Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, February 01, 2014

OTP - Feb 2014: Politics remains a hurdle for immigration reform

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM | 3524 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 31 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 > 
   3001. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4665398)
completely concur with all points listed in 2996 given that i have written them elsewhere previously.
   3002. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4665399)
Not sure if you mean in general or in this case, but invasion or aggression certainly can be a sign of weakness.

Regarding Germany under the Kaiser, insecurity is not synonymous with weakness.
   3003. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4665402)
   3004. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4665404)
gold

i will just mention that many leaders do not grasp even basic economics or finance. cannot speak for putin on this topic but it would not surprise me if he waved it off in the short-term as irrelevant. once the impact has been felt maybe he responds differently. but by then his goals may have been reached so he would regard it as a good tradeoff.
   3005. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4665405)
Not sure if you mean in general or in this case, but invasion or aggression certainly can be a sign of weakness. ...

A successful invasion or a successful act of aggression is rarely, if ever, a sign of weakness vis-a-vis the victim of said invasion/aggression.
   3006. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4665406)
as a follow up, most presidents in this nation's history could be branded as economically or financially illiterate. president Theodore Roosevelt as one famous example had no concept of money. nor did sir Winston Churchill who had to be loaned money regularly by wealthy admirers.
   3007. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4665408)
Regarding 2996 the rest of the world (including the US) isn't acting in the ways he warns about anyway, as much as a few of you are claiming the opposite because Obama hasn't used the right buzzwords or publicly threatened to bomb Russia if they don't leave.
   3008. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4665410)
jim

sorry, i found your post (3007) hard to understand. what is your point?
   3009. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:47 PM (#4665411)
like to think we can do better.


Unfortunately I can see nothing in the short term that could help them. If I were them I'd keep my head down and if actually violent conflict erupts try to stay out as much as possible.
An analogous group could be the Kurds, literally nothing short of invading and deposing Hussein could have appreciably helped them- and we did that- and of all groups affected by that war, they may be the only group to have come out indisputably in better shape than before.

Think of Putin as Hussein- but with nukes.
We don't have very many options beyond containment and waiting him out. The question is how "active" is that containment - more to the point is how much economic pain is Europe willing to endure to put the screws to Putin?


   3010. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:49 PM (#4665412)
No one is going to invade the Crimea at this point to force the Russian out. Putin has his fait accompli.

But, it seems to me the solution to the rest of the problem is dead simple. Admit Ukraine to NATO ASAP, and tell Putin, "You go the Crimea, that's all. One more step, and it's a shooting war you can't win."

Putin a bully, he's not insane.

I mean, we guarantee Ukraine's independence when they gave up there nukes. We can't let Russia re-annex them.
   3011. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4665414)
The opposition leader is warning against other countries being isolationist, not caring, not thinking that the Ukraine situation affects them, etc. My point was that the US and NATO aren't doing or saying any of that stuff so the quotes from him are frankly irrelevant
   3012. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4665417)
Regarding 2996 the rest of the world (including the US) isn't acting in the ways he warns about anyway, as much as a few of you are claiming the opposite because Obama hasn't used the right buzzwords or publicly threatened to bomb Russia if they don't leave.

Come on, Jim, stop with the "bomb Russia" crazy talk which Kasparov specifically addressed and you supposedly read.

Anyway, much of the criticism of Obama you're reading this morning is about his foreign policy generally. (Even the left-leaning Finanical Times' US-based columnist took him to task last night.) Regarding "buzzwords," while actions matter more than words, the latter isn't insignificant.

And yet, I still have hope that POTUS will rise to the occasion and take a vigorous all-of-the-above approach to financial/trade sanctions against Russia. Seriously.

EDIT: I really need to stop calling left-leaning newspapers "left-leaning," lest Sammy churn out another 24 posts screaming that they're actually nefarious neo-Con outlets.
   3013. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4665418)
Not sure if you mean in general or in this case, but invasion or aggression certainly can be a sign of weakness.

In theory, it can be, but here it isn't. It's a sign that he's going to fight to keep the formerly captive nations squarely under Russian control -- his foremost foreign policy aim.
   3014. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 03, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4665419)
But, it seems to me the solution to the rest of the problem is dead simple. Admit Ukraine to NATO ASAP, and tell Putin, "You go the Crimea, that's all. One more step, and it's a shooting war you can't win."

Putin a bully, he's not insane.


I'd think NATO would at the very least have to put a token force on the ground somewhere in the Ukraine asap for this to work (and it's got to be the Western Ukraine)- and it has to be a token force from a country that Russia's military respects (meaning it's gonna have to have either US or British troops)
   3015. BDC Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4665422)
A successful invasion or a successful act of aggression is rarely, if ever, a sign of weakness

That's a bit of a tautology, no? It's like saying that Sandy Koufax was rarely the weaker pitcher in games that he won :)

Take invasions like those of the North by Robert E Lee in 1862 and 1863. Those were definitely done from a position of strategic weakness. It's not that Lee thought his army couldn't win a battle; they obviously could. But he properly assessed the strategic situation as being very unpromising unless he seized the initative and caught the Union off-balance. The bottom line was two unsuccessful invasions from a rightly-judged position of weakness. (Meanwhile the North had conducted several unsuccessful invasions of Virginia from a rightly-judged position of strength.)
   3016. Srul Itza Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4665423)
a lot of lefties don't really see our victory in the Cold War as a good thing. Which is undeniable


I deny it.
   3017. BDC Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4665424)
And I should add that none of my examples bear much on Putin and the Crimea. I just think that history is fuller of paradoxes than one might allow.
   3018. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4665425)
But, it seems to me the solution to the rest of the problem is dead simple. Admit Ukraine to NATO ASAP, and tell Putin, "You go the Crimea, that's all. One more step, and it's a shooting war you can't win."

