Post: #1

Just look at the debates... Obama was so clueless. It speaks volumes that Romney would have been 10 times better for America's interests than Obama. That's how bad Obama's foreign policy has been. Obama is a fitting president to America's end as a super power.

Post: #2

Because even more defense spending would have prevented the annexation.

   

Post: #3

What would Romney do that Obama isn't doing now? Launch a hot war?

The mistake was in destabilizing Ukraine, thinking that breeding chaos would send Ukraine into EU's arms without Russia reacting.

Post: #4

Obama has won zero battles but I don't think Romney would have either. In this case they only person that I would think "oh yeah, that guy knows whats up!" in this case would be if there was a general or at least intelligence commander in the president's chair right now. See Eisenhower for the last example of a president with a military background in action at the beginning of...oh wait, the last cold war. Instead it looks like we're going to get...hillary clinton?

Post: #5

Since when presidents decided anything ? They don't even get to choose what kind of speech to hold by themselves, let alone lead foreign policy that is highly dependent on intelligence. They get to sign some shit, and say what has been calculated by the PR agencies and that's it. Everything else is imposed anyway by bureaucrats tied to corporations tied to defense lobbies tied to politicians - take Kerry for example. He works his ass off - unfortunately, not on citizens behalf.

Post: #6

(05-02-2014 11:18 AM)Samseau Wrote:  



Just look at the debates... Obama was so clueless. It speaks volumes that Romney would have been 10 times better for America's interests than Obama. That's how bad Obama's foreign policy has been. Obama is a fitting president to America's end as a super power.

Not sure I understand.Samseau I think maybe you are NOT hip on what has been going on if you are buying into the nonsense. I don't mean it as an insult or anything(Roosh don't ban me lol)
Sure if Romney knew the Neo Con agenda,The Great Chessboard, 5 billion to support a coup e tat and even about Nuland's cookies ..I guess he could have predicted Russia would react.
I mean it really takes a genius to predict that Putin would be against a hostile Ukraine at her border. I mean its NOT like anyone but Romney could predict that Putin would draw a red line. That's because he is more intelligent than Obama and I guess he thought it was a coded message that only he understood when in 2008 during the NATO-Russian summit in Bucharest that Putin warned about taking Crimea and East Ukraine if NATO/WEST moves into Ukraine.
LOL.I am being sarcastic,can't help it.
Putin has been warning NATO/US/EU for about 10 years. The bigger idiot is the guy who hears the growl of the bear and still walks into the cave.
Obama's biggest crime is being stupid enough to allow the Neo Cons to still run their think tank agenda's. Nuland should have been thrown out of gov't. Mc Cain shouldn't be allowed on a foreign policy committee. His biggest mistake is NOT controlling his people. He even let Kerry lie to him numerous times about Syria.
Of course Romney is right. I mean of course if your a corrupt gov't like the US that believes in empire building and that the US is destined to control the world..Yeah Russia is enemy number 1. Russia has almost 8k nuclear bombs and another 30k that they can rebuild in short order. That makes them Superman to our Lex Luthor.
However , Russia doesn't have expansionalist agenda. That is a load of BS. They just want to keep their "near abroad" in order.
If you don't believe me..just check where they are spending their military budget. Mostly defense and "near abroad" short term capabilities.Instead of air craft carriers , they investing in 2 small helicopter carriers for example.
Numbers don't lie.. if they were interested in ruling the world or abroad..they would be investing their budget differently.

I feel sorry..because when Putin gets thrown out of office the next Russian leader will like be 10x more hardliner than Putin. He will probably be the type that will stand up and walk out of meetings after threatening to turn us servicemen"into radioactive waste".
Just like we helped create terrorism in the middle-east and a population that hates us there. We will have 140 million Russians who will grow up thinking that US/EU should be bombed.
And you know what? They will increase their military budgets.
They will probably with the new found patriotism have volunteers that will work for free helping to build tanks, T 50 stealth fighters, etc in their own time. Pretty easy to accomplish when one nation owns 33% of the worlds energy and raw natural resources. That is enough to make a hell lot of tanks,guns,bombs, planes, subs.
Historically long wars are often won by those who have access to the most oil, and raw materials and lives that are expendable. I think Russia trumps NATO in all 3 categories.

