That's the biggest indication that Putin intends to take at LEAST Eastern Ukraine...

Under Bush, the world hated and feared the US..

Under Obama, the world laughs at and ignores the US...

Michale

Noonan nails it!!!

Michale

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/python-in-the-dog-house-after-eating-family-pet-20140314-34qzh.html

Poetic justice??

Sometimes you get the bear... Sometimes the bear gets you... :D

Michale

We may not have any choice.

The 1994 Budapest Memorandum treaty (signed by Bill Clinton) requires that the US (and Britain) defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

This guarantee was given in exchange for Ukraine giving up it's nuclear weapons arsenal..

So, the US is obligated BY TREATY to defend Ukraine..

Of course, Obama has already totally decimated US integrity and presitge world-wide...

What's adding a broken treaty to the list, eh??

Michale

Russian forces are massing at Rostov, Belgorod and Kursk...

Who would have thunked that Putin would give Obama the finger and try to take East Ukraine en masse???

Oh wait.... :D

Once again, people...

Military matters.. Military people...

Michale

The Obama Administration has issued ANOTHER red line...

washingtonexaminer.com/john-kerry-russia-has-until-monday-to-reverse-course-in-ukraine/article/2545610

(yyaaaaaaaawwwnnnn) Time for a repeat of STAR TREK: VOYAGER :D

It's pretty sad for our POTUS when Americans think that the RUSSIAN leader is a stronger leader than our own President..

washingtonexaminer.com/poll-vladimir-putin-a-far-stronger-leader-than-president-obama/article/2545617

Democrats have a MAJORLY uphill battle in the upcoming elections...

It's pretty clear that DEMOCRAT != LEADERSHIP

Michale

So, apparently, you are now arguing with yourself. :D

Michale

You spew nonsense w/o any reference..

No, actually you haven't. Your one link proved my argument not yours. As for the rest of your assertions, no references to original material as was posted.

If Novorossiysk could replace Sevastopol, then Russia would have done so all ready, in order to bring a strategic asset back to the motherland..

But it can't, so they haven't...

Yawn, the second time you have brought this up. Answered it above...

But don't let the FACTS interfere with your delusions. :D

Your flawed logic has nothing to do with facts...

But it can't, so they haven't...

But don't let the FACTS interfere with your delusions. :D

Michale

I have documented my facts.

You spew nonsense w/o any reference..

But, I'll give you credit for tenacity.. Only matched by your delusions.. :D

Michale

At dockside, the depth is only 16ft.. Most of the ships of the BSF have a draft that is twice that...

Actually the non-oil dockside berths of Novorossiysk can handle between 5.6 M to 13 M. Converted to feet: 18.3ft to 42.6ft.

The naval section first phase was to be completed 2013 and included an artificial break water peninsula and dredging to accommodate the larger ships of the Black Sea Fleet.

The navy would have to commandeer a certain amount of the commercial port, and it would be a tight squeeze but currently Novorossiysk could take the Black Sea Fleet in an emergency at this moment in time. So, even you taking your argument to a unrealistic and pedantic level, you are still wrong.

But hey, look at the bright side. Your misuse of the word "fact" remains unblemished...

Poor Chris Matthews...

The tingle is gone....

Michale

Still,

Still... That didn't stop the Left from blaming the POTUS from 2000 thru 2008....

He's responsible at the Buck Stops Here Level.

And yet, this POTUS gets a free ride from the Left......

Funny how that is, eh? :D

Michale

Michale

If said leader didn't know about the operation, then he is incompetent...

Would you agree with that?? :D

Michale

"What's your view on Obama's culpability???"

How would I know? It's all classified! :-). It's not even clear what happened. It will never be clear, at least in my lifetime, see above.

Still,

He's responsible at the Buck Stops Here Level.

At the operational level, I suspect this is happening far down the intelligence food chain. Obama likely read about it in the paper, like most everybody else. How he responds will tell the tale.

Two buildings collapse in Harlem...

Two people are killed and Moron Extraordinaire' Charlie "THE CROOK" Rangel calls it, "our communities 9/11"....

Jeeezus, where do Democrats GET these people???

Michale

DOH!!!

That, of course, should read:

And, as YOU yourself concede, RIGHT now, Novorossiysk is INcapable of replacing Sevastopol as a strategic asset..

Oh how I know you are going to have fun with THAT typo... :D

Michale

I don't need to..

My statement didn't refer to "years", it referred to right now.

And, as YOU yourself concede, RIGHT now, Novorossiysk is capable of replacing Sevastopol as a strategic asset...

Ergo, Sevastopol is the ONLY port that, RIGHT NOW, offers Russia's military unfettered access to the Med and beyond...

So, in 50-100 years, you MIGHT be right.

But, in the here and now, you are wrong..

These are the facts..

Michale

At dockside, the depth is only 16ft.. Most of the ships of the BSF have a draft that is twice that...

You are really grasping at straws here. Can you give me a real world scenario related to the current situation that Russia would not have years to move the base from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk? Can not include war, which you have already backed away from, or magic pixie dust...

Granted, it ain't MUCH of a strategic asset..

It IS Russian, after all.. :D

But it is, inferior though it may be, a strategic asset...

Michale

What's your view on Obama's culpability???

Michale

"CIA spying on Congress revelations??"

Not much has actually been revealed yet, but my own opinions at this are pretty similar to those of CW.

