want in that part of the world. For a hell of a lot less money than we spent on Iraq we could have bought the same results we have today and none of our people need to have died.
We need to play by their rules, just a little smarter is all. Playing at war without playing smarter than the enemy has brought is mess after mess for the last sixty odd years.
IMHO, the Syria/Iraq/Iran mess is the more serious. Putin has threatened to undo the Iranian nuke agreement even though Kerry, yesterday, basically gave Iran the green light to keep on enriching uranium. IS, formerly known as ISIS, was kicked out of the rebel coalition in Syria for being too radical, but then went on to take control of a large part of Iraq, including about $500 million in gold. They have been steadily taking town after town, heading to Baghdad, and are growing in strength and numbers. With their funds, they can afford to sponsor attacks anywhere in the world or buy any weapon system. The lack of leadership from the POS and his lackeys mean that there is no coherent strategy (much less a plan) to deal with the growing threat of Islamist terrorists expanding into other countries. These guys don't play by the rules that everyone else does, including the other Muslims. They are more ruthless than Genghis Khan ever thought about being. "Sanctions", as used against other nations, or "international condemnation" won't work on them. At this point in their existence, they don't have the same needs and restrictions that other national groups do, so they don't GAS about trade, banking, human rights, or restraint.
With this world turmoil I want to know just what the hell Bolivia, Bhutan, Botswana, Ecuador, Sweden, Cameroon, Laos, Djibouti, Jamaica, France, Switzerland, Uganda and Ireland are gonna do about this?! Where the hell is the outrage in those countries?! When are their armies and navies (rowboats, outboard motorboats, et al) going to mobilize?
Geopolitically, the Ukraine has the potential for an out of control crisis. Remember Bismarck said a war would ignite Europe over some damned fool thing in the Balkans. Ukraine isn't the Balkans but the scenario's very similar. This one's a lot easier to difuse though. All Putin has to do is step back out of it and the thing fizzles out. And all we (the West) have to do is apply some meaningful sanctions to apply pressure. As to Syria, standard ME east problem that will never go away as long as Israel exists.
With this world turmoil I want to know just what the hell Bolivia, Bhutan, Botswana, Ecuador, Sweden, Cameroon, Laos, Djibouti, Jamaica, France, Switzerland, Uganda and Ireland are gonna do about this?! Where the hell is the outrage in those countries?! When are their armies and navies (rowboats, outboard motorboats, et al) going to mobilize?
Answer is that global turmoil be it Ukraine or Syria will not effect the standard of living or safety in Bhutan, Cameroon, Laos, or most of those other countries, who, BTW refuse to fund a military least it suck funds from the Social give aways.
I believe the situation involving Ukraine is much more serious for our safety. Russia is going for the whole enchilada, and nothing is standing in her way. Europe is too emasculated and frightened to stand up for itself, and America is run by communists in total sympathy with Putin.
The Ukraine conflict will end when Putin gets what he wants.
The civil war in Syria will likely go on for a very long time but it will stay within their border.
Israel is going to put an end to Hamas in the next couple of weeks.
*** ISIS won't stop their conquest and their vision of a unified Islamic state that encompasses most of the ME.
*** Iran ??? Nukes ??? It's hard to guess what's going to happen there.
I am reading the trilogy by Joel C. Rosenberg. The Twelfth Imam, The Tehran Initiative, and Just about to start Damascus Count Down. With today'y current events and the idiot in the White House These three will keep you awake at night.
Neither are serious. There is nothing that is any of our business in either country. But then again, you liberal, neocon, RINO's love to intervene every chance you get, driving us closer to a one-world-government and deeper in to slavery.
You've been smokin' some serious chronic if you think we live in a free country. Last ranking I read had us, I believe, 18th most free country in the world.
Neither are serious. There is nothing that is any of our business in either country. But then again, you liberal, neocon, RINO's love to intervene every chance you get, driving us closer to a one-world-government and deeper in to slavery.
You've been smokin' some serious chronic if you think we live in a free country. Last ranking I read had us, I believe, 18th most free country in the world.
Uh, The question was:
Quote
The Ukraine and Syria/Iraq (and throw in Gaza) are problems. Which one is likely to cause the most world turmoil?
Nowhere in that question did I ask of interventionism, One World government, loss of personal freedom, or the potency of Long Beach Chronic. If you want to rant on those topics, start your own thread.
Iran !!!! -- sometime before Obummer leaves office they will have a working nuclear bomb.
You're wrong. But so what if Iran does have the bomb? Will that scare you? Will you take to sleeping under your bed? Why Pakistan, North Korea, and China have really big nukes.
How do you piss without getting your pants wet with all the shaking you're doing?
Here's a much needed clue for you: propaganda you're reading is coming from Israel. They want their goyim sheep -that'd be us- to go to war with Iran over a phony bomb issue when the real issue is Israel's monopoly on Middle Eastern nuclear medicine. That way, Israel retains its nuclear medicine monopoly, and if boys are dying in preserving that monopoly, they'll be goyim boys, not Israeli boys. Israeli boys will be on Miami Beach banging goyim coeds 2 at a time while the goyim coeds' brothers are dying in an Iranian desert.
Neither are serious. There is nothing that is any of our business in either country. But then again, you liberal, neocon, RINO's love to intervene every chance you get, driving us closer to a one-world-government and deeper in to slavery.
You've been smokin' some serious chronic if you think we live in a free country. Last ranking I read had us, I believe, 18th most free country in the world.
Uh, The question was:
Quote
The Ukraine and Syria/Iraq (and throw in Gaza) are problems. Which one is likely to cause the most world turmoil?
Nowhere in that question did I ask of interventionism, One World government, loss of personal freedom, or the potency of Long Beach Chronic. If you want to rant on those topics, start your own thread.
Implicit throughout your question is pondered interventionism. It's as easy to spot as liberal, neocon, RINO's that graze in great herds upon this fertile forum.
Depends on who you are. Ukraine might cause turmoil for Europe and Russia if natural gas supplies are curtailed. Though since the US cranks out tons of NG, we have little to be concerned about relative to the Europeans who rely on Russian NG coming through Ukrainian pipes. Instability in that arena probably is a net benefit to us, just as oil instability benefits the Saudis. Syria is really only relevant to everyone to a small degree for their relatively small oil supplies and global weapons trafficking. Other than that, it's just an issue for Israel and the middle east, unless it escapes their borders. My vote is to sit back, let both events spiral out of control, then sell everyone new stuff in the aftermath, once they've destroyed one another's economies. That's a nice sure way to reap another post WWII US manufacturing boom, in which we're once again the last man standing.
Ukraine simply because it has super power backing. Gaza will be taken care of and Israel should not move out or surrender any seized grounds. Syria and Iraq are internal squabbles.
As far as the US is concerned, I'd agree the southern invasion and unwillingness of our leaders to enforce law.
Implicit throughout your question is pondered interventionism. It's as easy to spot as liberal, neocon, RINO's that graze in great herds upon this fertile forum.
Wrong. You are a victim of faulty assumptions. I'm not interested in spending the money, much less the blood to intervene in any of that.
Bob Beckel and Jesse Watters were discussing the degree to which the U.S. should get involved in the investigation on �The Five,� but the two disagreed strongly over how President Barack Obama should handle the situation.
We have too many of the right that have no skin in the conflict ready to commit troops in another part of the world. When do the Hawks stop thinking that the USA can fix every screwed up part of the world. I guess my question is how do we think that we have any jurisdiction in this issue?
Quote
That claim sent Beckel into a frenzy. �No, we can't,� he barked, before pounding the table with his fist. �You want boots on the ground? You want them on the ground in Ukraine? If you want to be a warmonger and go to Ukraine, do it.�
When Hitler invaded Poland, every one said it was no big deal. Russia invaded Georgia and everyone said no big deal. Now it's Ukraine. Russia knows this piece of crap we have in Washington won't do anything and no one else will either. The future on that front looks might dim.
Then there is the middle east, Iran,Iraq,Syria will eventually get nuke capabilities and sooner or later you are going to see a nuke detonated on U.S. soil by them. The intelligence gathering community is saying that soon we I will have another 9/11 type of assault in the U.S.
Two days ago the new muslim radicals in Iraq announced that all Christians have three options, leave, convert to Islam, or die.
We have pseudo president in Washington that caters to Muslims.
Anyone that doesn't think that the feces is about to hit the rotary blades in all this mess has their head in the sand.
One thread currently active has many people expressing a total lack of faith in government.
Other active threads demonstrate that many of those same people swallow the government's accounts of its foreign policy adventures hook, line, and sinker.
Ukraine and Russia are civilized nations that will eventually sort themselves out.
Ukraine is not our problem. If the Pro-Russian Ukrainians want to join Russia, let them. I remember how we [bleep] Serbia over on the exact same thing.
Syria/Iraq et al are 6th century barbarians. You can't solve the problems there without killing everything that lives there.
So unless you are willing to exterminate every last sand monkey from the ME, we best stay out there too.
...Syria/Iraq et al are 6th century barbarians. You can't solve the problems there without killing everything that lives there.
And thus my statement about the IS. They make the rest of the Muslim world look life pacifists. They are not giving anyone the same options given in other places, namely, convert, pay a tax, leave, or die. It's either convert or die. That goes for other brands of Islam, too. Either toe their line or die.
I understand. The problem is we're not willing to pop a couple tactical nukes which is the real solution to the problem.The same solution needs to be applied to Afghanistan too.
There is more uproar in the world, which happens at regular intervals. Some are flash points that come and go without major consequence, others are the start of something long and bad.
The Ukraine and Syria/Iraq (and throw in Gaza) are problems. Which one is likely to cause the most world turmoil?
Russia knows this piece of crap we have in Washington won't do anything and no one else will either
Are you suggesting just like FOX Noise that we get involved with our military? All of GW. Bush's Fuc% Ups and you have learned nothing? It is not a sign of weakness NOT to get involved with every crap home on the globe. We don't have to live in constant state of war you know!
Russia knows this piece of crap we have in Washington won't do anything and no one else will either
Are you suggesting just like FOX Noise that we get involved with our military? All of GW. Bush's Fuc% Ups and you have learned nothing? It is not a sign of weakness NOT to get involved with every crap home on the globe. We don't have to live in constant state of war you know!
Please show where Fox is SUGGESTING we get involved with our military? I know you're pretty stupid, being a democrat and all, but thereis a difference between commentary (opinion) and reporting the news, and nowhere have I heard what you are spewing. Wht they have reportedis the fact this president has chosen to do NOTHING. There is no need nor would it be smart to go to war over this, but there are myriad steps he could take to end this and he refuses, because among many things, he is an incopmpetenr coward when it comes to making any kind of decision.
Russia knows this piece of crap we have in Washington won't do anything and no one else will either
It is not a sign of weakness NOT to get involved with every crap home on the globe. We don't have to live in constant state of war you know!
No, we don't. Better if we don't. Cheaper if we don't. However, if you appear weak, you will be a victim of bullies.
The Ayatollah Khomeini attacked our embassy and took our people hostage because Jimmy Carter appeared weak or strong? Khomeini released the hostages because Reagan appeared weak or strong? Reagan didn't need to send troops or an airstrike. Saddam invaded Kuwait during Reagan's administration or GHWB Bush, who he saw as weak? BTW, you can hate the Bushes, but Saddam sized them up incorrectly twice and it cost him.
Was Milosovich worried about Klinton? Is Putin worried about �bama? The Ukraine is damned sure worried about Putin, and it didn't take much for him to grab the Crimea. Putin is very good at sending the image of "you mess with the bull and you'll get the horns" while doing very little. He doesn't need to do much, he's viewed as a serious man.
�bama? As I will continue to point out, he is accurately viewed as a narcissistic, effeminate hipster. Think Putin respects anything about him?
Seriously:
Versus:
Which country do you want to mess with? Which county's allies are secure knowing someone has their back?
Every President in my lifetime and even my father's has sent troops in harms way, like it or not. I'd prefer a strong President that never had to deploy troops, but to be strong and not to have aggressors be temped to take advantage of us or our allies, such a President would need a strong image and the world would need to collectively understand he would kick serious ass if provoked. Gee, speak softly and carry a big stick. Heard that some place before.
