The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: I'll betya that

  1. #11
    Senior Member Terri's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    626

    Default

    No one is shaking in their boots, talk is cheap. I wish he, BHO, would stop drawing lines in the sand because he just makes the world laugh.

    Terri

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjh345 View Post
    Hey mngundog quite using logic. It is not accepted here on POTUS

    For example try to mimic Gerry by repeatedly giving us links to her spin doctors

    Or you could emulate Marvin by informing us that he's an engineer who once worked in a mine and for Boeing. Thus giving him the expertise to be better informed than anyone on all subjects. That impeccable resume allows him to exert intellectual dominion over everyone. His self annointed lofty status allows him to win arguments by simply using insults. No need for facts if you repeatedly assured us that you are the smartest man in EVERY room
    I respect Gerry even though Gerry's links are of sometimes suspect, I don't believe the intent is to provide false information. Marvin on the other hand will resort false misinformation or insults, I placed him on ignore briefly after he his sick post where he defended rapists in the rape of a passed out teenage girl, best decision I have made on the board.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hubert NC
    Posts
    453

    Default

    Didn't Sara Palin predict this invasion by Putin and response by BHO in 2008? I remember the media lambasting her for the comment. Oops, think she may have been right. I bet you will not here this in todays media.

    Richard

  4. #14
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,769

    Wink


    POLITICS
    Ukraine crisis tests Obama’s foreign policy focus on diplomacy over military force

    Armed soldiers move into Crimea, Ukraine: Ukrainians react as guards take their places in front of government buildings and Russian President Vladi*mir Putin gains approval to send troops into Crimea, Ukraine.
    By Scott Wilson, *Published: MARCH 01, 5:25 PM ET
    For muchthis time in office, President Obama has been accused by a mix of conservative hawks and liberal interventionists of overseeing a dangerous retreat from the world at a time when American influence is needed most.

    The once-hopeful Arab Spring has staggered into civil war and military coup. China is stepping up territorial claims in the waters off East Asia. Longtime allies in Europe and in the Persian Gulf are worried by the inconsistency of a president who came to office promising the end of the United States’ post-Sept. 11 wars.

    Now Ukraine has emerged as a test of Obama’s argument that, far from weakening American power, he has enhanced it through smarter diplomacy, stronger alliances and a realism untainted by the ideology that guided his predecessor.

    VIDEO

    The international response to protests in Ukraine intensified Saturday as Russia's parliament approved the use of the military to protect Russian interests in the politically-divided country. (Associated Press)
    It will be a hard argument for him to make, analysts say.

    A president who has made clear to the American public that the “tide of war is receding” has also made clear to foreign leaders, including opportunists in Russia, that he has no appetite for a new one. What is left is a vacuum once filled, at least in part, by the possibility of American force.

    “If you are effectively taking the stick option off the table, then what are you left with?” said Andrew C. Kuchins, who heads the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I don’t think that Obama and his people really understand how others in the world are viewing his policies.”

    Rarely has a threat from a U.S. president been dismissed as quickly — and comprehensively — as Obama’s warning Friday night to Russian President Vladi*mir Putin. The former community organizer and the former Cold Warrior share the barest of common interests, and their relationship has been defined far more by the vastly different ways they see everything from gay rights to history’s legacy.

    Obama called Putin on Saturday and expressed “deep concern over Russia’s clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is a breach of international law,” the White House said.

    From a White House podium late Friday, Obama told the Russian government that “there will be costs” for any military foray into Ukraine, including the semiautonomous region of Crimea, a strategically important peninsula on the Black Sea.

    Within hours, Putin asked the Russian parliament for approval to send forces into Ukraine. The vote endorsing his request was unanimous, Obama’s warning drowned out by lawmakers’ rousing rendition of Russia’s national anthem at the end of the session. Russian troops now control the Crimean Peninsula.

    President’s quandary

    There are rarely good — or obvious — options in such a crisis. But the position Obama is in, confronting a brazenly defiant Russia and with few ways to meaningfully enforce his threat, has been years in the making. It is the product of his record in office and of the way he understands the period in which he is governing, at home and abroad.

