Politics 2014

[KevinG]

don't you all know that public teachers are what is wrong with our society and they caused all of the economic ills we are experiencing today?   For one I think we should continue demonizing these takers who get their summers off and use them to "balance" our budgets.  

[NoJ]

And dont forget.........unions are bad but chambers of commerce are good.

[Hixter]

The downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 is another reminder that we have entered Cold War II. The Russians are snatching up territory in Ukraine, providing missiles used to down the passenger jet, hiding the evidence, hindering the investigation and, in typical Cold War fashion, lying about it all. Putin is sending nukes on bombers and subs to the very edge of American and European borders in provocations that we haven't seen in 20 years. 

 

Things have changed since the Berlin Wall fell. The United States had 400,000 troops stationed in Europe; now we have 60,000. We had thousands of tanks based in Germany; now we have none. We had 800 aircraft in Europe; now we have 170. We had an aircraft carrier stationed in the Med; now there is none. Overall, our military strength in Europe has been cut by 85%, and our European allies have also cut back on their forces and most fail to meet the spending requirements agreed to as members of NATO.

 

Putin is a wily character and our hands-off approach to his foray into Ukraine will likely embolden him. I expect he'll make the most of the strong hand that he's been dealt: control over Europe's gas supply, control of the only American access to the International Space Station, control over rocket engines needed to launch American spy/military satellites and Russia's vital role in preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons.

 

America's hand is much weaker these days. Our economy is a mess, our president is a reluctant military leader and our nation is weary of wars. Our best course of action would be to frack and drill like crazy, dial SpaceX up to 11 and send a clear message to Russia that we will not tolerate further incursions or misbehavior. We need to reassure the rest of Europe that we'll defend them from an aggressive Russia, but it will take a precise balancing act to avoid spooking the Russians into a tit-for-tat buildup of their own. Like it or not, that's how the Cold War game is played and, like it or not, it's already begun.

[KevinG]

America's hand is much weaker these days. Our economy is a mess, our president is a reluctant military leader and our nation is weary of wars. Our best course of action would be to frack and drill like crazy, dial SpaceX up to 11 and send a clear message to Russia that we will not tolerate further incursions or misbehavior. We need to reassure the rest of Europe that we'll defend them from an aggressive Russia, but it will take a precise balancing act to avoid spooking the Russians into a tit-for-tat buildup of their own. Like it or not, that's how the Cold War game is played and, like it or not, it's already begun.

 

I don't necessarily disagree (I do take issues with some of your particulars but that is besides the point).  Right now we have a huge deficit, one you have mentioned as a huge problem in the past.  And your "solution" to Cold War II is going to cost a lot of money.  How can you justify spending billions/trillions of dollars and potentially send troops in harms way to protect Europe from Russia, when we have so many issues here at home?  How do you propose to pay of all this?  Drilling and fraking simply cannot ain't gonna pay for it all.  We are still paying for two ill advised wars monetarily and psychologically.  Now we need to go in and flex our muscles once again?  This is what we want to do?   

 

I don't have the answers, but it always amazes me that many on the Right are willing to throw money militarily around the rest of world and flatly refuse to spend any money domestically.  And why is our job to protect Europe?  Europe should be able to protect itself.  

[uncool2pillow]

We have a vested interest in protecting Europe, mostly for economic reasons.  While Europeans have gone very pacifistic, I think they (esp. Germany) will flex their muscles if they feel Russia's threat growing.  If that happens, we should be there to back them up, but KevinG is right, the last two wars have rightfully burned us out on the idea.

 

I think Hixter's point about fracking and drilling has little to do with paying for a potential war and more with giving Europe another source for their energy needs so they're not so dependent on Russia.