(97)

"The Black Sea Fleet port in the Crimea is a STRATEGIC Russian asset that provides unfettered access to the Med and beyond.."

Once Russia runs it through the Turkish Straights, but I wouldn't want to try that under wartime conditions. Once it gets to the Med it's still small, old and not very powerful. Once there, some of it could base at the small Russia base at Tartus, or maybe Latakia?

As I see it, the Black Sea Fleet is of some significance in the Black Sea, elsewhere, it just shows a flag.

And ONCE with attached asterisks!!!! :D

Aren't you special.

Damn skippy!!! :D

Michale

Right now, you CAN'T relocate the Black Sea Fleet to Novorossiysk.

At dockside, the depth is only 16ft.. Most of the ships of the BSF have a draft that is twice that...

It would be like trying to move a bunch of semis into a Japanese car park.

They simply WON'T fit..

Yup, we are clear you don't know what you are talking about...

Looked in a mirror lately?? :D

Michale

Are we clear???

Yup, we are clear you don't know what you are talking about...

Because I am not wrong..

In the here and now, Novorossiysk is NOT a viable *STRATEGIC* military port..

Which is what started the whole discussion from LD when he was claiming, falsely, that there is NO strategic interests for the US in Ukraine and the Crimea...

The Black Sea Fleet port in the Crimea is a STRATEGIC Russian asset that provides unfettered access to the Med and beyond..

NO OTHER PORT in Russia provides the STRATEGIC asset that Sevastopol provides...

It's not a question of Russian or Putin "druthers"...

It's a fact that no other port in Russia has the STRATEGIC advantage that Sevastopol has...

Are we clear???

Michale

Bullpuckies. It is a viable port in any real world time table except for sudden war which you have already back tracked from. You are in the wrong here. Why can't you admit it?

SO, you agree..

RIGHT now, Novorossiysk is NOT a viable military port..

Which is ALL I said almost 100 comments ago...

I am glad you finally concede the point....

"Moving On!!!"
-Robert Singer, SUPERNATURAL

Michale

Michale

Bla, bla, bla. The usual crap eh? So, is it America who sends our astronauts to international space station or Russia?

Novorossiysk is NOT a viable military port..

But would be by the time they were required to leave if Ukraine cancelled their lease on Sevastopol. Which makes your highly amended argument a bit trite and silly...

The West can prop up Ukraine short of admitting them immediately to NATO. If Russia want's to play a version of the old cold war game, so be it, because the West can play a modern variant of the old containment game, and Putin faces the same end game that the old Soviet Union faced, for the same basic reasons. Same end game, but fewer decades to get there because because Putin's Russian is smaller than the old Soviet Union.

I am glad we are in agreement.. :D

So, what do you think of the Obama Administration's CIA spying on Congress revelations?? :D

Michale

Yea, you can trust the Russians for an HONEST assessment... :D

You stick around til 2020 and we'll see if the Novorossiysk base is done...

Then I'll have a good laugh at your expense.. :D

As for your technology remark, are you that big of an idiot or do you just play one on the internet?

Listen, son. I cut my teeth in the military where it was drilled into our heads that the "Red Menace" was a technology advance military marvel that matched our own technology..

We all found it that the Red Army was a joke. A paper tiger that couldn't fight it's way out of a paper sack..

Do I have a very low opinion of the technology of Russia??

You betcha...

And it's based on FACT..

Something you have clearly shown you ain't to familiar with...

But, as I said... Stick around til 2020.. We'll see the vaunted Russian technological terror.. :D

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
-Darth Vader, STAR WARS IV, A New Hope

Irregardless of all that, in the HERE AND NOW....

Novorossiysk is NOT a viable military port..

"That's the fact, Jack!!!"
-Bill Murray, STRIPES

Michale

In (26) I pointed out that the Western Powers ultimately defeated the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet Union is no more, the Warsaw Pact has been absorbed into NATO. The Cold War is over, the West won that round.

The grand strategy that did this was Containment of the Soviet Block combined with the latter's low economic efficiency. It was a winning geopolitical insight in the Cold War era, successfully maintained for decades by a succession of US and European political administrations. I think the West can take some pride in that.

MAD, which I never mentioned, is a math model not a grand strategy, it's a NASH equilibrium that explains why nuclear arms races occur and yet strategic nuclear exchanges of all those nukes don't. MAD explains nuclear deterrence and simultaneous, limited, conventional conflicts. Being for or against MAD is like being for against a NASH equilibrium.

"Does Russia want to go nuclear against NATO???"

No, it does not, and the MAD Nash explains why. But what of it? Russia doesn't need to need to nukes to get a slice Ukraine...and the West isn't going to use Nukes to prevent it.

The West can prop up Ukraine short of admitting them immediately to NATO. If Russia want's to play a version of the old cold war game, so be it, because the West can play a modern variant of the old containment game, and Putin faces the same end game that the old Soviet Union faced, for the same basic reasons. Same end game, but fewer decades to get there because because Putin's Russian is smaller than the old Soviet Union.

Yeah, lots of two edge swords, I'm glad you noticed.

Ah, talking out your ass or trolling? Actually the Novorossiysk timeline was to be 2020 for a finished base and the deep water part finished in 2011 when it started and got initial funding. It's falling behind schedule but no where near your "out of your ass" 2114...As for your technology remark, are you that big of an idiot or do you just play one on the internet?

What Else Can the Obama Administration Do to Undermine U.S. Security?After the administration spied on Americans and lied to Congress, Feinstein's bombshell now raises even more questions about its activities.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/what-else-can-the-obama-administration-do-to-undermine-u-s-security-20140311

Any "red lines" yet???

"Fascinating"
-Spock

Michale

And I am constrained to point out that, with the Russian economy in free-fall and the highest technology that Russia has is indoor plumbing :D Novorossiysk, as a viable strategic military installation, MIGHT be ready by 2114..... :D

THEN I will concede that you are correct, that Novorossiysk is a viable military naval installation.. :D

You be around that long?? :D

Michale

Legalized marijuana..

What could POSSIBLY go wrong... :^/

Michale

And if the military wanted to pump oil, then you would have a point.

But they don't so you don't...

Again.. Military Matters.. Military People...

Russia is building a naval deep sea terminal at Novorossiysk. And that is what is called a fact, Jack.

Yes.. IS building..

Meaning, as of RIGHT now, Novorossiysk is NOT a viable military port.

Which is all I have been saying..

You and LD.. Two of a kind. The facts stare you in the face and yet you STILL can't let go of your delusions...

Michale

Yawn...the Oil Terminal can handle 19 M draft. And as I have already posted, from an article you posted but evidently refuse to read:

Moscow is already building naval infrastructure at Novorossiysk, including a deep sea terminal.

Russia is building a naval deep sea terminal at Novorossiysk. And that is what is called a fact, Jack.

Moving on....

Feinstein: CIA searched Intelligence Committee computers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/feinstein-cia-searched-intelligence-committee-computers/2014/03/11/982cbc2c-a923-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html

Don'tcha all just LOVE your Obama Administration?? :D

Michale

The port itself is not..

Novorossiysk is NOT a viable military port.

This is fact...

Michale

Naval vessels have a draft that is almost twice that..

Noss port is NOT a viable military port.

These are the facts, whether you acknowledge them or not..

Michale

Yea.. It's called VIABLE.

And I proved it is viable and Russia is working on it to make it so. Your argument only works with an unrealistically short time frame with lots of magic and pixie dust. In real world time frames, if Russia lost the Sevastopol base, they would move to Novorossiysk. And, as the article you yourself posted points out, Russia is currently working on Naval facilities at Novorossiysk including sending many of their new warships and subs there.

Yea.. It's called VIABLE.

You mean the article that has a broken link? I googled it and made it through the pay wall but you should really check your link before posting...

It is not a "natural" deep water harbor. It is deep water harbor. From the article in question:

Moscow is already building naval infrastructure at Novorossiysk, including a deep sea terminal.

If Novorossiysk was a viable military port, Russia would be using it as such..

It's not so they ain't...

Seriously flawed logic. There is a difference between ideal and possible. Sevastopol is a much better base. Has over 200 years of history and infrastructure. There is no denying that and it's most likely the real reason Putin has invaded Crimea. But I have proven that Novorossiysk is a viable option. Russia knows this and, per the article you posted, is in the process of making it such just in case.

Give it up, Bashi. You're wrong. Just admit it...

Actually, I'm not. Try reading the links you post rather than making up as you go along.

If Novorossiysk was a viable military port, Russia would be using it as such..

It's not so they ain't...

Give it up, Bashi. You're wrong. Just admit it...

Michale

From the web site of the company that runs the port:

Oh yea.. THEY will have un-biased factual information, eh?? :D

Today, the deep-water Port of Novorossiysk is Russia’s largest sea port in terms of cargo volume according to the Association of Russian Sea Ports, and in 2005 it was Europe's fifth largest commercial sea port by cargo volume, according to Global Insight/ISL. The Port is one of the few Russian sea ports in the Black Sea-Azov basin, which is one of only three commercially viable gateways for passage by ship between Russia and the open seas.

Which is WHY it's not viable as a MILITARY port...

Your own information proves my point..

It's like saying New York Cargo Port is a viable military port just because it's a huge Cargo Port..

It's ridiculous..

Like I said. Leave military matters to military people..

Michale

These are the facts.. Sorry you can't accept them, but they are facts nonetheless..

And as usual you would not know a fact if it snuck up and bit you on the ass. From the web site of the company that runs the port:

http://www.nmtp.info/en/holding/about/history/port/

Today, the deep-water Port of Novorossiysk is Russia’s largest sea port in terms of cargo volume according to the Association of Russian Sea Ports, and in 2005 it was Europe's fifth largest commercial sea port by cargo volume, according to Global Insight/ISL. The Port is one of the few Russian sea ports in the Black Sea-Azov basin, which is one of only three commercially viable gateways for passage by ship between Russia and the open seas.

I merely stated that, since the Crimea houses Russia's ONLY viable unfettered access to the Med and beyond...

And I proved you wrong. Novorossiysk is deep water and has access to the open seas. Russia currently has military facilities there that service the the Black Sea Fleet and has contingency plans to make it their home. Some of this information you yourself posted but were too lazy to read.

More info if you are interested:

[htinfoweb.newsbank.com]

I honestly don't know what gives you people more angst..

Or admitting that I am right..

Look in the mirror, dude. Look in the mirror...

This amounts to dilution of NATO power in exchange for a tripwire defense commitment. Or, as Fredrick the Great would put it:

Ya'all were all for the Cold War and the MAD Doctrine a few comments ago.. :D

The question facing Russia would be the same question ya'all posed regarding the US..

