WaPo: Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II

The whole Ukraine affair is a clear win only for China. Russia now knows it can trust the US to break promises regarding expanding NATO and starting a new Cold War so it has decided to mend fences with China and start selling a lot of gas to them.

Obama is to blame for supporting a coup in a country next to Russia with many Russian speakers, but at least he did not make it worse by sending US troops to the Russian border.

 

Typical Obama. Spit the baby. Talk peace, while waging war. Wage drone war while talking peace. Talk democracy while encouraging coups if we don't like the government etc.

Despite basso and other neo-cons , the vast majority of the American people are tired of endless war and after all there is a progressive block of voters that are a key constituency of the Dems. So why not actually say something as banal as not every foreign cirisis should result in US ground troops or unilateral military action?

Just because the Repubs hate the speech (it is Obama so they hate whatever he says) does not mean it was that great or really that peaceful.

 

Splitting the baby is how we do democracy. That's why the right keeps stretching his neck their way.

 

Oh, you're dead wrong there, mini-Mahan.

The problem you're having is that I continued - and that you and Putin stopped paying attention a bit early in the game, and are paying for it now. Despite being able to ship Matryoshkas in January now. Booya!

Something for you to chew on at the next Whig conclave. Hopefully the B&O railroad is still running and you'll make it on time.

 

If you think that gas deal was a win for Russia, you have no clue what you're talking about.

And btw? I know a lot of Russian apologists say this, but America never made any promise to the Soviet Union on NATO expansion. GERMANY did without any approval from the United States.

 

China is always the winner. They play both side of the games and don't give a rat about anyone other then their own interest and they don't care how it happens (1M die, so what). They are very pragmatic about their interest and rarely ideological.

 

Only with the western world. In Asia, everything's ideological to China; Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, India... etc

 

Because they are the clear superpower of the east. When they are not, they becomes pragmatic fast.

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/09/28/what-deng-taught-xi-jinping-pragmatism-trumps-ideology/

What Deng taught Xi Jinping: pragmatism trumps ideology

 

Yup...

 

Didn't read thread but:
Obama at odds with every U.S. president since World War II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_of_authoritarian_regimes

Latin America
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger shaking hands with Augusto Pinochet in 1976.
Porfirio Díaz (Mexico) (1876–1911)[10][11]
Institutional Revolutionary Party (Mexico) (1929–2000)[12]
Juan Vicente Gómez (Venezuela) (1908–35)[13]
Manuel Estrada Cabrera (Guatemala) (1898–1920)[14]
Jorge Ubico (Guatemala) (1931–44)[14]
Fulgencio Batista (Cuba) (1952–59)[15]
Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic) (1930–61)[16]
Efraín Ríos Montt and the rest of the military junta in Guatemala (1954-86)[17][18]
Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador (1979–82)[19]
Hugo Banzer (Bolivia) (1971–78, 1997–2001)[20]
National Reorganization Process (Argentina) (1976–83)[21]
Brazilian military government (1964–85)[22]
Somoza family (Nicaragua) (1936–79)[23]
François Duvalier (Haiti) (1957–71)[24]
Jean-Claude Duvalier (Haiti) (1971–86)[24]
Omar Torrijos (Panama) (1968–81)[25]
Manuel Noriega (Panama) (1983–89)[25]
Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay) (1954–89)[26]
Augusto Pinochet (Chile) (1973–90)[27]
Asia[edit]


Middle East special envoy Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam Hussein on 19–20 December 1983.
Syngman Rhee (South Korea) (1948–60)[28]
Park Chung-hee (South Korea) (1961–79)[29]
Chun Doo-Hwan (South Korea) (1979-88)[30]
Ngo Dinh Diem (South Vietnam) (1955–63)[31]
Lon Nol (Cambodia) (1970–75)[32]
Yahya Khan (Pakistan) (1971)[33][34]
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Iran) (1941–79)[35][36]
Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines) (1965–86)[37][38]
Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (Pakistan) (1978–88)[39]
Saddam Hussein (Iraq) (1982–90)[40]
Suharto (Indonesia) (1967–98)[41]
Truong Tan Sang (Vietnam) (2011–present)[42]
Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan) (1990–present)[42]
Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan) (1999–2008)[43]
Ali Abdullah Saleh (Yemen) (1990–2012)[44]
Emomalii Rahmon (Tajikistan) (1994–present)[42]
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow (Turkmenistan) (2006–present)[42]
House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) (1945–present)[45][46][47]
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa (Bahrain) (1999–present)[48]
Africa[edit]



Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., 1973.
King Hassan II, predecessors and successors (Morocco) (1777-present)[49]
Gaafar Nimeiry (Sudan) (1969–85)[50]
Samuel Doe (Liberia) (1980–90)[51]
Apartheid South Africa (1948–94)[52]
Meles Zenawi (Ethiopia) (1991–2012)[42]
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo (Equatorial Guinea) (1979–present)[42]
Mobutu Sese Seko (Democratic Republic of the Congo) (1965–97)[53][54]
Hissène Habré (Chad) (1982–90)[55]
Hosni Mubarak (Egypt) (1981-2011)
Idriss Déby (Chad) (1990–present)[56]
Yoweri Museveni (Uganda) (1986–present)[57]
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (Tunisia) (1987–2010) [58]
Paul Kagame (Rwanda) (2000–present)[59]
Europe[edit]
Greek military junta of 1967–74[60]
Franjo Tuđman (Croatia) (1990–99)[61][62]

GOOD!

 

Also, this isn't an invasion. It's an incremental harassment action to maintain the pressure as the peace talks begin. If Putin invaded it would be with 40,000 troops. Remember, news isn't really news anymore, all comuniques' are issued with a political intent.
If you want to talk about it bump the Ukraine thread.

 

This latest is bad. It looks like Pooty wants to establish a land link to Crimea and consolidate a hold on the oil production on the sea of Azov.
He's a sneaky b*stard.
Putin declined to take part in peace talks over the Ukraine crisis, repeating his claim that Russia wasn't involved. He said ending the bloodshed was “Ukraine's business.”
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-russia-new-front-20140827-story.html

He won't be driving to Kiev, but he is intent on taking ground it seems.

I would love to be in the situation room. It's some real Tom Clancy sh** for the the uninvolved (me)

 

Maybe not now, but I think eventually his ambitions will expand beyond what they are now.

 

It is such a shame that as has often been commented on the Washington Post has become a big center of neo-con foreign policy.

I think they had a change of ownership a few years ago?

Aside from their bias the American Empire is getting worn down by elective wars,costing trillions, big time tax avoidance by our large corporations and a ridiculous ideology that tries to paralyze the national government.

 

The need for military prestige to rally a new Soviet axis around and suppress dissidents within his borders could push Putin further if he can afford it. This will be a strange proxy war in Europe since the Ukraine military is built around Soviet arms. It's not like NATO can supply them with replacement parts.

The crisis may come this Winter over gas supplies, will the Russians cut them off, will NATO countries shut down the money supply.

(I'm going to switch over to the Ukraine thread since this one is so poorly titled.)