 

Right now, I don't think we should overplay the tragedy of this plane being shot down.  Russia provided the weapons, but didn't pull the trigger.  I think many Russians are probably horrified at what happened and there will be quite an internal reaction and there is no reason to believe that a passenger plane was purposefully targeted.  Let's not forget that accidents like this happen.  The media keep comparing this to when the USSR shot down KAL 007, but I currently think the more apt comparison is to when the US shot down Iranian Airlines flight 655.  I find it hard to believe these Ukranian separatists knowingly fired at a passenger jet.

[Hixter]

We have a vested interest in protecting Europe, mostly for economic reasons.

And also for legal obligations due to membership in NATO and other assorted treaties.

 

While Europeans have gone very pacifistic, I think they (esp. Germany) will flex their muscles if they feel Russia's threat growing    

 Probably, although their military is about 1/10 the size of Russia's. They have about 1/40 the number of tanks and a similar gap in aircraft.

 

I think Hixter's point about fracking and drilling has little to do with paying for a potential war and more with giving Europe another source for their energy needs so they're not so dependent on Russia.

Yes. The more oil we pump, the less leverage Putin's oil and gas have.

 

Russia provided the weapons, but didn't pull the trigger. 

It's still unclear, as the Russians are in full coverup mode. I suspect they provided the radar data necessary for the shootdown.

 

I find it hard to believe these Ukranian separatists knowingly fired at a passenger jet.

It was almost certainly a case of mistaken identity, but with hundreds of their citizens dead as a result of Russia's actions, the Europeans are unlikely to continue ignoring Putin's move to rebuild the USSR.

[KevinG]

And also for legal obligations due to membership in NATO and other assorted treaties.

 

Probably, although their military is about 1/10 the size of Russia's. They have about 1/40 the number of tanks and a similar gap in aircraft.

 

Yes. The more oil we pump, the less leverage Putin's oil and gas have.

 

It's still unclear, as the Russians are in full coverup mode. I suspect they provided the radar data necessary for the shootdown.

 

It was almost certainly a case of mistaken identity, but with hundreds of their citizens dead as a result of Russia's actions, the Europeans are unlikely to continue ignoring Putin's move to rebuild the USSR.

 

How are we to pay for this? Why is deficit spending ok if we do it for the rest of the world but not for our own citizens?

[Hixter]

How are we to pay for this?

As the saying goes, 'talk is cheap.' Unless things escalate -- and they might -- it would cost very little. It basically comes down to the U.S. and our European allies convincing Putin that we will not allow him to rebuild the USSR. 

[IRememberDBoon]

double yawn city

[Hixter]

Looks like Senator Feinstein agrees with me: Sen. Feinstein: The U.S. Is Now At Cold War Levels With Russia

[KevinG]

As the saying goes, 'talk is cheap.' Unless things escalate -- and they might -- it would cost very little. It basically comes down to the U.S. and our European allies convincing Putin that we will not allow him to rebuild the USSR. 

 

I cannot believe that this is your honest answer, talk is cheap and it might cost very little.  I am sorry but that is a complete bullshit answer.   

 

Nothing the US does is cheap.  Hell it is going to cost us an extra 3.7 billion dollars just to figure out if some kids should deported or not (which BTW the House had said no on).  

 

If this is Cold War II and the huge problem that you claim it is, it will take money, to stop Putin talk will not do apparently, since this is what we have been doing since the crisis started.  

 

What galls me in this and many other foreign issues is that the Right seems willing to throw money and resources at a problem without nary a thought, but if we need money here it is all deficit and balanced budget, blah blah blah.  

[lost highway]

Let's not forget that Cold War I was a time when military spending cranked up at the same time as Reganomics put the trickle-down theory into popularity.  Both Thatcher and Regan had massive percentages of their working class going hungry waiting for jobs and they cut social services.  We spent billions on weapons we never used, AND taxes went up.

 

That is a very disingenous version of the Republican program.  It didn't help, and it was a half-baked, phony kind of right-wing approach that GWB continued in spite of the more libertarian and leftist voices lampooning it.

 

What is horribly absent from the conversation so far is one of the truisms of street-fighting: don't pull out a weapon unless you think you could/should use it.  Is the U.S. actually willing to go to war with Russia?  If not we can probably spare some overly costly chest-puffing.

[uncool2pillow]

We spent billions on weapons we never used, AND taxes went up.

 

 

This is about the only sentence with which I take issue.  You don't have to use a weapon to use it.  Their existence (especially nukes) is deterrence.  Also, Reagan wasn't afraid of raising taxes, but I believe the overall tax burden as percentage of GDP went down significantly under Reagan.

[Hixter]

I cannot believe that this is your honest answer, talk is cheap and it might cost very little.  

It costs exactly $0.00 to say, "Mr. Putin, the United States and the rest of Europe will not tolerate any Russian attempt to create a new Soviet Union. We expect Russia to contribute to the European community, not devour it. We all wish for peace, but if you disrupt the peace with military force, you have my word as president that it will be met by an even greater force and Russia will pay a tremendous price for its aggression."

 

If Putin is determined to gobble up his neighbors, nothing will stop him but American military action. But if he's just dipping his toes in the water to see how far he can go in the face of a perceived weakened and contracting America, then a stern and believable warning may stop him from taking further action.

 

Is the U.S. actually willing to go to war with Russia?

We're not only willing to defend our allies, we're obligated to do so under various treaties.

[PopTodd]

Perhaps a nuclear winter could counter the global warming.

 

[Hixter]

Perhaps a nuclear winter could counter the global warming.

 

Every (mushroom) cloud has a silver lining!

[lost highway]

All hail President Hixter!

[IRememberDBoon]

I think every single move Russia and Putin have made are 1000 percent from a position of weakness and to react like folks like Hixter want to is the exact opposite of what the USA should do.
Just keep moving forward peacefully and everything will be fine. I don't need some Republican telling me the world is coming to an end.

[Hixter]

I don't need some Republican telling me the world is coming to an end.

How about top Democrats?

 

"There's [an] enormous amount of evidence that points to the involvement of Russia in providing these systems, training the people on them," Mr Kerry said on a US TV network.

He also threatened further sanctions on Russia and called on European allies to get tougher with President Putin after the "wake-up call".

 

MH17: Hillary Clinton says Russian-backed rebels likely shot down plane

Former US secretary of state declares 'Putin has gone too far' as White House criticises Kremlin's arming of Ukraine separatists

 

Obama called it an "unspeakable outrage" and a "global tragedy," saying it should serve as a "wake-up call" to Europe that there are consequences of the conflict in Ukraine.

[lost highway]

Yeah, I think at this point it's pretty much a non-partisan consensus to say that this is a fucked up situation with frighteningly massive implications.

 

Where you go from there is where it gets political.

[KevinG]

How about top Democrats?

 

Well according to the White House there is no direct link to Russia and the downing of the MA17

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/malaysia-plane-crash_n_5611113.html

 

But I want to get to your "solution" on what do about Putin and Russia in general.  

 

It costs exactly $0.00 to say, "Mr. Putin, the United States and the rest of Europe will not tolerate any Russian attempt to create a new Soviet Union. We expect Russia to contribute to the European community, not devour it. We all wish for peace, but if you disrupt the peace with military force, you have my word as president that it will be met by an even greater force and Russia will pay a tremendous price for its aggression."

 

Are you not deliberately poking the bear here?  Are you not emboldening Putin and backing the US in the corner?  And the words you use are extremely vague, at what point is a disruption to the peace?  Another plan shot down, invasion of Georgia (again), Putin uses the Russian military to capture a wombat form him to wrestle shirtless?      

 

As you have stated before we have treaties in place, we obviously will act in accordance with those treaties, isn't that enough?  Why do we have to tell Putin and the world we will honor those treaties?  It seems kind of redundant.  It is not like we have broken a major military international treaty in the last 50 years.

 

We are not in the 80s and your words would do nothing but exacerbate and escalate your Cold War II.  Yes our relationship with Russia is strained, but your empty words will do more harm than good.   

[Hixter]

Well according to the White House there is no direct link to Russia and the downing of the MA17

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/malaysia-plane-crash_n_5611113.html

All they said was that they don't have absolute proof that a Russian pulled the trigger that day. Another article linked from that same story says:

 

U.S. intelligence resources tracked the “specific missile” that downed Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, a senior administration official said Tuesday, saying intelligence adds up to a picture that “implicates Russia” in helping to bring down the plane.

 

Are you not emboldening Putin and backing the US in the corner?

It all comes down to 5th grade schoolyard tactics: Promising to kick a bully's ass (it helps when you're bigger and stronger than he) gives him pause. Giving him the impression that you're weak and unwilling to fight emboldens him.

 

As you have stated before we have treaties in place, we obviously will act in accordance with those treaties, isn't that enough?  Why do we have to tell Putin and the world we will honor those treaties?

Because Putin, China and the rest of the world believe what their eyes tell them, and what they've seen is a weak and waffling U.S. foreign policy (Syria's famous 'red line' for example) and they perceive the United States (rightly so, in many aspects) to be a contracting, withdrawing and inward-looking nation that is unwilling and/or incapable of taking heavy military action against a large and well-armed foe. NATO is essentially a paper tiger without the United States, and the other member nations are more reluctant to fight than we are. Simply put, if the United States won't commit to the fight, Europe and the Pacific are at the mercy of a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Russia and China.

[KevinG]

All they said was that they don't have absolute proof that a Russian pulled the trigger that day. Another article linked from that same story says:

 

If you think Russia purposely shot down a civilian jet, I think discussion should be over and I will throw my hands up and say "I give up."  Because that is just down right crazy.  Did Russia contribute to the disaster?  Of course, no is doubting that.  They supplied the weapons, they encouraged the Separatists to act.  Are the directly responsible?  Hell No.  Putin would be down right insane and stupid to do such a thing.   

 

This was a mistake by untrained Separatists, simple as that.  Does that mean Russia should not be held accountable, no.  But there is no directly link.  And saying that the downing of MA17 is a directly related to US foreign policy (and that the President is "weak") is nothing more than Right wing talking point and is being used to gin up support from the Right Wing base.

 

 

It all comes down to 5th grade schoolyard tactics: Promising to kick a bully's ass (it helps when you're bigger and stronger than he) gives him pause. Giving him the impression that you're weak and unwilling to fight emboldens him.

 

I don't know why everything has to be dumbed down to the simplest explanation.  Unfortunately international relations cannot be summed up with school yard idioms.  It is way more nuanced than that.  This is a major problem with the way we talk about complex situations.  We try to simplify it, in an effort to understand it.   Nut when we look at closely nothing more could be further from the truth (see the "why can't the US government balance its finances like a checkbook argument")  .  Sure it sounds nice as a sound bite, or as a quick post, but in essence you are doing your argument  disservice.   

 

 

Because Putin, China and the rest of the world believe what their eyes tell them, and what they've seen is a weak and waffling U.S. foreign policy (Syria's famous 'red line' for example) and they perceive the United States (rightly so, in many aspects) to be a contracting, withdrawing and inward-looking nation that is unwilling and/or incapable of taking heavy military action against a large and well-armed foe. NATO is essentially a paper tiger without the United States, and the other member nations are more reluctant to fight than we are. Simply put, if the United States won't commit to the fight, Europe and the Pacific are at the mercy of a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Russia and China.

 

If any of that were remotely true, would we not be seeing a lot more action from Russia and China?  You claim that Putin is trying to bring back the USSR, but their is no evidence that the Ukraine separatist movement was started by Putin (I am sure he was glad it started, but under his influence no).  And when Putin actually invaded Georgia in 2008 wasn't GWB's response even more feeble and feckless than what is going on now?  

 

And again the "red line" comment is a good Right talking point, but is a lot more nuanced that you present.  And to somehow suggest the US is not going honor the NATO treaty with no basis in fact or historical context is disingenuous.  Yes simply put, "if the United States won't commit to the fight, Europe and the Pacific are at the mercy of a resurgent and increasingly belligerent Russia and China." is a true statement.  But there is nothing out there to even suggest that if Russia decides to attack/invade, say Hungry, that the US wouldn't act accordingly.  Personally you should be ashamed to suggest otherwise. 

 

What I want to say is this, the Right is continually talking this how Obama is presenting a weak foreign policy and inviting aggression by Putin.  But these arguments do not hold up to scrutiny.  It is just more political talking points.  

[Atticus]

good use of "feckless"

[Hixter]

If you think Russia purposely shot down a civilian jet, I think discussion should be over and I will throw my hands up and say "I give up."  Because that is just down right crazy. 

I stated very clearly at the beginning of this conversation that I believed it was an accident.

 

Did Russia contribute to the disaster?  Of course, no is doubting that.  They supplied the weapons, they encouraged the Separatists to act.  Are the directly responsible?  Hell No. 

We still have no idea of just how much involvement Russian troops had in the incident; nobody knows who pulled the trigger. Nobody knows how much assistance the Russians provided. But intercepted communications between the separatists and Russian officials, the immediate withdrawal of the missile launcher back to Russia and Putin's ham-fisted attempts at blaming the shoot-down on Ukraine indicates that Russia just might have something to hide.

 

And saying that the downing of MA17 is a directly related to US foreign policy

I never said that.

 

I don't know why everything has to be dumbed down to the simplest explanation.  Unfortunately international relations cannot be summed up with school yard idioms.  It is way more nuanced than that.  

Of course it is, but that doesn't mean the analogy isn't apt.

 

If any of that were remotely true, would we not be seeing a lot more action from Russia and China?  

I'll save myself the trouble of pasting links to news stories about recent Chinese provocations against Japan and Vietnam, and those of Russia against the United States and Europe.

 

You claim that Putin is trying to bring back the USSR, but their is no evidence that the Ukraine separatist movement was started by Putin (I am sure he was glad it started, but under his influence no).  

There certainly weren't Russian troops, weapons, training or intelligence involved. 

 

And again the "red line" comment is a good Right talking point, but is a lot more nuanced that you present.  

Our enemies (and allies, for that matter) could be forgiven for seeing it as a clear example of the hesitant and wishy-washy qualities of our foreign policy. One day we were hours away from strikes on Syria, and the next we were backing down and claiming that it was all a misunderstanding. Putin excels at brinksmanship and he clearly "won" that one.

 

But there is nothing out there to even suggest that if Russia decides to attack/invade, say Hungry, that the US wouldn't act accordingly.  Personally you should be ashamed to suggest otherwise.

I'm not ashamed because it all depends on the facts on the ground. If we had ample warning, troops and equipment in place to repel the attack, sure, we'd fight. But if we were caught off guard, couldn't get enough troops there before the country fell, maybe some of our NATO allies declined to fight and, say, Putin increased activity of his nuclear weapons units, we might just yell a lot and do nothing.

 

What I want to say is this, the Right is continually talking this how Obama is presenting a weak foreign policy and inviting aggression by Putin.  But these arguments do not hold up to scrutiny.  It is just more political talking points.

Like it or not, weakness invites aggression. Be it man or beast, that's the way it works in this world of ours.

 

For what it's worth, your posts wouldn't lose any meaning or value if they weren't peppered with references to 'the Right.' I manage to make myself heard without constantly mentioning 'the Left' or 'liberals.' I also think we're wasting our breath if we resort to labeling the other person's opinions as 'talking points.' I don't think any of us are handed a written list of actual talking points - like a politician - and I'd like to think that we're capable of expressing our own views. One man's talking points is another man's (uncomfortable) truths.