    At the core of his quandary is the question that has arisen in White House debates over the Afghan withdrawal, the intervention in Libya and the conflict in Syria — how to end more than a dozen years of American war and maintain a credible military threat to protect U.S. interests.

    The signal Obama has sent — popular among his domestic political base, unsettling at times to U.S. allies — has been one of deep reluctance to use the heavily burdened American military, even when doing so would meet the criteria he has laid out. He did so most notably in the aftermath of the U.S.-led intervention in Libya nearly three years ago.

    But Obama’s rejection of U.S. military involvement in Syria’s civil war, in which 140,000 people have died since he first called on President Bashar al-Assad to step down, is the leading example of his second term. So, too, is the Pentagon budget proposal outlined this past week that would cut the size of the army to pre-2001 levels.

    Inside the West Wing, there are two certainties that color any debate over intervention: that the country is exhausted by war and that the end of the longest of its post-Sept.*11 conflicts is less than a year away. Together they present a high bar for the use of military force.

    Ukraine has challenged administration officials — and Obama’s assessment of the world — again.

    At a North American summit meeting in Mexico last month, Obama said, “Our approach as the United States is not to see these as some Cold War chessboard in which we’re in competition with Russia.”

    But Putin’s quick move to a war footing suggests a different view — one in which, particularly in Russia’s back yard, the Cold War rivalry Putin was raised on is thriving.

    The Russian president has made restoring his country’s international prestige the overarching goal of his foreign policy, and he has embraced military force as the means to do so.

    As Russia’s prime minister in the late summer of 2008, he was considered the chief proponent of Russia’s military advance into Georgia, another former Soviet republic with a segment of the population nostalgic for Russian rule.

    Obama, by contrast, made clear that a new emphasis on American values, after what were perceived as the excesses of the George W. Bush administration, would be his approach to rehabilitating U.S. stature overseas.

    Those two outlooks have clashed repeatedly — in big and small ways — over the years.

    Obama took office with a different Russian as president, Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s choice to succeed him in 2008.

    Medvedev, like Obama, was a lawyer by training, and also like Obama he did not believe the Cold War rivalry between the two countries should define today’s relationship.

    The Obama administration began the “reset” with Russia — a policy that, in essence, sought to emphasize areas such as nuclear nonproliferation, counterterrorism, trade and Iran’s nuclear program as shared interests worth cooperation.

    But despite some successes, including a new arms-control treaty, the reset never quite reduced the rivalry. When Putin returned to office in 2012, so, too, did an outlook fundamentally at odds with Obama’s.

    ‘Reset’ roadblocks

    Just months after his election, Putin declined to attend the Group of Eight meeting at Camp David, serving an early public warning to Obama that partnership was not a top priority.

    At a G-8 meeting the following year in Northern Ireland, Obama and Putin met and made no headway toward resolving differences over Assad’s leadership of Syria. The two exchanged an awkward back-and-forth over Putin’s passion for martial arts before the Russian leader summed up the meeting: “Our opinions do not coincide,” he said.

    A few months later, Putin granted asylum to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor whose disclosure of the country’s vast eavesdropping program severely complicated U.S. diplomacy. Obama had asked for Snowden’s return.

    In response, Obama canceled a scheduled meeting in Moscow with Putin after the Group of 20 meeting in St. Petersburg last summer. The two met instead on the summit’s sidelines, again failing to resolve differences over Syria.

    It was Obama’s threat of a military strike, after the Syrian government’s second chemical attack crossed what Obama had called a “red line,” that prompted Putin to pressure Assad into concessions. The result was an agreement to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, a process that is proceeding haltingly.

    Since then, though, the relationship has again foundered on issues that expose the vastly different ways the two leaders see the world and their own political interests.

