Pending Invasion

[BigV]

your logic is faulty UG.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw certainly will not think the present President is a wacko extremist,

because the present President is not a wacko extremist. Period.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

--snip--
I've been contemptuous of tw's...

because everything looks like a nail, when you're a hammer.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

political thinking from the first day I met it. it doesn't really matter what goes here, any old nail will suffice.

Boring.

[sexobon]

It seems that UG has struck the nail a true blow. Tw routinely calls out the previous Republican President by name for things that occurred on his watch; but, not the current Democratic President. Oh, tw will call out the NSA, the State Dept., and even the heads of Departments; but again, he doesn't call out Hussein like he calls out Dubya for adverse things that happen on the current President's watch. It's sorta, maybe, kinda like when people attribute to God the good things that happen; but, never the bad things ... no, no ,no ... bad things always get attributed to other people; or, the debbil! UG makes a valid point even if his style of expression is "boring." I think V's reply oversimplifies UG's post to deemphasize the content and accentuate the style.

[BigV]

No, you're wrong sexobon. It is impossible to oversimplify UG's post since it was only composed of an ad hominem attack, and nothing more (and one personal expression of UG's contempt). There is no content there, save for how he is contemptuous of tw's faulty thinking. Go back and look for anything of substance. Where is there any discussion of facts? Let's look:

UG says tw:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw certainly will not think the present President is a wacko extremist, and hence this part of his post dwells in a particularly hazy cloud-cuckoo-land; execrable and highly dishonorable leftism (*Trust me, this is meant as a stinging insult--BigV*) raves through his frontal lobes, causing him to write pernicious drivel, often at length, and generally support Democratic candidates (*a cardinal sin, according to the book of UG*), as unbalanced as he is. While his hobby keeps him in the basement and off the streets, there its virtues rather come to an end.

I've been contemptuous of tw's political thinking from the first day I met it.

Did I miss much? THAT is what I call boring. It's the same, same, same old boring shit. UG doesn't like tw, tw's writing, tw's ideas, tw's presence on the streets, etc, etc, ad fucking nauseum.

[sexobon]

It seems that that UG made a point with his opening. I take "whacko extremist" here as the euphemism it has become to me to include lesser behaviors from tw's use of it.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw certainly will not think the present President is a wacko extremist, ...

What follows the opening is rhetoric. So what, sticks and stones.

[BigV]

OK, fine, sticks and stones, so what.

If you're taking the position that the substance of UG's post was that tw doesn't call the present President a wacko extremist, I covered that in the first sentence of my post. President Obama is not a wacko extremist, that's why tw doesn't call him one.

Beyond that, it's just more BORING sticks and stones.

[sexobon]

OR IS IT? *Da Da Da daaaaa (whodoneit music)*

UG knows that tw responds to facts with facts and doesn't respond with childlike emotions to disparaging remarks. So, UG strategized that he could make a brief factual statement, needing no rationale since tw doesn't contest it, followed by so much rhetoric that tw can't reply with his rationale without appearing to respond emotionally. Genius, sheer genius. All you managed to accomplish in your first sentence was alignment with tw.

[BigV]

In your opinion, sexobon, is President Obama a wacko extremist?

[sexobon]

In my opinion, all Presidents either go into the job as whacko extremists; or, become whacko extremists because power corrupts. It's just a matter of degree between them. I voted for Obama ... twice; but, I found some actions like his early distancing from Democrats in Congress, wanting judicial trials of Guantanamo detainees in New York, and drawing a line for al-Assad in Syria ... etc. to be whacko. I find his mandating health insurance for everyone in lieu of his failure to unite Democrats and their base to bring about socialized medicine to be extreme in addition to his pushing the Constitutional envelope on domestic surveillance. I'm not even getting into his nitnoid weighing-in on race relations in the news and the treatment of military women.

With politicians, it's typically a choice between the lesser of two evils. Obama has simply made me proud of my choice more often than ashamed of it. This President, like others before him, is a compromise who's just less whacko extremist than his predecessor (IMHO). You wouldn't get such an assessment from tw and I think that was UG's point. What other questions do you have regarding integrity?

[BigV]

I have only my phone to read and reply, so I will be brief (and by brief, I mean incomplete).

Thank you for your answer. I found it direct, respectful, and considered. I will answer your question about integrity when I have a proper keyboard to do so.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I must say I agree with Sexobon on all points except "women in the military", and that's because I'm not familiar with that situation and Obama. But as disappointing as he's been, I shudder to think of the alternatives, you betcha.

[Griff]

Yeah, he's been sorta terrible but the other side, just no.

[tw]

Many of Obama's actions do not play well in the court of soundbytes. However he has been roundly successful (could not have done better) in some arenas where soundbyte logic is so critical.

For example, a Red Line in Syria was a stunning success. It has completely defanged Assad’s chemical weapons (except maybe in one location that even the Russians are suspicious of). Assad's chemical weapons are now something like 85% removed. A ten nation flotilla of naval ships will be protecting destruction of those weapons. The world got on board a solution, in part, because America did not take a Cheney 'big dic' attitude.

Another serious problem should have been addressed long ago. Other NATO nations are now so toothless than France and Britain had to go begging to the US even for bombs in the first week of operations in Libya. Obama is sending a clear message to many nations who then foolishly question America's resolve. Get your own military in order. America is not a first line of defense for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Japan. If these nations cannot defend themselves, then their conquest is their own fault. American may invade to liberate the nation much later. But America is not what so much of the world believes - the world's policemen.

Obama’s effort to fix this problem now has some foolishly questioning America’s resolve rather than address their own shortcomings. Although not discussed, even residents of Singapore should be listening to what Obama is saying.

Great nations solve problems diplomatically. Some of the world's greatest conquerors achieved greatest victories by negotiating; not by military confrontation. Rarely threatening with military force and not using it. But that reality does not play well in soundbyte logic where being a man is proven by fisticuffs.

Few appreciate future consequences if the Sprately, Scarborough Shoal, Parcel, Senkaku, Second Thomas Shoal, and other islands are not addressed now. Obama has apparently skillfully addressed those islands, got many parties for the first time to start talking, and did so by encouraging more positive engagement with China. By not making China feel isolated or encircled. That is also a major accomplishment little appreciated in soundbyte logic. Because it may have averted a problem so many will only understand when war breaks out. Many are still unaware of so many military confrontations over these islands including confinement of a Philippines Coast Guard ship by the Chinese Navy. And a military battle between Vietnam and China.

Obama's biggest failures are in image. He does not schmooze in a manner that so many domestic politicians want. Clinton was probably the master. George Sr was not that good at it. But all three were quite good presidents with various accomplishments and achievements. All three set America in a positive direction.

Little good can be said about George Jr. He was all image and zero substance. To ignore those eight disastrous years is to be naïve or ignorant. Anyone could have seen that coming by simply reading his 1999 autobiography "A Charge to Keep". Virtually unreadable with no structure or organization. All image.

He did great harm to the American military, economy, international respect, political relations, and integrity. He even endorsed extraordinary rendition and Nazi like torture. How does one destroy a budget surplus and create a massive government debt? How does one massacre 5000 American servicemen for no purpose? And still some foolishly admired him? Whereas Clinton would go to Vietnam and attract delighted thongs. George Jr went to Vietnam and was all but ignored. Almost nothing good to be said about one of the worst American presidents since Nixon. Unfortunately a majority did not see it when it was time to avert a tragedy.

Apparently even George Jr recognized the problem in his last year. Relations between he and Cheney have clearly soured.

Returning to the topic, a serious problem in Ukraine. Since a forceful American response is only possible when local ‘powers that be’ want that response. Europe does not want to antagonize the Bear. Only leader coming close to confronting the threat is Merkel. Even Germany has backed down as made bluntly obvious by their foreign minister Steinmeier. This is first and foremost a European problem. But soundbyte reasoning criticized Obama.

Eastern Ukraine will be annexed by Russia. That is a forgone conclusion. How much of Ukraine will be annexed is the remaining question. Russian military is operating a world class operation. A resulting civil war will probably be followed by a Russian occupation. We should be moving on to what will happen next. Moldova, Bulgaria, and Rumania are at risk. But at much greater risk is national sovereignty of the Baltics (Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania). Poland is quite adamant about the threat. I suspect after Moldova the Baltic states are next. And may capitulate in some manner. Since so much of Europe is so militarily toothless combined with weak leadership in Britain, France, and Italy.

Cheapshots from an obvious wacko extremist are irrelevant. He obviously has nothing useful to contribute - other than entertainment. The topic is Ukraine.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

... Cheapshots from an obvious wacko extremist are irrelevant. He obviously has nothing useful to contribute - other than entertainment. ...

Throughout my years here, I've made no secret of it that I'm here for the entertainment.

UG - 1: tw - 0

Very sporting of you to concede that point to him tw. You'd be better competition against UG if you weren't so long winded.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 17 May 2014:

In Taking Crimea, Putin Gains a Sea of Fuel Reserves
Russia acquired not just a peninsula, but a maritime zone and the rights to tap its seabed for oil and gas reserves potentially worth trillions of dollars.

Apparently Saakashvili was more right than we realized.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Now now now, BigV: I have never met a socialist I could ever think had it all the way together. Mr. 0bama is a giant socialist, as is his Party. Unsatisfactory: too statist for me.

Preferring America to Democrats and Democrats gone dingdong, I vote against Democrats. They've fallen a long way since LBJ, and I was around when he was in. He was the last Democratic President to actually try and win a war, and Truman before him was the last Dem Prez to do it. Since then, bupkis, for two generations.

Republicans, as far as the record shows, consider that wars, if any, are to be won. I think this is a very commendable attitude.

Libertarians are of course a question mark. They don't talk like they'd win a war. That's all I can say.