This is probably the best course of action. I doubt Obama and the Euros have the stomach to do it. They should obviously be inviting the Ukrainian PM to sign the association agreement the ex-PM goon reneged on. NATO's a good idea, too.

Any division of the Ukraine must include admission of the western part to NATO and the EU. That has to be non-negotiable. There should also be an additional price of agressively building the missile installations in Poland and the Czech Republic, and probably others.



   3019. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4665427)
A successful invasion or a successful act of aggression is rarely, if ever, a sign of weakness vis-a-vis the victim of said invasion/aggression.


Which addresses none of what I said. Russia is not showing strength (there is more to strength than military, much more) by invading Ukraine. Everyone in the world already knew they were militarily stronger than Ukraine. What they showed is that they had no other method of getting their goals. And the method they were forced to use is one that is expensive, risky, and as the last 100+ years have shown us is one almost certainly doomed to fail (at a minimum cost more than it is worth and at worst can lead to a chain of events bringing down the government or even - potentially I guess - sparking a world war).

When you engage in an action as costly, risky and prone to failure as that, because you have no other choice, that is weak. Every once in a while you have to go to war, but it is the last option because it is so costly and risky. Getting to that last option is a bad thing and shows weakness.

And by the way it is a bit early to call this a successful invasion. I am still looking for the huge number of successful invasions of the past 100+ years. By my reckoning the vast majority of invasions, even those announced as a success (mission accomplished baby!) turned to crap for the country that did the invasion.
   3020. BDC Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4665428)
Or as Damon Runyon said, The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet :)
   3021. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4665431)
Anyway, much of the criticism of Obama you're reading this morning is about his foreign policy generally. (Even the left-leaning Finanical Times' US-based columnist took him to task last night.) Regarding "buzzwords," while actions matter more than words, the latter isn't insignificant.

Roger Cohen in today's NYT:

"Obama has said Putin will pay a price. Kerry has spoken of a “huge price.” But the administration’s Syrian equivocations underwrote Putin’s assertiveness and sense of impunity. Options are now limited. This is the Age of Reluctance, a time when American power is dominant but no longer determinant. Americans have turned inward.

The president must lead. Since 1945 America’s security and prosperity have been tied to the steady spread of liberty in a Europe made whole and free. There is a vital U.S. interest in not seeing this process reversed — not in the land of Yalta and the corpse-filled ravine of Babi Yar.

If Ukraine were subjugated to Moscow once more, or dismembered through a Russian annexation of Crimea in flagrant violation of Russia’s own commitments in 1994, Obama would become the president who presided over a watershed diminishment of the trans-Atlantic bond."


That will indeed be his primary legacy, and it wouldn't be a pretty one.

   3022. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4665432)
But, it seems to me the solution to the rest of the problem is dead simple. Admit Ukraine to NATO ASAP, and tell Putin, "You go the Crimea, that's all. One more step, and it's a shooting war you can't win."


Countries should not be allowed into NATO when invaded by Russia (or anyone else for that matter). Entry to NATO should be part of a strategic calculation and fully thought out, not done in a panic over Putin invading some previous Russian client state.

I am not saying they should not be admitted, but I am suggesting that admission should not be done solely to solve this particular crisis (which again is still very young, it is much too early to declare victory or defeat for anyone just yet).
   3023. Greg K Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:08 PM (#4665433)
The conspiracy folks on my facebook feed have been relatively silent about Ukraine up until now, but I've just got one on the US using the HAARP station to ravage the Crimea with an earthquake. Link

Who says you need troops on the ground to intimidate Putin!
   3024. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4665434)
So when are they going to change the name of NATO? I'm not sure what Ukraine has to do with the North Atlantic.
   3025. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4665435)
And by the way it is a bit early to call this a successful invasion. I am still looking for the huge number of successful invasions of the past 100+ years. By my reckoning the vast majority of invasions, even those announced as a success (mission accomplished baby!) turned to crap for the country that did the invasion.


And just like that, today I agree with you.
   3026. Greg K Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4665436)
So when are they going to change the name of NATO? I'm not sure what Ukraine has to do with the North Atlantic.

It'll be like the Holy Roman Empire. Neither North-Atlantic, nor a Treaty, nor Organized!
   3027. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4665437)
That's a bit of a tautology, no? It's like saying that Sandy Koufax was rarely the weaker pitcher in games that he won :)

That was exactly the point.

The attempts by the Obama cultists apologists to paint Putin as some "weak" "bully" are not only silly, but they fail to understand that the only successful response to a bully is a show of strength.
   3028. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4665439)
Countries should not be allowed into NATO when invaded by Russia (or anyone else for that matter).

Why? NATO's raison d'etre is preventing invasion by Russia.
   3029. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4665441)
If Ukraine were subjugated to Moscow once more, or dismembered through a Russian annexation of Crimea in flagrant violation of Russia’s own commitments in 1994, Obama would become the president who presided over a watershed diminishment of the trans-Atlantic bond."


#3021 is full of over the top hyperventilating. Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Georgia, and now Ukraine. All of them at the time, in the moment, were the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER! This is where we have to take a stand.