    After Russia’s legislature passed anti-gay legislation, Obama included openly gay former athletes in the U.S. delegation to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

    New barbarities in Syria’s civil war — and the near-collapse of a nascent peace process — have drawn sharper criticism from U.S. officials of Putin, who is continuing to arm Assad’s forces.

    How Obama intends to prevent a Putin military push into Ukraine is complicated by the fact that, whatever action he takes, he does not want to jeopardize Russian cooperation on rolling back Iran’s nuclear program or completing the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.

    Economic sanctions are a possibility. But that decision is largely in the hands of the European Union, given that its economic ties to Russia, particularly as a source of energy, are far greater than those of the United States.

    The most immediate threat that has surfaced: Obama could skip the G-8 meeting scheduled for June in Sochi, a day’s drive from Crimea.

    “If you want to take a symbolic step and deploy U.S. Navy ships closer to Crimea, that would, I think, make a difference in Russia’s calculations,” Kuchins said. “The problem with that is, are we really credible? Would we really risk a military conflict with Russia over Crimea-Ukraine? That’s the fundamental question in Washington and in Brussels we need to be asking ourselves.”

    Show THE TI'm: POLITICS
    Ukraine crisis tests Obama's foreign policy focus on diplomacy over military force
    25 maps and charts that explain America today
    Who are the Crimean Tatars, and why are they important?

    CoMight 1996-2013 The
    I read this morning, someone is in over his head and it aint Putin.
    I admit to smart phone challenges.

  5. #15
    Senior Member brian breuer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Minot, ND
    Posts
    508

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    Do you honesty believe what you wrote, Russia spends a fraction of what we spend, if you honestly believe we waste that much, then it just affirms the need for a military spending cut.
    They spent $51 billion on that Olympic Village. That is the budget for roughly 50 Texas Stadiums or 50 Belagios. And those came with clear water, door knobs, and light bulbs.

    I doubt we'll be seeing any Six Sigma efficiency experts streamlining the waste in the Russian military. I think we're safe from invasion.

  6. #16
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,684

    Default

    the Ukrainian opposition leader is one of the Klitschko brothers a former world champion heavyweight boxer..I actually waited on he and his brother about 12 years ago when I worked at Mortons. They were both very nice guys and really big tall men, devoured a steak like most would eat an appetizer
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  7. #17
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,085

    Default

    Rank Country Spending ($ Bn.)[3] % of GDP World share (%) Spending ($ Bn. PPP)[3]
    World total 1,753 2.5 100 1562.3
    1 United States 682.0 2.2 39.0 682.0
    2 People's Republic of Chinax 166.0 2.0 9.5 249.0
    3 Russiax 90.7 9.4 5.2 116.0
    Russia spends a far larger amount as a %-age of their GDP than the US. If they grow their GDP through their energy resources, I would expect that they would spend their added wealth proportionately the same way. They rank highest in terms of %-age of GDP of the top 15 countries in military spending (followed by Saudi Arabia at 8.9%)

    I doubt that the Russians spend much of their military budget on protecting rights of any of their soldiers who might be gay; or make many accommodations for any Muslims in their military. Even if we believe that such expenditures are rightfully valid, they are items that would be of less concern to the Russians in their military spending.

    It would appear that if Putin can bully Obama so effectively, in the face of this kind of spending disparity, the Russians either do a lot better with the $ they put into their military; or Putin is the best bluffer we've seen since Sadam, and our leadership is a poor match.

    In the Ukraine thread I said Putin would do as he wished ... and he did. He accurately assumed that nobody would/could do nothing of consequence to interfere.

    I don't think Putin is thinking in terms of the short haul. He seems to be gradually re-assembling much of the former Soviet Union. As he does so, the other countries in that Union will logically tend to lean toward where they see strength. Knowing that the USSR collapsed before, I wonder what he has in mind to keep it together if it is "re-constructed". An article in Politico (not usually a right-leaning "spin doctor") ... might indicate that the Russians have been lining up their ducks over several years already.
    Putin’s inner circle no longer fear the European establishment. They once imagined them all in MI6. Now they know better. They have seen firsthand how obsequious Western aristocrats and corporate tycoons suddenly turn when their billions come into play. They now view them as hypocrites—the same European elites who help them hide their fortunes.