Does Russia want to go nuclear against NATO???

Your sword from a few comments ago has a double-edge you may not have been aware of... :D

Michale

You get natural gas pipelines to Russia, your new neighbor,

plus rough equivalents of:

* the acreage of France

* the population of Spain

* the GDP of Romania

* the coastline of Somalia

* political/economic corruption in the Russian style

This amounts to dilution of NATO power in exchange for a tripwire defense commitment. Or, as Fredrick the Great would put it:

“He who defends everything, defends nothing.”

The world didn't end.. WWIII didn't start... Russia survived and (somewhat) prospered...

Granted, Poland is not as strategically important as Ukraine, but still..... It shows that NATO membership, in and of itself, is not destabilizing...

Michale

Note to Liz.... I applaud Obama's actions... :D

The response from the Left??

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

It's fair to say that I slam the Left for their hypocritical lack of response to Obama's actions a bit more than I slam the Obama Administration.. :D

Michale...

Touche' :D

... but, wouldn't you agree that the European offer was a bit lame?

Compared to Russia's, "lame" would be one way to describe it..

But, "realistic" would be a better way to describe it..

Once upon a time, I was working undercover in San Diego. I put the word out that I was looking for a gun. I was approached by a guy who said he had a revolver for sale. I said I needed a semi-auto. Of course, he changed his "deal" and said that's what he had...

True story..

Anyways, my point is that the bad guys will say anything, offer anything to get the hook in..

A deal Russia is NOT in Ukraine's best interests, no way, no how....

Standing alone is also (likely) not in Ukraine's best interests because of the bear that lives on Ukraine's borders...

Therefore, the ONLY logical and rational choice for Ukraine is NATO and/or EU membership...

Due to Ukraine's strategic value (to Russia and to the US) and it's geographical location, being another Switzerland just is not possible...

Michale

... but, wouldn't you agree that the European offer was a bit lame?

Well, I did say the Russian offer was better, financially speaking ... of course, there were other strings attached. Not even Putin gives away $15Billion for nothing, after all. :)

You really need to read what I write, you know ...

What do you take me for, some kind of Putin apologist!?

Absolutely not!! :D

I merely pointed out that, while Russia may have offered Ukraine a BBD, that would have come with a LOT of strings attached..

Of course, a deal with the EU would have had strings as well.

"..... nature of the beast."
-Col Hadley, THE FINAL OPTION

But, with the EU, Ukraine would have been free to say NO..

As we have readily seen, Ukraine can't say "NO" to Russia as easily...

Michale

Further, I never claimed that Russia is going to be kicked out of the Crimea.

I merely stated that, since the Crimea houses Russia's ONLY viable unfettered access to the Med and beyond, that if... *IF* Russia were to lose access to Sevastopol, it would be of HUGE strategic interests to the United States...

You really need to READ what I write, rather than just assume you know what I am saying...

As I said, I don't know which bugs you more..

Admitting you are wrong or admitting I am right...

Michale

Admitting you are wrong..

Or admitting that I am right..

Michale

Don't think for a moment that Russia is the good guy here....

What do you take me for, some kind of Putin apologist!?

As for the here and now, I covered that. You know, nukes, WW3. Sorry mister alleged military expert, Russia is not going to be kicked out of Sevastopol in the short term and most likely not in the long term either.

The problem is, you make such conclusions based on nothing but wishful thinking and ignorance of the issues...

Having said that, you might get lucky and you may be right..

See? I have no problem admitting that..

Too bad no one here can't seem to admit that they MAY be wrong...

Michale

You, like LD, simply can't admit when you are wrong..

The port in the Crimea is Russia's only viable military port.

Novorossiysk is NOT a viable port. It's not a deep water port and it doesn't have the room to be a viable military port because it's a commercial port.

These are the facts.. Sorry you can't accept them, but they are facts nonetheless..

Liz,

I think Ukraine could come to see its inclusion in NATO as not being in its best interests, all things considered.

But, we agree that THAT is up to Ukraine to decide, no??

You might be right. Ukraine might decide that membership in NATO is not in their best interests.

But Ukraine might decide that NATO protection from Russia IS in their best interests..

It's up to Ukraine, not Russia, to decide. Right??

But, that doesn't mean it can't have a close and comprehensive relationship with the EU ... or with Russia for that matter.

The problem here is that a close and comprehensive relationship with the EU would be on Ukraine's terms.

A close and comprehensive relationship with Russia would be on Russia's terms..

Therein lies the difference..

You know, the EU offer to Ukraine for an economic association left quite a lot to be desired. It's really no wonder the ousted Ukrainian president opted for the much more lucrative offer, financially speaking, from Russia! I mean, let's see ... $400 million or $15 billion ... gee, it's so hard to decide ... Heh.

Drug dealers ALSO make "lucrative offers" that are really great deals....

At first...

Don't think for a moment that Russia is the good guy here....

Michale

I am sure we can all agree that membership in NATO is infinitely more preferable than to be absorbed into the old USSR...And having Ukraine in NATO is also in NATO's best interests as well..

I think Ukraine could come to see its inclusion in NATO as not being in its best interests, all things considered.

But, that doesn't mean it can't have a close and comprehensive relationship with the EU ... or with Russia for that matter.

You know, the EU offer to Ukraine for an economic association left quite a lot to be desired. It's really no wonder the ousted Ukrainian president opted for the much more lucrative offer, financially speaking, from Russia! I mean, let's see ... $400 million or $15 billion ... gee, it's so hard to decide ... Heh.

Your's is in question as I started off this thread with:

Russia prefers Sevastopol due to location and existing infrastructure. It's far from Russia's only option.

You wrote:

It's the ONLY port in Russia that offers unfettered access to the Med....

I even highlighted the the "ONLY" in quotes.

It is not the only port to offer that access. Russia prefers it for many reasons but if forced it has existing plans to build a full-scale naval base at Novorossiysk.

It would be expensive but Putin just spent 50 billion on the Olympics. I think Russia could afford the expense.

And, if you actually knew what you are talking about you would realize Novorossiysk is a deep water port.

Not only can we read, we can actually comprehend...

Not so far, but keep trying. A broken clock is still right twice a day...

As for the here and now, I covered that. You know, nukes, WW3. Sorry mister alleged military expert, Russia is not going to be kicked out of Sevastopol in the short term and most likely not in the long term either.

Some defence analysts believe the uncertainty in Crimea could provide additional impetus for Moscow to step up plans to convert Novorossiysk, a city on Russia’s Black Sea coast which is already the country’s largest commercial port, into a full-scale naval base.

Which means, in the HERE AND NOW as I STATED the Crimea is the ONLY base that offers the Russian Fleet unfettered access to the Med...

Jeezus, did IQs REALLY drop around here???

Well, if you are a prime example, I really don't think that is a good idea. Does the rest of the military lack a basic reading ability? :D

Not only can we read, we can actually comprehend...

Apparently ya are having a problem with the comprehension part...

Novorossiysk is not a deep water port.. The COSTS of making it a viable replacement for Sevastopol is nearly prohibitive..

Further, the technological know-how in Russia is severely lacking...

If Russia went on a crash program and excluded EVERYTHING in the budget but the expansion of Novorossiysk, then Russia MIGHT have a viable military port in, roughly, about a century...

Again..

Military matters???

Military people...

It's the ONLY logical choice....

LD,

Actually, it's you who have descended into extremism with your hero worship of Obama..

Your mistaken and totally refuted idea that Obama can do no wrong is what tags you as the extremist here....

I am still waiting for SOMEONE... ANYONE ... to refute the facts I laid out in comment #28...

No one has offered any facts???

That's because there are no facts to offer that refutes the conclusions...

Michale

Wasn't always this way. Michale once offered intelligent honest counterarguments. His descent into extremism hasn't been pretty.

Would it be possible for you to read the article you post a link to just once? Try it, you might just learn something.

From the article you just posted but were too lazy too read:

Some defence analysts believe the uncertainty in Crimea could provide additional impetus for Moscow to step up plans to convert Novorossiysk, a city on Russia’s Black Sea coast which is already the country’s largest commercial port, into a full-scale naval base.

Like I said.. Leave military matters to military people..

Well, if you are a prime example, I really don't think that is a good idea. Does the rest of the military lack a basic reading ability? :D

SOrry, I forgot ya up there. :D

Novorossiysk.

Is a commercial port that is Russia's primary grain port. It has little to no military application whatsoever..

The Russian port in the Crimea is Russia's ONLY realistic access to the Med..

Cripple or eliminate that port and one effectivly eliminates Russia's naval power in the Med and beyond.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1f749b24-9f8c-11e3-b6c7-00144feab7de.html#axzz2vb3dlLh4

Like I said.. Leave military matters to military people..

If the Left ran things, we'de all be speaking Russian right now.. :D

Michale

Michale

Therefore any discussion with you on the fact that Obama DID lie is useless, as you will never concede the reality..

So, you are correct..

Discussion with you on this point is as useless as discussing with a religious fanatic whether god exists or not.

They won't concede the point no matter HOW many facts one brings to the table..

Obama is your god so trying to get you to see reason and logic with regards to Obama is simply not possible..

Michale

The American people were concerned that, as a result of TrainWreckCare, their insurance plans would be cancelled.

This is the fact that NO ONE (with both oars in the water) can dispute...

Michale

I'm through playing your "heads I win, tails you lose" games. You demanded I off er proof to back up my comments. I have. Look at ANY insurance contract. Talk to ANY insurance agent or broker. In response to my irrefutable proof you offer NO factual refutation. You simply ignore it, repeat your same old lies, and move the goal-posts by issuing NEW demands for cosponsors before you'll "listen." Since clearly NOTHING about your comments is honest I'm all done pretending your overt lies are anything OTHER than lies. There's no point in trying to discuss anything with anyone who's only going to lie and will never admit it.

The Weigantian Lie Of The Year For 2013 was when Obama said that he "welcomed debate" on the domestic spy programs...

LD, do YOU believe that Obama lied when he said that??

It's a simple YES or NO question requiring a simple YES or NO answer.....

Do YOU believe that Obama lied when he said he welcomed debate on the domestic spy programs??

Michale

In THAT context, Obama said:

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

And that was a lie..

And, every time Obama said it, he KNEW it was a lie...

That is the context of the statement..

No other possible explanation exists, other than that Obama lied... Obama KNEW that, if the truth was known, then TrainWreckCare would NEVER make it thru Congress...

Obama lied to save his signature legislation.

This is the fact that NO ONE (with both oars in the water) can dispute...

Michale

Find me someone else who believes that Obama didn't lie and I'll listen..

Until that, it's your word against every American in the country...

Michale

EVERY insurance policy is explicit in how, when, and in what manner policies may be modified or cancelled. An insurance policy would be pretty useless without it. I can guarantee you policies would "just happen" to have been cancelled just prior to major claims without it. Supposedly expecting you've a right to renew IN SPITE of the terms outlined in your policy, to which you agreed, IS NOT "honoring the terms of your policy."

It is NOT logical or rational to assume an assurance from the President that you can keep your policy is a "promise" from the President that he will CHANGE your policy so you can have YOUR way WHATEVER the other party to your contract may wish, in spite of YOUR promise that terms could be modified and policies cancelled upon expiration.

And, aside from radical right-wingers, Americans wouldn't assume the government so authoritarian it would cavalierly, indiscriminately, and arbitrarily, dictate one party to a contract must prevail over the other. Nor would Americans believe it to be constitutional. If the President wanted to lie to America he wouldn't make statements that would only mislead delusional radicals.

And, finally, there is nothing rational about interpreting Obama's remarks as some insane unconditional proactive commitment of government enforcement instead of the passive commitment to government noninterference that it was. The latter is in context with his other remarks about ACA. The former you just pulled out of your ass. Nothing else said by anyone, at anytime, even remotely supports such a fantasy.

As I said, you keep making the argument of a two year-old. Taking a statement completely out of context, deliberately misrepresenting it, and claiming absurd connotations for which there is NO rational basis to assume.

"If you like your policy, you can keep it," does NOT mean doctors can't quit, retire, move, or die if YOU want to keep them. It does not mean you get to break your promises and deny your insurer THEIR right to modify and cancel. It does NOT mean you can stop paying premiums and still keep your policy, just because you want to.

NO rational adult would think the President's remark the unconditional entitlement you want to pretend it was. For the President to have lied he would have had to assume all Americans are morons who are incapable of correctly parsing a simple declarative statement. Even IF the idiots on the Right ARE, in fact, such morons, the President's remarks, directed at adult Americans with functioning brains, wouldn't be lies just because Republicans are too stupid to correctly figure them out.

I am sure we can all agree that membership in NATO is infinitely more preferable than to be absorbed into the old USSR...

And having Ukraine in NATO is also in NATO's best interests as well..

So, if 'best interests' is the watchword then it seems clear that Ukraine's best interests are served by NATO membership...

I fail to see how the US/NATO have done anything wrong here??

Michale

(30) It's fair to say that Russian intervention in Crimea is a consequence of NATO expansion. I rate that a minor case of "be careful what you wish for." There are downsides to NATO expansion, but overall, expansion has reduced tension in most of Europe.

One does not necessarily excuse the other..

That's why I said that Kissinger was wrong in his assessment.

Kissinger said that Ukraine must be free to choose their own path, but then stated that Ukraine must not join NATO..

If Ukraine is forbidden from joining NATO then, logically, Ukraine is not free to choose their own path...

Michale

Ten countries scour sea for Malaysia jet lost in 'unprecedented mystery'
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/10/us-malaysiaairlines-flight-idUSBREA2701720140310

Anyone ever see THE EVENT?? :D

Michale

So to say that I am "caught up in the irrational condemnation of everything that the Obama has done" is not accurate..

I am also constrained to point out that my attitude regarding Obama and his administration is not at all different than the attitude everyone here displayed towards Bush and his administration. Except, back then, NO ONE gave Bush credit for ANYTHING.

This IS a reality based forum. It's simply IMPOSSIBLE to believe that Obama is ALWAYS right in EVERY policy non-politics decision he has ever made..

And, while I have NO problem admitting that Obama might not be as bad as I say he is, it's ALSO undeniable that Obama is not as good as ya'all say he is..

The difference is that I admit that.

No one (with the obvious exceptions) here would reciprocate..

I get it. Party loyalty above all else.. So, if ya'all can't admit that Obama is wrong sometimes, at least concede that it's Party loyalty that causes ya'all to believe that Obama is never wrong...

The alternative is for ya'all to actually point out when Obama DOES frak up...

Saves me the trouble which will free me up for other pursuits. :D

SOMEONE has to keep Wegantia grounded in reality.. :D

Michale

But I don't think that there was EVER a time when it was stated here in Weigantia, "Ya know. Obama/Democratic Party is just WRONG on this policy" or "That policy of the Democratic Party/Obama is just wrong for this country" or something like that...

I know there was, on more than a couple of occasions. I can't say that I'm surprised you missed it because you are so completely caught up in the irrational condemnation of everything that the Obama administration has done with little or no regard to the reality of any given situation.

It appears to be impossible for you to see any constructive criticism in our comments - could it be because you view all politics through your highly distorting prism of hyper-partisanship and extreme cynicism?

Of course, the Russian leadership in the post-Cold War era has left quite a lot to be desired, particularly since Putin came to power.

The downsides of NATO expansion and other actions taken by the West, are substantial, however, especially since the West has never demonstrated that it understood what was happening in Russia during this time - or now, for that matter - in terms of the awakening of Russian nationalism.

I hardly expect geopolitical perfection. But, I do expect intelligent leaders to understand the fundamentals that underpin relationships between leaders and nations.

"if the US and its western allies had been at all adept at the geopolitical game in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, then there wouldn't have been a crisis in Ukraine that we are witnessing today"

I would assign far more of the ineptitude to the leadership Russian Government. Formidable problems after the breakup, they got Yeltsin, then Putin to handle them. Bad start after a bad fall.

(30) It's fair to say that Russian intervention in Crimea is a consequence of NATO expansion. I rate that a minor case of "be careful what you wish for." There are downsides to NATO expansion, but overall, expansion has reduced tension in most of Europe.

The fog of diplomacy is as great as the fog of war. You shouldn't expect to play a near perfect game, or to win every hand.

When Obama and the Democrats were trying to sell TrainWreckCare to the American people, it was all about bringing health insurance to millions and millions of Uninsured Americans.

When less than 10% of TrainWreckCare signups were those Uninsured Americans, all of the sudden TrainWreckCare was NOT about bring health insurance to the uninsured...

When Obama needed a foreign policy boost, it was all about the Reset With Russia...

When Russia slapped down and ignored Obama in Ukraine, no one in the Obama administration had even HEARD of a "Reset With Russia"...

The Obama administration EPITOMIZES 'double think'...

Michale

I think I just had an epiphany!!! :D

The problem here is that NO ONE around here (with one, possibly two notable exceptions) are critical of the Democratic Party or the Left in general when it comes to policy...

I can't recall a time where anyone has said, "Ya know, the Democratic Party is just WRONG in this particular direction they are going"

Oh sure, individual Democrats are called out and thrumped.. The entire Democratic Party might be slammed for not being tough enough against Republicans or not pushing the Liberal/Progressive agenda far enough..

But I don't think that there was EVER a time when it was stated here in Weigantia, "Ya know. Obama/Democratic Party is just WRONG on this policy" or "That policy of the Democratic Party/Obama is just wrong for this country" or something like that...

So, only one of two possibilities exist.

1> Everything that Obama/Democratic Party does is RIGHT for this country......

or

B> No one in Weigantia is willing to point out when Obama/Democratic Party is wrong..

The odds are against #1.... So, that only leaves B...

Michale

He didn't HAVE to tell people they still had to honor the TERMS of those policies.

The people WERE honoring the terms of their policies..

The problem was that the policies were not honoring the terms of TrainWreckCare...

You yourself had stated those policies had to be cancelled because they were subpar under TrainWreckCare...

So, the people were fine with their policies and the people were honoring the terms of their policies..

But the policies were (in YOUR words) subpar and had to be cancelled under TrainWreckCare...

You see, this is what's so frustrating.. When you are defending Obama, you throw logic, reason and rational thought out the window..

Up is down, Black is white, wrong is right..

The Obama Administration epitomizes George Orwell's 1984 and you are right along there with it...

Michale

We don't have to. You do enough of that for each one of, 100 times over. :)

SOMEONE has to keep Weigantia grounded in reality..

On the other hand, if ya'all picked up some of the slack, *I* wouldn't have to do it all.. :D

Just had a thought ... if you take a break from comments that do nothing but slam Obama, then you just might hear some constructive criticism from the rest of us and realize that it was there in some of our comments all along. I'm just sayin' ...

Tried that. Nothing changed..

So, why don't we try something different. Why don't Weigantians start pointing out Obama's mistakes BEFORE I do??

LD,

"If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. PERIOD"

There's no ambiguity there, LD... There is no caveat.. There is no equivocation or "but...." or "unless....." or "if...."

There is a "PERIOD"..

Now, I will grant you that YOU believe you know that Obama MEANT those things..

But you are alone in that belief. Every other American, INCLUDING every Weigantian knows that Obama lied. Because THAT is the fact..

I know you believe Obama didn't lie. It is not in your nature to believe anything bad or wrong about Obama.

It's like a Christian who can't believe that their god might be wrong or might make a mistake.

It just can't happen...

So, I understand why you continue to defend Obama.. Obama is your god and you must support him wholly and completely without reservation.

But you just have to know that you are completely wrong, just as a Christian is wrong about their god...

Michale

Once again, in the fervent hope that I irritate you AT LEAST as much as you irritate me...OBAMA DID NOT LIE when he assured people they could keep their policies. He didn't HAVE to tell people they still had to honor the TERMS of those policies. That's a given.

The "Obama lied" argument is the argument of a two year-old. NOTHING about Obama's statement could POSSIBLY lead ANY ADULT, with an IQ at least equal to their shoe-size, to believe they could stop making payments and still keep their insurance--just because Obama didn't TELL them they still had to keep paying premiums. And NOTHING in Obama's statement could lead them to believe the terms of their CURRENT policies had changed in any way, INCLUDING their insurers rights and options regarding modifications and cancellations.

The REAL lying going on is coming from YOU and your right-wing fellow travelers.

When was the last time someone slapped down Obama for a POLICY decision or bonehead play or something having NOTHING to do with politics or Republicans?? Uhhh... NEVER...

We don't have to. You do enough of that for each one of, 100 times over. :)

Just had a thought ... if you take a break from comments that do nothing but slam Obama, then you just might hear some constructive criticism from the rest of us and realize that it was there in some of our comments all along. I'm just sayin' ...

It's an interesting question, but in the mid term, say 5-10 yrs, I'm guessing events will show Putin impulsively played a pretty weak hand.

That may very well be true but, that doesn't excuse the fact that the years since the end of the Cold War have been squandered by the US and its allies in so many more ways than one.

Fear not, that's plenty of time for interested parties to generate millions of more comments on this subject at CW.com :-)

Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! :)

The fact that the Warsaw Pact is now a subset of NATO is more evidence of that.

That is precisely why we are in crisis mode today.

Well said, but success in the geopolitical game should be judged over decades, not moments. Overall, the US (and European allies) has proven quite adept with regards to Eastern European affairs.

I would seriously beg to differ. Well, not with the very first part ... :)

For instance, if the US and its western allies had been at all adept at the geopolitical game in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union, then there wouldn't have been a crisis in Ukraine that we are witnessing today.

Really??

When was the last time someone slapped down Obama for a POLICY decision or bonehead play or something having NOTHING to do with politics or Republicans??

Uhhh... NEVER...

If it wasn't for that guy who critized CW a couple weeks back, I would have bailed on Weigantia... But I had to stick around and defend CW's honor.. :D

The straw that nearly broke the camels back was the totally BS insistence that Obama didn't lie with his "Like Your Plan, Keep Your Plan" BS..

I mean, how can ANYONE stand so much utter felgercarb and blatant un-reality and still maintain a semblance of sanity???

You say that Weigantians don't believe that Obama is not perfect and Obama does not walk on water??

Fine..

Show me...

Show me the LAST time ANYONE took Obama to task over something unrelated to politics or Republicans...

My gods, man!

This POTUS ***ASSASINATES*** Americans without due process!!

This POTUS has a domestic surveillance apparatus that would give Dick Cheney's and Richard Nixon's love child a wet dream!!

This POTUS has prosecuted more whistle blowers than the previous FOUR Administrations!!

And not ONE SINGLE Weigantian can find ONE single thing to rip Obama over without prompting from yours truly???

Ya'all savaged Bush at the drop of a dime...

Obama doesn't merit even a stern word or a sad shake of the head???

Is that "-D" so all important that principles, morals and even COMMON SENSE are chucked out the door?

What's the price of one's self RSPECT these days??

Michale

Everything bad happening has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama.

i think i can speak for just about everyone here at CW when i say we all recognize that's not the case. even obama himself most likely recognizes that's not the case. the question is how many and and myriad the "mistakes were made" by obama, relative to his successes, in comparison to other presidents.

i maintain that he's about average in that regard, and above-average in foreign policy. this is probably (to everyone here's chagrin including myself) for implementing bush's fp strategies more intensively than bush did, and (to conservatives' chagrin, most likely including yourself) suavely enough to avoid inciting the level of domestic push-back that bush did.

does that mean he's got the foresight of richard nixon who got ahead of the curve and started winning the cold war? probably not. nixon and kissenger were brilliant in that regard. obama and his staff have still been pretty good though. not brilliant, and certainly not mistake-free, but substantially stronger than you're giving them credit for at the moment.

JL

"That's what the practice of geopolitics is all about. It's about securing national interests while working to prevent conflict, often continents away."

Well said, but success in the geopolitical game should be judged over decades, not moments. Overall, the US (and European allies) has proven quite adept with regards to Eastern European affairs. The fact we are using the term Russia rather than Soviet Union is evidence of that. The fact that the Warsaw Pact is now a subset of NATO is more evidence of that.

Ukraine is the last frontier of the Old Soviet Empire. Ukraine contains some geographical regions, notably Crimea, where a significant proportion of the population, contrary to pretty much everybody else, actually wants to renter the Russian orbit. The rest of Ukraine seems to want to move westward.

Russia is pushing back, but hasn't actually gained anything of high strategic value yet. They already controlled the bases for the Black Sea fleet, now they control it more firmly. They may ultimately claim a new province (a sort of Russian Florida) and 2 million more citizens. (Many of the latter are said to be Russian retirees, but hey, it's Russian Florida).

There are potential geopolitical costs to the Russian push back. Russia is a major player in the world energy markets. Being perceived as an unreliable business partner is bad for business. Putin has triumphed in Russian politics in large part because he has good for business. Is it better for Russian business if Europe is forced to hedge its bets by shifting to more expensive imported natural gas, alternate fuels, or God Forbid! - increased emphasis on fuel efficiency?

It's an interesting question, but in the mid term, say 5-10 yrs, I'm guessing events will show Putin impulsively played a pretty weak hand.

Fear not, that's plenty of time for interested parties to generate millions of more comments on this subject at CW.com :-)

Not sure if that little rant was directed at me or not, but, I'd like to clear something up ... for the record, you know.

You seem to be equating any discussion of national security and geopolitical considerations with the US going to war. That's hardly what I was talking about.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that the crisis in Ukraine is going to have significant repercussions for the US/Russia relationship which will impact on any number of wide-ranging global issues that require the cooperation of Russia and the US to resolve.

Had the US and the West understood the geopolitical consequences of the fall of the Soviet Union and acted to mitigate the negative ones then, I dare say, we would not have had a simmering Ukraine crisis over the years that would have come to a head now.

That's what the practice of geopolitics is all about. It's about securing national interests while working to prevent conflict, often continents away. Unfortunately, the US has not always proven to be particularly adept at this game. We shall see if any lessons of history have been learned and held within the institutional memory of the country as this latest geopolitical crisis plays itself out.

Naw ... he'll be fine.

Novorossiysk.

There's this thing called "WAR"... Maybe you have heard of it..

It tends to change things...

There are these things called nuclear weapons, maybe you have heard of those? Or are you actually calling for WW3?

[22] Uh...I think Michale just had a major explosion of hysteria. Should we call someone :D