General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWaPo, WSJ Slam Obama's Response To Putin's Aggression
The editorial boards of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal on Sunday criticized President Barack Obama's foreign policy approach as Russian forces cemented their control of Ukraine's Crimea region...writing that Obama's foreign policy since assuming the presidency has been "based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality." While noting that Obama is not responsible for Russian President Vladimir Putin's occupation of Crimea, the Post faulted the President for his "urge to pull back" on the heels of the Iraq War.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that Putin's actions were "19th century behavior in the twenty-first century," but the Post argued the United States can't continue to pretend that leaders like Putin, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and China's Xi Jinping care for the rules of the modern world order.
"Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan these still matter, much as we might wish they did not," the editorial board wrote...WSJ's editorial suggested Obama could do more to rebuff Russia's advance than to simply condemn the deployment of troops to the Crimean peninsula:
A White House statement on the call said the U.S. "condemns" the Crimean takeover and called it a "breach of international law." That will have the Kremlin quaking. The only concrete U.S. action was to suspend participation in preparations for June's G-8 summit in Sochi. Seriously? Mr. Obama and every Western leader ought to immediately pull the plug on that junket and oust Russia from the club of democracies.
The newspaper also slammed the "media counsel of defeat" for pushing the narrative that the West has few options for dealing with Moscow, even though the solutions it offered in its editorial -- reconsidering trade and banking relationships, visa bans, asset freezes -- were similar to those options Secretary of State John Kerry outlined on the Sunday show circuit.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/wapo_wsj_slam_obamas_response_putin
Translation: The Obama administration isn't rushing to war fast enough.
Kerry: "This is a time for diplomacy..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024590090
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wars to prove they're not wimps.
Can we get some grown ups to run things in this world for a change?
As someone in the State Dept said a while ago, 'we can't kill our way to peace'.
Obviously since we've been doing that going on 14 years and we're told we are 'less safe now than ever'.
Has Palin weighed in yet?
cali
(114,904 posts)the correct translation is:
No way you're going to cut the defense budget.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No way you're going to cut the defense budget."
Preserving the defense budget is simply a means to lining defense contractors pockets.
cali
(114,904 posts)there's an immediate goal here and it's to make it difficult to cut the defense budget.
cali
(114,904 posts)proposes it.
You really just want whatever the President wants. Keystone? If he approves it, you'll defend it. Syria? When it looked like that was an imminent military excursion, you were for it.
For you, the earth revolves around President Obama
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Did this OP require three fucking posts and your nasty fucking insinuations?
n2doc
(47,953 posts)It's dick swingin time! Who cares about reality, or cost, or anything? We must obliterate the Russkies!
Laelth
(32,017 posts)And Europe does, in fact, rely on Russian natural gas. As such, I consider these editorials ill-informed or outright dangerous and propagandistic.
-Laelth
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)Other than the obvious ... and that is to prove that Democrats can be as muscular, as stupid, as aggressive, as belligerent, and as vicious as Republicans, and to hell with our allies in Europe who will suffer the consequences of any unilateral move we make.
-Laelth
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)negotiations sooner than later, and end the crisis
This should only be done with the Europeans, and is not the muscular, stupid, and aggressiveness you suggest. Going in militarily is muscular, stupid, and aggressive. Sanctions can bring all parties to the negotiating table sooner.
Of course this is mostly up to the Europeans, we can only try to facilitate it.
It could possibly prevent casualties by compelling the parties to negotiations
Laelth
(32,017 posts)But I think it highly unlikely our European allies will back sanctions. They don't want to see the price of natural gas skyrocket. At the moment, calls for action on the part of the U.S. only play into Republican hands. There's very little we can reasonably do at this time. As such demanding that we do something only hurts the President and the party.
-Laelth
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)many, and they still beat the war drums.
However, the truth remains that the majority of the American populous does NOT believe we should be involved militarily in Ukraine.
It has now been demonstrated for some time that our so-called 4th estate has been out of touch with the actual pulse of our country
ProSense
(116,464 posts)who think an idiot is a foreign policy expert.
Sarah Palin, Wall Street Journal rewrite history of Russia-Georgia war
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024587124
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)how a major player can move without much concern and under such bullshit
pretex..international law does not allow for taking territory under force. Of course,
Putin's reasoning is that he is safe guarding Russians in Cremia...
He may get away with it.
There is no honesty in those OP's about the political realities of world powers.
Cha
(296,866 posts)the rw assholes at the wapo and wsj.