And for all of them, before the dust had settled the same cast of characters were declaring Obama was weak and how terrible it would all be. Not every emergency calls for or can be solved by US intervention. not every bad thing that happens is the US Presidents fault.
   3030. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4665442)
Russia is not showing strength (there is more to strength than military, much more) by invading Ukraine.

True enough. They're not "showing strength," they're "being strong."

Which is to say that they have foreign policy goals which they're willing to use force to achieve, and they've used such force. Nothing remotely "weak" about it.
   3031. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4665443)
Why? NATO's raison d'etre is preventing invasion by Russia.


Well NATO was more than that, and at the time is was the Soviet Union and not Russia, but ignoring all that, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan you were totally on board with Afghanistan being enrolled in NATO, right?

If not, why not?
   3032. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4665444)
Well NATO was more than that

Not really.

Well NATO was more than that, and at the time is was the Soviet Union and not Russia, but ignoring all that, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan you were totally on board with Afghanistan being enrolled in NATO, right?

If not, why not?


Because they were neither part of Europe nor part of the former Soviet Union.

Are these "gotchas" supposed to be serious?
   3033. Guapo Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4665445)
But the administration’s Syrian equivocations underwrote Putin’s assertiveness and sense of impunity. Options are now limited.

I just want to point out that this premise is ridiculous. Alternatively, the US could have gone in whole-hog to Syria, found itself utterly mired in a hopeless situation, and Putin could have strolled into the Ukraine confident that the US was otherwise occupied.

I am doubtful that anyone can point to a time in modern US history when you could state confidently that the US would have intervened in a Russian invasion of Crimea.
   3034. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:19 PM (#4665446)
Which is to say that they have foreign policy goals which they're willing to use force to achieve, and they've used such force. Nothing remotely "weak" about it.


If the military is how you judge strength then sure this looks strong. If you think desperately invading because every other gambit you have tried is failing is strong, then I guess this looks strong.

I suspect the issue is with your definition of strength. Because to me this looks like the desperate bid of a bully. And it will cost Russia far more than it will ever gain it.
   3035. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4665449)
Roger Cohen in today's NYT:

Roger Cohen said that, SBB?!? [mind blown]
   3036. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4665450)
Roger Cohen said that, SBB?!? [mind blown]

Yep. Limbaugh/Fox News loving Roger Cohen.
   3037. Rants Mulliniks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4665451)
I'm really not trying to inflame anyone here, but if the US does decide to enter into an armed conflict with Russia (which is the only foreseeable outcome of the US sending troops or drones to Ukraine) in what universe is that going to end well for the US?
   3038. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4665452)
Which addresses none of what I said. Russia is not showing strength (there is more to strength than military, much more) by invading Ukraine. Everyone in the world already knew they were militarily stronger than Ukraine. What they showed is that they had no other method of getting their goals.

"They had no other method of getting their goals"? So what? There's more than one way to skin a cat, etc. Putin wanted the Crimea and, right now, he has it.

I am still looking for the huge number of successful invasions of the past 100+ years. By my reckoning the vast majority of invasions, even those announced as a success (mission accomplished baby!) turned to crap for the country that did the invasion.

Damn, you still haven't figured out that The Good Face has been toying with you for weeks?

There weren't many successful invasions over the past hundred years because the U.S. was a military superpower that was generally understood not to tolerate such actions. As the U.S. is seen as less willing to police/repel such actions, more are sure to occur. Putin isn't the only leader with an expansionist bent.
   3039. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4665453)
Because they were neither part of Europe or part of the former Soviet Union.

Are these "gotchas" supposed to be serious?


NATO is not just for European nations, and what does being part of the Soviet Union have to do with entry in NATO? You are, after the fact, coming up with criteria.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO; /?ne?to?/ nay-toh; French: Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN)), also called the (North) Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.


Feel free to look up the North Atlantic treaty, but I really doubt it will specify preference for former Client States of the Soviet Union in terms of membership.
   3040. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:24 PM (#4665455)
While I don't support US military action against Russia over Crimea, it is important to note that any talk of the United States population being too exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq to respond to Putin's aggression in any meaningful way is silly.

More than 330,000 Americans were killed in the Second World War and yet within two years we were neck-deep in the Cold War and engaged in a shooting war in Korea in antoher three.
   3041. SteveF Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4665456)
Latvia is ~40% ethnic Russian right? I wonder how they're feeling these days.
   3042. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4665457)
NATO is not just for European nations, and what does being part of the Soviet Union have to do with entry in NATO? You are, after the fact, coming up with criteria.

What in the world are you blubbering about now? Extending NATO membership to Ukraine doesn't mean you have to extend it to every country Russia/Soviet Union have ever invaded.
   3043. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4665459)
Latvia is ~40% ethnic Russian right? I wonder how they're feeling these days.


Even Putin won't dare incur the ire of Dr. Doom. He's in Latvia, right?
   3044. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4665461)
"They had no other method of getting their goals"? So what? There's more than one way to skin a cat, etc. Putin wanted the Crimea and, right now, he has it.


The have it, for now, in the most expensive, risky and failure prone way possible. That is like the US invading Canada or Mexico over a trade disagreement. Sure on some level we might succeed, but there are other ways to accomplish those goals. Cheaper, safer, and more generally successful ways. The fact that he was forced to use the way he did showed weakness.


There weren't many successful invasions over the past hundred years because the U.S. was a military superpower that was generally understood not to tolerate such actions. As the U.S. is seen as less willing to police/repel such actions, more are sure to occur. Putin isn't the only leader with an expansionist bent.


The uS was such a great superpower that not only did it stop invasions it cared about, it stopped invasions it did not care about AND EVEN stopped its own invasions. Now that is some superpower. And so universal.

The various invasions of the past 100+ years did not fail because the US wanted them to, they failed because such attacks are nearly guaranteed to fail in the modern world.
   3045. Srul Itza Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:30 PM (#4665462)
Everybody keeps talking about the US doing this, NATO doing that, etc., etc.

Nobody is talking about what Ukraine is going to do, and when.

As far as I can tell from the newsfeeds, no shots have yet been fired.

But it is very probably coming. I have a horrible feeling that with this many people running around with guns and making threats, sooner or later, Checkhov's law will manifest in a real world situation.

And when it does, either everyone takes as step back very quickly, or things hit the fan.

I fully agree with the people who say that the Ukrainians will fight.

This is the problem we always face. While we dithered about Syria, the jihadists came in, and things got out of control. Things could get out of control in Ukraine.

If I am wrong -- and I hope I am -- then the damage to the Russian economy to come will make what has happened in the last 24 hours look like boom times.
   3046. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4665465)
What in the world are you blubbering about now? Extending NATO membership to Ukraine doesn't mean you have to extend it to every country Russia/Soviet Union have ever invaded.


Where did I say it did. I am responding to your silly chain of logic. Allow me to distill it.

Russia invaded Ukraine, so Ukraine should be brought into NATO. Why?
Because Russia invaded. Why not any nation Russia invades in Nato?
Because it is in Europe and is a former client state. But that has nothing to do with Nato.
Right. But you still have not explained why Ukraine versus other nations invaded by Russia, like Afghanistan.

And round and round you go, periodically bringing in bizarre side notes like accusing me of suggesting all former client states need be inducted if Ukraine is (which is nothing like anything I said).
   3047. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4665466)
The various invasions of the past 100+ years did not fail because the US wanted them to, they failed because such attacks are nearly guaranteed to fail in the modern world.


Why would an invasion fail in the modern world as opposed to prior centuries? This strikes me a bit like folks proclaiming the end of War in 1905.
   3048. Steve Treder Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4665468)
The US was such a great superpower that not only did it stop invasions it cared about, it stopped invasions it did not care about AND EVEN stopped its own invasions. Now that is some superpower. And so universal.

The US was cool; and by cool, I mean totally sweet.
   3049. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4665469)
Jason yes, here is what he said

Don't give this stupid false choice between doing nothing & sending troops to attack Russia. There is vast spectrum of real action between.


There is indeed a vast spectrum of real action available, including the stuff Obama has been doing in the short time since this crisis started! So until you guys stop reflexively criticizing him for everything and claiming he is being weak and setting up appeasement then I will continue to assume that you want him to threaten military action because clearly you aren't satisfied with the various diplomatic measures he has taken or is working on (not to mention behind the scenes stuff that wouldn't be reported in the media. If you want us to believe that you really don't want military action over this then act like it instead of assuming that whatever he is doing is a sign of weakness or trying to work out a way to give in to Putin
   3050. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4665470)
This is the problem we always face. While we dithered about Syria, the jihadists came in, and things got out of control. Things could get out of control in Ukraine.


Your assumption that US dithering in Syria was the problem is simply incorrect. When a nation falls apart it is difficult (basically impossible) for a far away power to positively impact the situation. Nothing Obama could have done would have necessarily helped the Syrian situation. Sometimes bad things happen. Bad results happen. The US cannot make the world a magical place by clapping or wishing it so.

Yes things might get out of control in Ukraine is the US does nothing. It is even more likely it gets out of control if the US actively intervenes.
   3051. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4665471)
Because it is in Europe and is a former client state.

But that has nothing to do with Nato.


Europe and former client states have "nothing to do with NATO"?

That's just silly, so silly that I'm done with it.
   3052. Sonic Youk Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4665473)
Ukraine's government is in the middle of a constitutional crisis and their administration is of very questionable legitimacy. Signing a mutual defense pact right now is just crazy and a horrible idea for all parties.
   3053. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4665474)
The have it, for now, in the most expensive, risky and failure prone way possible.

As far as I can tell, Russia's invasion of the Crimea hasn't been all that "expensive," and it would only be "risky" and "failure prone" if the U.S. was seen as likely to intervene, which Putin has calculated — correctly, it appears — will not be occurring.

That is like the US invading Canada or Mexico over a trade disagreement. Sure on some level we might succeed, but there are other ways to accomplish those goals. Cheaper, safer, and more generally successful ways. The fact that he was forced to use the way he did showed weakness.

I know everyone's been waiting for it, so ... LOL.

The uS was such a great superpower that not only did it stop invasions it cared about, it stopped invasions it did not care about AND EVEN stopped its own invasions. Now that is some superpower. And so universal.

The various invasions of the past 100+ years did not fail because the US wanted them to, they failed because such attacks are nearly guaranteed to fail in the modern world.

Still LOL. I knew you'd be good for a lot of LOLs on this topic, and you sure aren't disappointing.
   3054. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4665475)
Why would an invasion fail in the modern world as opposed to prior centuries? This strikes me a bit like folks proclaiming the end of War in 1905.


We discussed this a few pages back. In a nutshell (IMO) the changes in the technology of war and the rise of nationalism make conquering and getting anything out of the conquered nation very difficult. Even when you win, then you have to deal with holding the damn place and getting more out of it than the cost of holding it turns out to be basically impossible.

On the other side the rise of international trade makes the rewards of not invading much higher. Basically the cost/benefits of military invasions have shifted, causing a once profitable enterprise to stop being profitable. Like the manufacture of 8-track tapes. We can still do it, but it is not very worthwhile, because time has passed them by.

From an empirical side the fact that there has not been much in the way of successful military invasions in the last 100+ years is kind of a clue that perhaps they are not very viable anymore.
   3055. Srul Itza Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4665477)
Nothing Obama could have done would have necessarily helped the Syrian situation.


If that is your criteria for action -- a guarantee of success -- then it is a wonder you bother to get out of bed in the morning.

We could have changed things very quickly by unilaterally or with help from a few allies declaring a no fly zone for Syrian planes bombing civilians. Given the way Israel has made Syrian air defense their bitch for the last 30 years, it would not have been that difficult. We could have then created sanctuaries and armed the opposition, which was making good ground for quite a while.

Would it have worked? No guarantees. But it would have had a chance of working, instead of sitting on our hands and letting it go all to hell as the Jihadis moved in.
   3056. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4665478)
Why would an invasion fail in the modern world as opposed to prior centuries?

Prior centuries didn't have Barack Obama.

   3057. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4665480)
Perhaps Obama ought to have the Army put together an expeditionary force, brigade sized, light and agile so it can move quickly. Have them charge into the Crimea. I'm sure the results would be magnificent.
   3058. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4665481)
As far as I can tell, Russia's invasion of the Crimea hasn't been all that "expensive,"


Mission Accomplished, Part Duex. We need to get Putin in a flight suit.

Still LOL. I knew you'd be good for a lot of LOLs on this topic, and you sure aren't disappointing.


Color me shocked you have no real rejoinder. No list of successful invasions in the last 100+ years to counterbalance the list of failures (which is VERY long). No explanation why the superpower which is strong enough to stop every other nation on Earth from a successful invasion can't pull of its own successful invasion.

And again by success I am not talking the military march in and plant the flag. I am talking, by the time it is done it was worth the cost of conquering and holding the territory.
   3059. The Good Face Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4665483)
Why would an invasion fail in the modern world as opposed to prior centuries? This strikes me a bit like folks proclaiming the end of War in 1905.


BM is essentially an adherent to Whig History; he believes there's a historical narrative arc towards greater peace/democracy/liberalism, etc. and that we've left such things in the past. I believe that he's misinterpreting a historical anomaly (Pax Americana) as something more than it is. Once America reachs the point where it cannot/will not act to maintain the global peace, I expect a new and exciting round of wars and invasions once people realize the lid is off the pot.
   3060. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:47 PM (#4665484)
If you want us to believe that you really don't want military action over this then act like it instead of assuming that whatever he is doing is a sign of weakness or trying to work out a way to give in to Putin

Again, Jim, I am willing to wait and see what Obama does regarding Crimea but when NYT's Roger Cohen and FT's Edward Luce, and yes, the WaPo ed board are concerned at Obama's overall foreign policy, then I can't blame others for being nearly certain that he won't rise to the occasion this time either.
   3061. Guapo Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4665485)
While I don't support US military action against Russia over Crimea, it is important to note that any talk of the United States population being too exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq to respond to Putin's aggression in any meaningful way is silly.

More than 330,000 Americans were killed in the Second World War and yet within two years we were neck-deep in the Cold War and engaged in a shooting war in Korea in antoher three.


Not to go all Clapper on you, but:

On Iraq, Americans by 52%-37% say the United States mostly failed to achieve its goals. That is a decidedly more negative view than in November 2011, when U.S. combat troops withdrew. Then, by 56%-33%, those surveyed said the U.S. had mostly succeeded.

• On Afghanistan, Americans by a nearly identical 52%-38% say the U.S. has mostly failed to achieve its goals. In 2011, a month after Osama bin Laden was killed, a majority predicted the war would succeed.

By 10 percentage points, 51%-41%, Americans say the U.S. made the right decision in using military force in Afghanistan, where the Taliban had provided safe haven for the al-Qaeda terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks. Still, that narrow majority does reflect a significant shift in views. In 2006, two-thirds of Americans said invading Afghanistan was the right decision.

But when it comes to Iraq, support for the decision to go to war has crashed. The invasion was launched in March 2003 with Bush administration officials asserting President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, though they were never found. At the beginning, Americans by 3-1 called it the right decision.

Now, by 50%-38%, they call it the wrong one.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/30/usa-today-pew-research-poll-americans-question-results-in-iraq-afghanistan/5028097/
   3062. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:48 PM (#4665486)
As far as I can tell, Russia's invasion of the Crimea hasn't been all that "expensive,"


Looked at the ruble and the Moscow Stock Exchange lately? There's $50 billion down the drain. Add another $50 billion for the Olympics, which was supposed to burnish Russia's image.
   3063. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4665487)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/03/02/putin-is-losing-in-ukraine-and-thats-our-biggest-problem-right-now/
   3064. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4665488)
Color me shocked you have no real rejoinder. No list of successful invasions in the last 100+ years to counterbalance the list of failures (which is VERY long). No explanation why the superpower which is strong enough to stop every other nation on Earth from a successful invasion can't pull of its own successful invasion.

Who cares? We want a world order in which there aren't any invasions, not one in which there are regular invasions which cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars to reverse.

Putin was not deterred from invading Ukraine. That's an American/European failure.
   3065. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4665489)
Nothing Obama could have done would have necessarily helped the Syrian situation.

I remember these types of arguments being aired before Clinton took action against Serbia over Bosnia.
   3066. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4665490)
If that is your criteria for action -- a guarantee of success -- then it is a wonder you bother to get out of bed in the morning.


My criteria is the expected benefit outweighs the expected cost. Many people forget to include cost in the equation and many also never give an actual expectation of benefit, a description of the actual goal. they only give the worst case fear - Putin is the next Hitler, for example.
   3067. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:50 PM (#4665491)
There's $50 billion down the drain.

Wow. A whole $50 billion, huh?
   3068. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:51 PM (#4665492)
We discussed this a few pages back. In a nutshell (IMO) the changes in the technology of war and the rise of nationalism make conquering and getting anything out of the conquered nation very difficult. Even when you win, then you have to deal with holding the damn place and getting more out of it than the cost of holding it turns out to be basically impossible.

On the other side the rise of international trade makes the rewards of not invading much higher. Basically the cost/benefits of military invasions have shifted, causing a once profitable enterprise to stop being profitable. Like the manufacture of 8-track tapes. We can still do it, but it is not very worthwhile, because time has passed them by.

From an empirical side the fact that there has not been much in the way of successful military invasions in the last 100+ years is kind of a clue that perhaps they are not very viable anymore.


This is so close to Andrew Carnegie's writings on the eve of WWI that I chuckled in my office. I don't have a rejoinder for this other than to note that many have thought this before, and all were proven wrong.
   3069. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4665493)
Color me shocked you have no real rejoinder. No list of successful invasions in the last 100+ years to counterbalance the list of failures (which is VERY long).

No real rejoinder? You mean, except for the one that keeps bouncing off your head?
   3070. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4665494)
Not to go all Clapper on you, but:

That's not the point, Guapo. Read Ambrose's Band of Brothers to see how desperate GIs were to go home after Germany surrendered, let alone Japan. Just because World War II was a "good war" doesn't mean Americans in 1945 wanted to be the world's policemen.
   3071. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4665495)
We could have changed things very quickly by unilaterally or with help from a few allies declaring a no fly zone for Syrian planes bombing civilians. Given the way Israel has made Syrian air defense their ##### for the last 30 years, it would not have been that difficult. We could have then created sanctuaries and armed the opposition, which was making good ground for quite a while.

the following is NOT debating srul's suggestion

instead, it highlights putin's ADVANTAGE in EVERY situation with the u.s/Europe

bitter earlier asked a slew of questions which reflect what the u.s. state dept does/is doing as well as the foreign ministries of the European nations

putin has no such impediments. he KNOWS what he wants.

i know i am belaboring a point but it cannot be overstated how this clarity gives putin a significant advantage
   3072. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:53 PM (#4665496)
2. The WaPo editorial board has been neocon for decades.


Try reading David Ignatius' columns sometime, Sammy, then get back to us.

Jason, Ignatius is a Washington Post associate editor and columnist, but he's not on their editorial board. Fred Hiatt writes all their editorials on military related policy. It's an understandable confusion, since none of the editorials are signed, but here's the Post's descriptive paragraph of their editorial board, and you can see for yourself:

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. The board includes: Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt; Deputy Editorial Page Editor Jackson Diehl; Jo-Ann Armao , who specializes in education and District affairs; Jonathan Capehart, who focuses on national politics; Lee Hockstader, who writes about political and other issues affecting Virginia and Maryland; Charles Lane, who concentrates on economic policy, trade and globalization; Stephen Stromberg, who specializes in energy, the environment, public health and other federal policy; and editorial cartoonist Tom Toles. Op-ed editor Autumn Brewington and letters editor Michael Larabee also take part in board discussions. The board highlights issues it thinks are important and responds to news events, mindful of stands it has taken in previous editorials and principles that have animated Post editorial boards over time. Articles in the news pages sometimes prompt ideas for editorials, but every editorial is based on original reporting. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.

   3073. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4665497)
Looked at the ruble and the Moscow Stock Exchange lately? There's $50 billion down the drain. Add another $50 billion for the Olympics, which was supposed to burnish Russia's image.

That's like one-tenth the cost of Obama's stimulus — which, we've been told, was ashtray money.
   3074. Lassus Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:55 PM (#4665498)
Woohoo Tom Toles!

That's all.
   3075. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4665500)
BM is essentially an adherent to Whig History; he believes there's a historical narrative arc towards greater peace/democracy/liberalism, etc. and that we've left such things in the past.


Sigh. Please stick to defining your own views and not mine.

Who cares? We want a world order in which there aren't any invasions, not one in which there are regular invasions which cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars to reverse.


And I get accused of having my head in the clouds. You want a world order where there are no military invasions? I can see it already, a War on War! A worthy sequel to the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Your goal is foolishness to the highest degree.

The US can control what it does. There is always the chance some country invades another. There is nothing the US can do, short of the threat (and then follow through) of nuking any invading country. However I would like to point out that world wide violence is decreasing. So we are moving in the right direction. Not that we always will, but for now we are.
   3076. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4665502)
And I get accused of having my head in the clouds. You want a world order where there are no military invasions? I can see it already, a War on War! A worthy sequel to the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. Your goal is foolishness to the highest degree.

The US can control what it does. There is always the chance some country invades another. There is nothing the US can do, short of the threat (and then follow through) of nuking any invading country. However I would like to point out that world wide violence is decreasing. So we are moving in the right direction. Not that we always will, but for now we are.

It appears there's an epic argument going on in your head. Let us know which side wins.
   3077. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4665503)
Jason, Ignatius is a Washington Post associate editor and columnist, but he's not on their editorial board.

Thanks for the correction, Andy. No more than five minutes ago, a friend who's on the ed board but not listed above said the exact same thing to me. FWIW, I believe Ignatius was on the board several years ago.
   3078. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4665504)
Great, so now we're responsible for creating no-fly zones over Syria, making Iran stop enriching uranium (again, how were we going to do that without military force? Economic sanctions didn't do squat to stop them) AND "force" Russia to leave the Crimea and make China behave. It's freaking exhausting being the country responsible for organizing or undertaking every diplomatic/military excursion in the world!
   3079. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4665505)
i know i am belaboring a point but it cannot be overstated how this clarity gives putin a significant advantage


A short term tactical advantage. One every non-democratic nation enjoys over slower more deliberative democracies. History has shown us that it does not always turn out to be a strategic advantage.
   3080. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4665507)
Great, so now we're responsible for creating no-fly zones over Syria, making Iran stop enriching uranium (again, how were we going to do that without military force? Economic sanctions didn't do squat to stop them) AND "force" Russia to leave the Crimea and make China behave. It's freaking exhausting being the country responsible for organizing or undertaking every diplomatic/military excursion in the world!

If we don't want or intend to do these things, then our commander-in-chief shouldn't be drawing red lines all over the globe like an unsupervised 2-year-old with a crayon.
   3081. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4665508)
Woohoo Tom Toles!

Tom Toles is a pretty decent drummer. He's in a cover band called "Suspicious Package" that plays around town.
   3082. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4665511)
It appears there's an epic argument going on in your head. Let us know which side wins.


You realize that it is SBB in 3064 that wants a utopian world order with no invasions anywhere, right? Do you sign onto that bit of ivory tower magical thinking? Do you think that is possible? If not, then you need to take it up with him, because that is his bar for success.

As for me I have much more pragmatic goals.
   3083. JE (Jason) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:04 PM (#4665512)
(again, how were we going to do that without military force? Economic sanctions didn't do squat to stop them)

Didn't the White House just spend the past few months that economic sanctions were what brought Iran to the negotiations table?
   3084. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4665515)

Wow. A whole $50 billion, huh?


$50 billion in one day is pretty bad.


Putin was not deterred from invading Ukraine. That's an American/European failure.


Putin has been responding to perceived US/EU aggression, so more bellicosity is not the answer. And particularly not now. There are still paths for Putin to withdraw that doesn't result in him losing face. We need to keep those open.
   3085. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4665516)
You realize that it is SBB in 3064 that wants a utopian world order with no invasions anywhere, right? Do you sign onto that bit of ivory tower magical thinking? Do you think that is possible? If not, then you need to take it up with him, because that is his bar for success.

As for me I have much more pragmatic goals.

No, SBB's position on this is crystal clear and level-headed. Yours, on the other hand, is a muddled (and naive) mess.
   3086. BDC Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:08 PM (#4665518)
$50 billion in one day is pretty bad

Over 15 years for Mike Trout, though – the Angels are thinking about it.
   3087. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4665520)
You realize that it is SBB in 3064 that wants a utopian world order with no invasions anywhere, right? Do you sign onto that bit of ivory tower magical thinking? Do you think that is possible? If not, then you need to take it up with him, because that is his bar for success.

What in the world are you blubbering about now?

Again -- who really cares if invasions like Hitler's ultimately "fail," if it costs millions of lives to turn them back? You want to try to prevent them from happening in the first place.

This really isn't hard to understand.
   3088. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4665523)
A short term tactical advantage. One every non-democratic nation enjoys over slower more deliberative democracies. History has shown us that it does not always turn out to be a strategic advantage.

that isn't much comfort to the families of thousands of dead Syrians.

nor is it very reassuring to a Crimean tatar raised on stories on how the Russians have worked centuries to exterminate them.

not trying to make a case for wading in packing heavy. just that we are talking about real people, not some theoretical
   3089. spike Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4665524)
Wow. A whole $50 billion, huh?

Considering that's 10% of the total MICEX market cap (516B), yeah a whole 50B. What do you think would happen if the NYSE shed 10% (1.6T) of market cap in a day?
   3090. SteveF Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4665525)
What do you think would happen if the NYSE shed 10% (1.6T) of market cap in a day?

It would start raining stock brokers and bank executives.
   3091. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4665526)
This is so close to Andrew Carnegie's writings on the eve of WWI that I chuckled in my office. I don't have a rejoinder for this other than to note that many have thought this before, and all were proven wrong.


Sigh. I am not saying war is impossible. I am not suggesting nations won't invade each other. What I am saying is that invasions are not a good idea. They do not pay off for the invading country. If you disagree, and your smugness implies you do, then feel free to explain in theory or empirically all the times it has paid of in the last 100+ years. What country has "turned a profit" through invasions?

Even if you buy the really dumb theory that it was the US stopping everyone else* (including itself), why has this changed suddenly that you think invasions will start paying off for the aggressor?

* Note: Mysteriously the US also intervened in numerous wars between nations in the last 100+ years, causing the invasions to fail, without ever intervening at all. Iran/Iraq, Israel/Random other Holy Land nations, India/Pakistan and China/India to name a few nations with wars where the US did not do much of anything and yet the wars still ended up in the long run as not having been worth the cost.
   3092. The District Attorney Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4665528)
Latvia is ~40% ethnic Russian right? I wonder how they're feeling these days.
If I'm not mistaken, Latvia and Lithuania were the ones who insisted on an immediate NATO meeting :) So yeah, not great. Which is understandable. We can't fight World War III for the purpose of reassuring Latvia, but we also don't want to be seen as abandoning Ukraine (even though we have no formal treaty commitment to them). It's a balancing act.

I don't think the discussion over whether this shows "weakness" or "strength" on Putin's part is relevant. It's kind of like "clutch" or "chemistry" in sports -- you can write the narrative whichever way you want. If he stops at Crimea, you can call him a bully who took something it was easy to take, or a coward who was scared to push further. If he proceeds onward, you can call him a bully who wants to subjugate people, or a coward lashing out because the Soviet reunification dream was about to die. It doesn't matter what you call him; it only matters what he does.

Quite honestly, although the best-case scenario for the US is for Russia to simply retreat and pretend it never tried this (which is unrealistic), the next best-case scenario might well be for them to try to push into the west and get repelled by Ukraine. That'd suck for Ukraine, but it'd be pretty damn good for America. So, when you consider that a) Putin very likely will not even risk that and b) there's a good chance of it happening if he does, I am still not worried.

I think the most relevant difference between Putin and Hitler, BTW, is the homefront. Even if you were to accept the (ridiculous) notion that Putin wants to conquer Europe, it still wouldn't matter much because the Russian army is not nearly as mobilized as 1939 Germany's, nor nearly as technologically advantaged, nor nearly as motivated.
   3093. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4665530)
Considering that's 10% of the total MICEX market cap (516B), yeah a whole 50B. What do you think would happen if the NYSE shed 10% (1.6T) of market cap in a day?


Bailout resolutions?
   3094. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4665533)
There are still paths for Putin to withdraw that doesn't result in him losing face.

Withdraw from Crimea and return to status quo ante? There's literally no chance of that happening.
   3095. Jim Wisinski Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4665534)
Jason, the sanctions may well have brought them to the table (once they had a non-nut president) but that leads to diplomacy....which is exactly what Obama is going for in the world. If they really do stop any attempts at a nuclear weapon it will be as a result of diplomatic agreement, not military threats. So what's the problem?

Yeah yeah, people on the right are claiming that they're still going for the bomb under our noses but if that's the case then they were doing it while under sanctions too so they clearly didn't stop them
   3096. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4665535)
It would start raining stock brokers and bank executives.
Hallelujah!
   3097. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4665537)
It would start raining stock brokers and bank executives.
Hallelujah!
   3098. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4665538)
It would start raining stock brokers and bank executives.
Hallelujah!
   3099. spike Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4665539)
No kidding.
   3100. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 03, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4665540)
While I don't support US military action against Russia over Crimea, it is important to note that any talk of the United States population being too exhausted after Afghanistan and Iraq to respond to Putin's aggression in any meaningful way is silly.

More than 330,000 Americans were killed in the Second World War and yet within two years we were neck-deep in the Cold War and engaged in a shooting war in Korea in antoher three....

Read Ambrose's Band of Brothers to see how desperate GIs were to go home after Germany surrendered, let alone Japan. Just because World War II was a "good war" doesn't mean Americans wanted to be the world's policemen then either.


In terms of history you're right, but between V-E Day and 1948---when the military draft was re-established---Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe had fallen behind the Iron Curtain, and China, Greece, Turkey and Austria were teetering on the brink. That's hardly the trend today, even if you equate Putin with Stalin.

You certainly realize that as a country, we're eternally conflicted about military action, both before and after any actual involvement, and usually all during the conflict as well. We (meaning the public) didn't support entering WWII until Tojo and Hitler forced it on us. As you note, many GI's wanted to get the hell out of uniform before V-J Day. We initially supported the UN response to the Korean invasion, but within a year that war had little domestic support and Truman had become one of the most unpopular presidents in history. And the near-unanimity in support of LBJ after the Gulf of Tonkin pretty much had gone out the window within a year after he sent ground troops to Vietnam, and the only way that the opposition became muted was when Congress did away with the draft. And I don't need to remind you how quickly the support for Iraq disappeared, which is even more amazing considering the tiny percentage of families had any personal stake in the war.

The point isn't that if Putin continues along the path he's taken up to now, that it would be impossible to garner a slim majority of support for sending a multilateral force to respond to him, with U.S. troops included. The point is how long such support would last, especially if all possible grounds for a non-military solution hadn't been tried. This isn't in response to you personally, since you're not calling for military action at this point. I'm simply noting that the public's support for wars outside of WWII has had a very short shelf life, and that's something that any president has to take into consideration.
Page 31 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 2:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Batman

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(21 - 2:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(14 - 2:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(392 - 2:08pm, Oct 25)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3777 - 2:07pm, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(83 - 2:05pm, Oct 25)
Last: Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda.

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(4 - 1:59pm, Oct 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(6 - 1:45pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(933 - 1:35pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(3 - 1:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: esseff

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(9 - 12:55pm, Oct 25)
Last: The elusive Robert Denby

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(8 - 12:43pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cargo Cultist

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(7 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(17 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(517 - 10:40am, Oct 25)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Page rendered in 0.9653 seconds
53 querie(s) executed