Post: #7

(05-02-2014 01:06 PM)Roosh Wrote:  What would Romney do that Obama isn't doing now? Launch a hot war?

The mistake was in destabilizing Ukraine, thinking that breeding chaos would send Ukraine into EU's arms without Russia reacting.

You answered your own question. Romney is a businessman. He wouldn't have thrown money into Ukraine in the first place, because it's obviously a bad investment.

Obama's never worked a day in his life.

Quote:Since when presidents decided anything ?

Presidents have total authority over the armed forces and all major foreign policies.

In fact, what's sad about America is that most Americans do not realize this. The job of presidents aren't to handle domestic issues. Their major responsibility is foreign affairs. It's right in the constitution.

Obama has lost control in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

Just watch the vid I posted. What a fool. America could not have picked a shittier choice.

Post: #8

Samseau, Romney would placate the Neocons in the same way that Obama did, business sense be damned. This goes deeper than Republican vs Democrat.

Post: #9

(05-02-2014 01:56 PM)Blunt Wrote:  Samseau, Romney would placate the Neocons in the same way that Obama did, business sense be damned. This goes deeper than Republican vs Democrat.

Romney understood Russia was a threat and probably would have taken 10x the precautions before starting shit with revolutions in Ukraine. Romney understood Russia's intent back in 2012, while Obama thought Romney was "stuck in the 80's."

The neocons respect a man like Romney, one of their own, and Romney would have been able to lead them more effectively than Obama. Neocons don't listen to a president whose main concern is putting women and fags in the military.

Post: #10

Samseau is right: Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster. The Middle East, South East Asia, and now even Eastern Europe are unstable.

The Obama policy of "leading from behind" has led to a truly catastrophic foreign policy. Either be a foreign policy hawk or a dove, but don't try to be both at the same time like Obama since that just sends mixed signals and makes your foreign policy look disjointed.

Post: #11

(05-02-2014 01:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:06 PM)Roosh Wrote:  What would Romney do that Obama isn't doing now? Launch a hot war?

The mistake was in destabilizing Ukraine, thinking that breeding chaos would send Ukraine into EU's arms without Russia reacting.

You answered your own question. Romney is a businessman. He wouldn't have thrown money into Ukraine in the first place, because it's obviously a bad investment.

Obama's never worked a day in his life.

Quote:Since when presidents decided anything ?

Presidents have total authority over the armed forces and all major foreign policies.

In fact, what's sad about America is that most Americans do not realize this. The job of presidents aren't to handle domestic issues. Their major responsibility is foreign affairs. It's right in the constitution.

Obama has lost control in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

Just watch the vid I posted. What a fool. America could not have picked a shittier choice.

I agree mostly since I think Obama hurt the economy. But I disagree about foreign policy. Romney(google it) has already shown himself to follow the hard-line Neo Con agenda..plus as a Republican he would be a slave to them since they run the republicans since Bush.
Plus the 5 billion wasn't invested solely by Obama. It has been invested over 20 years with an increase during Bush.
To be honest, Romney as president would be a continuation of the Mid east war expansion and push to the Caspian oil. This agenda isn't controlled by any president as has been confirmed since it is still going on today during Obamas administration.It would be worst during any Republican president administration.
I use to be Republican, but I am boycotting Republicans simply because the party has been infiltrated by the warmongers and I personally see them marching this country to WW3 based on an outdated think tank agenda.It is my personal belief that the Republicans would risk a small lever nuclear exchange with Russia. It is elementary Watson! Putin won't back down ..so it wouldn't be avoided.

Post: #12

(05-02-2014 02:06 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 01:56 PM)Blunt Wrote:  Samseau, Romney would placate the Neocons in the same way that Obama did, business sense be damned. This goes deeper than Republican vs Democrat.

Romney understood Russia was a threat and probably would have taken 10x the precautions before starting shit with revolutions in Ukraine. Romney understood Russia's intent back in 2012, while Obama thought Romney was "stuck in the 80's."

The neocons respect a man like Romney, one of their own, and Romney would have been able to lead them more effectively than Obama. Neocons don't listen to a president whose main concern is putting women and fags in the military.

I see you have a different angle on this. Who cares who the Neo Cons respect. They need to be gone!
They talk the same shit regardless of who is in office and when a Republican/Neo Con president was in charge the result was the same. In fact Obama has technically gone further but of course like Texas stated his problem is that Obama talks shit. While Bush backed down more quietly without the threats.
That is one of Obamas problems he gets too hawkish in his speeches but sadly the Neo Cons are pushing for more simply because they are looking to screw him up and the Democrat pARTY. Bush they allowed to back down because he was their own party. I should add that that nut MC Cain even talked shit against Bush.

The republicans/neo cons were in office during the Georgian revolution and Orange revolution so to say they wouldn't start revolutions doesn't jibe with reality.
There would have been no reason for a Russian reset if the Neo Cons didn't try their intervention back in 2004-2005 and then again in 2008.
Maybe we forgot "we are all Georgians"?. Some say MC Cain started the damn Georgian war.

Post: #13

(05-02-2014 01:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Presidents have total authority over the armed forces and all major foreign policies.

In fact, what's sad about America is that most Americans do not realize this. The job of presidents aren't to handle domestic issues. Their major responsibility is foreign affairs. It's right in the constitution.

Obama has lost control in the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

Just watch the vid I posted. What a fool. America could not have picked a shittier choice.

Hold on a second. It had been demonstrated on the field, that Secretaries of State, even vice-presidents, are the biggest players when it comes to actually pursuing a policy. Since they are appearing in public the most, and doing all direct face to face talks and persuading - it would be logical to assume they receive intell first, and they are the most informed.

Also, isn't it strange that all of them always have that shark mentality, that warmongering rhetoric ? While presidents always look like naive clumsy retards. Albright, Kerry, Clinton, Rice - all fucking warmongering vultures, who always mean shit when they go somewhere - shit is usually done.

To be fair, Bush is the only American president who could be taken seriously. He had a devil's persona. When he got pissed, asskick was imminent. Even though he appeared to be a tard too, when more exposed to informal public view.

Post: #14

flipping things on the other side...I agree that modern US presidents are limited in terms of how informed they are, that they likely are fed mostly everything and are just spokespeople. So why give credit to Putin? What is the difference that makes me think that "Putin is doing this, that or calling the shots" vs. "Obama just follows advice". I have no way of knowing if Putin is the same, just a spokesperson for someone else's policy.

That being said, i'm just asking the question. Putin comes across as someone who knows what is going on to me. If someone gave him advice he didn't like he would silently wave them away with his hand and continue to his next point on the meeting agenda. Bush Jr would have said "ok, who has intelligence that is going to let us kick russia's ass" and Obama says to his advisors "ok team, what is the game plan for this Ukraine thing"

Post: #15

(05-02-2014 02:49 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  flipping things on the other side...I agree that modern US presidents are limited in terms of how informed they are, that they likely are fed mostly everything and are just spokespeople. So why give credit to Putin? What is the difference that makes me think that "Putin is doing this, that or calling the shots" vs. "Obama just follows advice". I have no way of knowing if Putin is the same, just a spokesperson for someone else's policy.

That being said, i'm just asking the question. Putin comes across as someone who knows what is going on to me. If someone gave him advice he didn't like he would silently wave them away with his hand and continue to his next point on the meeting agenda. Bush Jr would have said "ok, who has intelligence that is going to let us kick russia's ass" and Obama says to his advisors "ok team, what is the game plan for this Ukraine thing"

Your right..it is western propaganda that blames Putin. It is easier to demonize a ruler/leader than to admit that a country that is going against our wishes has a functioning parliament with lawmakers.
FACT: Putin has to answer to his political party and Duma. He certainly has vast powers due to the constitutional reforms of Yeltsin but he also has to keep many of his oligarch's happy that campaigned for him. He also has to keep his military loyal to him. Last but NOT least..his voters. Russia seems to have a popular democracy..more so than the west, except for Switzerland.
That's why Putin takes all those campaign shots and tries to be liked. He believes in order and abhors Chaos,at least within Russia. History has taught Russia what happens when an unhappy population takes to the streets.It never ends well.
Putin does have the advantage of in addition to vast powers, of having pretty much discredited the liberals. Many of the political parties are very similar to Putin's.

Post: #16

Small level nuclear exchange with Russia?

No such thing I'm afraid. Its either use them or dont use them, hence the MAD agreement.

Post: #17

There is little functional difference between any of the American presidential "candidates", regardless of the party affiliation. Of whatever stripe and form of rhetoric, they all represent the oligarchy of financial-military interests. The interests of the common man be damned.

As Emma Goldman once said, "If elections made a difference, they would be banned."

America's little geostrategic game in the region has been to try to thrwart the re-emergence of a powerful Russian state that can project power in Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, and southward towards Turkey and the Mediterranean. They also want to detach the Ukraine from Russia and bring it under NATO's umbrella, thereby turning it into a client state. It's the same imperialist game that has been going on for centuries.

America and England have been paying groups in the Ukraine to cause trouble; they are directly fomenting separatist movements. Russia will never, and should never, tolerate this in their sphere of influence.

The same game they played in Syria. It's an old trick by now. The difference is that they were not counting on Putin's ruthless (and quite brilliant) ability to play the game of power. Putin, unlike his Soviet predecessors, also knows how to use the media and to play the same game of hypocrisy that America does.

He's beating the lying Americans at their own game, and they hate that.

I suspect that the British and French are taking a more active role in this little drama. Recall that they were the big players in the 19th century in trying to keep Russian southern ambitions in check (e.g., the Crimean War). The British are cunning schemers and know how to manipulate the Americans, who for the most part are clowns.

Post: #18

Maybe US foreign policy did exactly what it was supposed to do; distract
everyone from what really might be going on.

Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out

Was Price of Ukraine's Liberation the Handover of its Gold?

The Latest Heist US Quietly Snatches Ukraine's Gold

The thing that makes all this scary is that - regardless of what is going on - we're forced to contend with two options:

1. The President has no idea what he's doing in Ukraine and the US people elected this idiot to be President.

2. The President knows exactly what he's doing in Ukraine and the US people elected this scoundrel to be President.

Fuck what this says about the president. What does it say about the average US citizen?

Wald

Post: #19

The neo-con hamster is strong in this thread....

Post: #20

(05-03-2014 01:17 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  Small level nuclear exchange with Russia?

No such thing I'm afraid. Its either use them or dont use them, hence the MAD agreement.

???
There was NO agreement. MAD was a concept the US gov't invented(made up fantasy) to feel better and make the population less fearful.
But Russian military doctrine never believed in it. Red Army military leaders often were bewildered that the Americans believed in MAD.
That being said it has come out that many Pentagon officials also believed in the use of low yield nukes and didn't strictly abide by MAD ideology.
There reasoning is that since Soviet conventional forces outnumbered NATO forces the US needed nuclear deterrence.
Now the role is reverse and Russian doctrine authorizes tactical nukes if their forces are being overwhelmed and their statehood or interests are at stake. Yeltsin actually wrote up the 1st draft of the doctrine. Putin /Medvedev re issued it.

How in theory it works is Russia uses it on the battlefield in confrontation. In theory even if NATO returns a nuclear bomb.Russia doesn't lose much since it was already facing defeat and chances are their forces have dispersed anyway..so damage will be small.
Of course NATO could decide to throw the nuke at an unrelated force or base but then they risk that Russia will do the same. That is the concept of escalation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism
The whole TV/media image of all the silo missiles launching is pretty much fear mongering. No one in their right mind would do that. That's more of the scenario of a retaliation with = number of incoming. But who would do that?
In any case if Putin did use a small nuke, IMHO NATO would lose many members.Most of the small countries would drop out because they can't afford a detonation on their territory and wouldn't want the consequences. The old "better dead before RED" isn't going to hold for 90% of citizens or politicians today.
I think the EU liberals and USA /Canadian ones would storm the gov't and demand an end (and impeachment also). Today's Western society isn't as naive as the past generations and they aren't going to sacrifice themselves for Mc Cain, Neo Cons, and other 1% er's.
The Vietnam protests pretty much showed the attitude change.
Now America depends on a professional force of the poor,uneducated , dumb, and easily brainwashed to fulfill its hegemony agenda.
Included of course is those who want free education, free travel and adventure. Those ones are pretty smart actually!
Disclaimer- Not insulting those who are ex military, only you know why you volunteered.

Post: #21

(05-03-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  There is little functional difference between any of the American presidential "candidates", regardless of the party affiliation. Of whatever stripe and form of rhetoric, they all represent the oligarchy of financial-military interests. The interests of the common man be damned.

As Emma Goldman once said, "If elections made a difference, they would be banned."

America's little geostrategic game in the region has been to try to thrwart the re-emergence of a powerful Russian state that can project power in Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, and southward towards Turkey and the Mediterranean. They also want to detach the Ukraine from Russia and bring it under NATO's umbrella, thereby turning it into a client state. It's the same imperialist game that has been going on for centuries.

America and England have been paying groups in the Ukraine to cause trouble; they are directly fomenting separatist movements. Russia will never, and should never, tolerate this in their sphere of influence.

The same game they played in Syria. It's an old trick by now. The difference is that they were not counting on Putin's ruthless (and quite brilliant) ability to play the game of power. Putin, unlike his Soviet predecessors, also knows how to use the media and to play the same game of hypocrisy that America does.

He's beating the lying Americans at their own game, and they hate that.

I suspect that the British and French are taking a more active role in this little drama. Recall that they were the big players in the 19th century in trying to keep Russian southern ambitions in check (e.g., the Crimean War). The British are cunning schemers and know how to manipulate the Americans, who for the most part are clowns.

Basically the Neo Con agenda was formed based on Zbigniew Brzezinski.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Chessboa...0465027261

It would be good if all of you read it because basically than you will be on the same page as the Neo Cons and you will see this battle/struggle was already devised over 20 years ago.It be like our little book club.I am sure you guys can find a way to get a copy .

Here is an article that discusses how Brzezinski forced the Russians to go into Afghanistan in 1979.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paul...83691.html

Maybe Putin has a losing hand regardless of whatever he chooses to do?

Post: #22

Situation in Russia becomes quite more clear now that west is quite open about true role of NATO.

NATO, in eyes of it's creators, is an umbrella for entire western world.

Ever wondered why Japan or South Korea are not in NATO ? That's right. NATO is a project to unite a western world (white European) under a single economic, foreign and military policy - free market, military deterrent and blackmail, and interventionism. Ruling policy is of course, liberalism corporatism and Kleptocracy, combined with welfare state to keep people cheering for government.

As of today, the only part of the Eurosphere that is truly out of NATO zone is Russia. Everyone else is included, except for Georgia and Armenia, but everyone else is more or less tied to NATO. Georgia shall be soon.

Europe and NATO want Russia badly. It's the last step. The last, single fucking step. So close yet so far away, only because of nuclear triad.

After west is united under one umbrella, they can begin cultural war with the east. However, west doesn't have unlimited time. Actually, it is quite limited, for couple of reasons:

1. Demography. Whites already make up less than 28% of world's population. That number is rapidly dropping. Roman Catholicism is already surpassed by Islam. Not too much will be needed for entire Christianity to be surpassed.

2. While west dominates world economy, third world is rising. At an unexpected and picked up pace. So far, it is estimated that share of third world in global power will only rise, and absolutely under no circumstance shall it drop. Brazil's enlargement of armed forces is inevitable. India is racing to create strong NAVY. Hell, China is the slowest of all.

3. Oil won't be there forever.

However, west is in no chaotic or dramatic situation. Moves of the west are quite calculated and cost-effective. Only Russia is remaining. Once it is secured, west is secure from eastern threat. They can kick out immigrants, they can tighten grip of economy and trade, they can tighten grip on the oceans, and withdraw from cooperation with third world. But if they withdraw now, while Russia is out, recreation of an alliance that will resemble USSR is inevitable. And west doesn't not want scenario in which white world will be politically divided ever again.

Will conservative Russia survive ? It will be very difficult. Russia is too defensive, too much prone to responding instead of initiating, too little ready to play risky aggressive moves that will pay out, such as intimidation.

Most importantly - sooner or later, Russia will be faced with choices - back down and open up to west, or second option - reintroduction of Stalin's "not one step backwards" policy.

Historians today, regard Stalin's policy as something of a propaganda, but in fact, it was a necessary investment. If Russians lost Volga river, they would have had their soft underbelly broken.

Seems like Ukraine still does not bother Russia that much, to declare to it's western adversaries that it's drawing a red line. Which is for concern.

Post: #23

When it was created, the purposes/goals of NATO were:

1.) Defend against / deter Russia (mostly, keep Russia out of W. Europe since E. Europe was written off.)

2.) Provide a framework to re-militarize W. Germany in support of #1 yet prevent Germany from dominating Europe militarily once again (as in WW2).

3.) Do it in such a way that binds the USA to Europe, militarily.

Post: #24

"As of today, the only part of the Eurosphere that is truly out of NATO zone is Russia. Everyone else is included, except for Georgia and Armenia, but everyone else is more or less tied to NATO. Georgia shall be soon."
I never remember learning that those 2 countries are European. It is a scam by EU to get to Caspian. For energy they would call "Iran" a Euro country. Weird how one can stretch the European area..to encompass countries that never had a Euro history.I mean they aren't even white looking in some of those countries.lol. Maybe Libya will be considered EU material also since they have energy.

Technically most of Ukraine wasn't EURO either.But that's another story. Better question why the fuck would the average EU national want those uncivilized barbarians in their union?
Once they get in they will get visa free travel to USA...bring their Molotov cocktails with them as well?



BTW Russia will never be considered West all though they can westernize until they start acting western.Its a Eurasian country.
I also believe the term West as the state dept uses it includes South Korea and Japan. I think any country that has become a US client state with democracy and other institutions is considered Western today. I don't buy the whole white race crap simply because most of the west isn't solely or even majority wise white now or in the future.


"Most importantly - sooner or later, Russia will be faced with choices - back down and open up to west, or second option - reintroduction of Stalin's "not one step backwards" policy."

They made their choice recently.....Crisis in Ukraine. They had the option to move closer to west but decided to stay/become a Eurasian nation. Brzezinski in the Grand Chessboard said this pivotal moment would come during the battle for Ukraine.

Post: #25

(05-03-2014 04:11 PM)Orion Wrote:  Ever wondered why Japan or South Korea are not in NATO ?

NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

So, no, never wondered, lol.

It's for the same reason Australia is not a part of NATO, because it's not in the North Atlantic. Greece, Turkey, and the Eastern Europeans were added over the years, by the way.