    Once Russia’s powerful listened when European embassies issued statements denouncing the baroque corruption of Russian state companies. But no more. Because they know full well it is European bankers, businessmen and lawyers who do the dirty work for them placing the proceeds of corruption in hideouts from the Dutch Antilles to the British Virgin Islands.


    We are not talking big money. But very big money. None other than Putin’s Central Bank has estimated that two thirds of the $56 billion exiting Russia in 2012 might be traceable to illegal activities. Crimes like kickbacks, drug money or tax fraud. This is the money that posh English bankers are rolling out the red carpet for in London.


    Behind European corruption, Russia sees American weakness. The Kremlin does not believe European countries – with the exception of Germany – are truly independent of the United States. They see them as client states that Washington could force now, as it once did in the Cold War, not to do such business with the Kremlin.
    Maybe he's just willing to let it ride for another 40 years hence and let someone else worry about that. It will undoubtedly give Russia more time to build more military strength if he proceeds along that path.

    Yes, I believe that our military has become inefficient relative to the dollars spent. If they cut spending as proposed, I don't have much faith they will make the cuts where the cuts really should be made to run a tighter ship. Such things as Congress funding tanks the Pentagon didn't want; or the new aircraft that can't seem to fly the way it's supposed to. If there are any of us that still don't believe that there is incredible waste and fraud in every Fed agency, we haven't been paying attention.

    I believe Obama really did underestimate the complexity of the situations he'd have to handle as POTUS, and he really doesn't have the skills to handle them. It also seems that he didn't have the skill to choose the kind of support staff that could provide the experience that could supplement where he was lacking.

    Do you honesty believe what you wrote, Russia spends a fraction of what we spend, if you honestly believe we waste that much, then it just affirms the need for a military spending cut
    mngundog, you could have included the information and stated your position. Likewise, mjh345, let's not forget to include Harry Reid in the ranks of the greatest of the spin doctors.

    It was not necessary to the topic to unload on Marvin. When mngundog called my comments "silly", was that not implying that he was much smarter than I am? While I rarely agree with Henry V, he presents information to back up his positions. By doing so, he can sometimes expand my perspectives on a topic. Other times not. I respect Henlee's input, since we have had many reasonable discussions, and we have not found it necessary to call each other "silly".

    I don't know anybody on the forum, so what you write here is my only gauge of your views and "personality". If some of you know each other personally and have some interpersonal likes or dislikes, that is also beyond my knowledge.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,154

    Default

    Gerry, Ive heard many references to Putin "bullying" Obama from the neo cons on this site. Don't get me wrong I'm not implying that my money would be on Obama if push came to shove, but can you give some specific examples of Putin "bullying" Obama.

    You must have misread my post Gerry, I don't want to hear spin of any sort. Give me the facts, and I can make my own mind up. I specifically used the examples of 2 widely known spinners from the right in Rush and Orielly and 2 spinners from the left in Matthews and Maddow. I would have presumed that you could transfer that example into I don't want to filter spin from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi {or anyone} of the libs as well as from John Boehner or Lindsey Graham {or anyone} of the so called conservatives

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    759

    Default

    Graham, and let me throw in McCain, conservative spinners is this being sarcastic? Why didn't you pick Snow or Collins because they are right before these 2 unless they want to drop a bomb on someone. Even Boehner was a conservative, registered democrat, until the late 80's early 90's. Now he is just Manchin democrat or liberal republican.

    Putin is not bullying anyone in the West. He knows that he can walk around the field like a herd bull. No one is going to bother him with words.
    Last edited by Dan Storts; 03-02-2014 at 01:52 PM.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Storts View Post
    .................................................. .................................................. .................

    Putin is not bullying anyone in the West. He knows that he can walk around the field like a herd bull. No one is going to bother him with words.
    You got that right. Only steers and cows in the herd right now.
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •