kurtster wrote: 
I just don't get it, Kurt.  Obama, "called the deaths of the 298 people aboard the plane "an outrage of unspeakable proportions." Are you saying that he didn't say this? That he doesn't believe this?

I just listened to the whole press conference from the day after the tragedy on the Washington Post website.  At no time did he say anything different or to make me suspect his motivation.  Furthermore he made it clear that Putin has influence and holds responsibility for the ability of the separatists to shoot down airplanes.  He clearly set out the actions that he considers necessary for the Russians, the separatists and the Ukrainian government to take. Furthermore he made it clear that the US position was that thus far the Russians have not taken necessary actions. He has talked directly to Putin and other leaders involved. My interpretation of his statements is that he is working to move the European governments toward taking a stronger stance with respect to the Russians and the Ukrainian situation (obviously there was some necessary diplomatic wording there).  He also said that it was still early and he didn't want to get out in front of the facts as they come out.

So yeah, he ticked off all the leadership and compassion boxes as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, do you know how long it was between when KAL was shot down and the Reagan speech you posted?

 Red_Dragon wrote:Seconded.  What concerns me is that you seem to be a nice guy and all, but you do not recognize your own irrationality towards Obama, and then the poorly considered points that follow your bias. e.g. Comparing the situation of the MH to KAL and Reagan's actions to Obama's. The comparison falls apart on so many obvious points.  And in doing this fool's errand you fail to make any rationally compelling points, imo. In the end you make a mistaken argument and appear foolish in doing so.
Get a grip, man.  Read your own posts to consider RD's point.

 haresfur wrote: 
And what if Obama was POTUS during 9/11 and initially said that it "may be a terrible tragedy", instead of calling it a blatant atrocity ?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is the POTUS, whoever he or she is, is the defacto leader of the free world.  As POTUS and leader of the most powerful country on this planet comes the responsibility to react to major events one way or the other in clear terms.  I don't care who shot down the plane or if it was an accident or not, it is still an atrocity.  Firing a weapon of the kind used is in itself no accident.  How hard is it to call it an atrocity and what harm is done if he declares it so ?

As leader of the free world, he has an obligation to state the obvious and call this an atrocity.  Where that leads to isn't determined solely by such a statement, but at least he goes on record and appears confident and plugged in.  The world at large has taken Obama to task over his initial statement.  I am not the only one.

Obama appears to not want to be the leader of the free world in both word and deed.  Am I getting that wrong ? 

I'm not trying to debate whether or not the US should lead the world, but to deal with things the way they are.  I would say presently that the way I see things playing out, Ukraine will be to Obama what the Iran hostage crisis was to Carter.  Nothing will be done until we get a new POTUS, that is if something can still be done.  I agree with your options for Ukraine as there are really few to none.  Putin has the EU over a barrel cuz of oil and nat gas.  It won't stand up to Putin, especially with the winter heating season coming very quickly.  Putin owns Obama after Syria.  Putin ends up with Ukraine or at least the part that he wants.  Its only a matter of time.

Right or wrong, Obama has clearly reduced the role of the US to follower instead of leader.  He has created a power vacuum.  People are taking advantage of the projected weakness and uncertainty and unreliability of the US.  Down the road, Ukraine will be the least of all of our problems.  There are two years left till the 2016 election and two years of a weak lame duck presidency.  All the bad guys have the next two years to do as they please. Who is capable of stopping anyone ?  The way things stand right now, Putin is in charge for the next two years.  These are fascinating and dangerous times to be alive.  Also pretty predictable from here on in.  And I haven't even mentioned the loose cannon, Israel.  ... or China ...

 

 kurtster wrote: 
I stand by my statement: your posts speak for themselves.

 kurtster wrote: 
As near as I can tell, after listening to this, your main objection to Obama's reaction is that he was more succinct. Reagan's response accomplished nothing - he didn't get any of the actions he was demanding from the SU. That isn't a question of how I regard Reagan, that's a question of the outcome.  It's fair to argue that Reagan's policies had been increasing tension with the SU long before the incident and the US did have a plane in the area so it was appropriate for him to immediately get the facts together on whether that had a part in the tragedy.  That isn't the case for the Ukraine. Personally, I think it is a bit of a joke when any politician makes a big point of canceling a vacation or flying out to see a disaster unless they are actually going to take some concrete action to guide the immediate response - or at least figure out if there is some action they need to take.

The response options in the Ukraine are pretty limited.  A very strong response would possibly lead to a ground invasion by the Russians.  And the European/US response to that would likely be the same as to the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 i.e. nothing.  I think we all agree that Putin is a jerk and using Russian nationalism to increase his position internally.  This may indeed result in a resumption of the cold war. I have some slim hope that he will decide that this bunch aren't worth his trouble.  I also have some slim hope that the Europeans will reverse their hard line economic policies to help bring prosperity to the Ukraine - that probably could have prevented this whole mess and ultimately been cost-effective. 
 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I'll just add one more thought that I left out.

Yes, I no longer respect Obama as POTUS.  Respect is earned and lost.  Disrespect does not equal hatred.

Obama has earned my disrespect.  

 

 kurtster wrote: 
Your posts speak for themselves.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
That's mighty strong.  I don't hate anyone.  I strongly disagree with people, mostly politicians, yes.  But hate no.

That I repeatedly disagree equals hate ?  How does one talk about politics and current events and not discuss leaders and their roles ?

My bluntness at times is bluntness, not hate.  I will admit disgust but disgust is not hate.  Hate is a personal condition that poison's the mind and body.  It cheapens the value of life and tries to drag everyone and everything down with it.

I didn't shoot down a plane, but I'm talking about it, the players and the circumstances surrounding it. Two thirds of the country believes that Obama is taking this country in the wrong direction.  I recognize the fact that some don't think he is going far enough and others think he is going too far.  But the take away I get is that if you disagree with Obama, the only reason is because of hate.

Just how much of this country actually hates Obama ?  I don't know.  But be sure to know that I could not live with myself if my thoughts were born from hatred.  

Feel free to illustrate examples of my primal hatred.  I will consider your thoughts.  Maybe you're right and someone needs to point it out in no uncertain terms.  This is not a setup for a flame war, just a serious question.

Kurt, your primal hatred of the current occupant of the white house is quite beyond the pale.

it's really quite disturbing. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
If the POTUS won't stand up to Putin who will ?

Our Ambassador to the UN said what needed to be said.  But it should have been the POTUS who said it, not a water carrier.  I infer no disrespect to our UN Ambassador.  I am just speaking in terms of roles and hierarchy.

I did see Zep's post while I was on the road today and he made some good points.

One point he raised was the difference between criticism of Obama driven by hate and legitimate criticism of Obama.

I see many attempts to equivocate certain terms with the term hate.  Outrage being one.  Outrage ≠ hate.  Hate is a codified crime.  How does outrage compare ?

What is legitimate criticism of Obama ?  Who is entitled to criticize Obama ?   Based upon the discussions, there doesn't seem to be any or any possible.  All's I have seen are people making excuses for him.

Lead from behind, right ...  What country / leader is going to be stupid enough to stand in front of Obama and believe him when he says I got your back ?

 Again ...  If the POTUS won't stand up to Putin who will ?   Who should ?  Who can ?   

Hint: the UN is not a correct answer.

The US has been totally exposed for what it now is, a feeble, toothless tirebiter on the world stage.   All because of a single plane shot down.  Peace through strength worked well for a long time, better than anything else, at least.  Now the US is about peace through weakness.

I'm not advocating a hot war with Russia at all.  I agree with you, it ain't our problem.  I had to read your comment about our military twice to get it.  Yes our military is worn down and humiliated.  Officers are getting layoff notices in the field during combat.  I'm with Ron Paul, bring our troops home, all of them, and assume a defensive posture on our borders and buy what we need from whoever has it and pay for it, not aim guns at the vendor nor judge them.  They can shoot down any plane but ours.  Shoot down one of ours ?   We'll just nuke you and say better not do it again.  Of course, I exaggerated some things a bit, but I hope you can sort through this and see my drift.

 steeler wrote: 
if only we had semantic precision in the social sciences

 miamizsun wrote: 
Always true.

 steeler wrote: 
that depends on how one would define outrage

Obama: "an outrage of unspeakable proportions"

 ScottN wrote: 

Yea I pretty much agree with that.  Something has to be done to correct the root cause of the humanitarian crisis that is benefiting no one except for the human traffickers though and if it is this legislation it must be modified at the very least and quickly.

 kurtster wrote: 
You were mentioning his weak foreign policy, which includes (and has often in the past included) financial/military support for authoritarian/far-right regimes when convenient (including Nuland's orchestrated love affair with Ukrainian fascists in Russia's hinterland). See the post below on Reagan or the history of the Middle American countries where some of them "invading" kids now come from ("I wanna be in Ahmericah"). Again, Guatamala was mentioned below in the article about the neo-Reagan's hagiography, but there's also Honduras and others. Chicks, roost.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Egypt as in Mubarak is not our guy, then he is and then he isn't.

Then he installs the Muslim Brotherhood and assures us that they are no threat to anyone ...

I'm talking about Obama's policy, not as to which authoritarian regimes the US supports.  

 kurtster wrote:You set the bar so low it is tough to know where to start as Reagan was, mostly, at best a figurehead, and at worst, criminal (Iran Contra on a long list).  By time Iran/Contra was being litigated and Reagan in possible legal peril, he was already suffering from dementia.  See RichardPrins for an eloquent dismantling of Reagan as hero and leader.  Imo, he was  perhaps well-intentioned, but largely a fraud, and as I said, occasionally criminal. He did play his role well.

You seem locked in your loop of conservative outrage and impervious to other perspectives...or what others regard as facts.  Good luck with that.

 kurtster wrote: 

Hmmm. Link about Reagan acting immediately is rather bereft of summaries of actions taken.  Lots of tough talk in the September 5 address to nation.  I believe there were denouncements at the United Nations, and I believe some negotiations with Soviets were suspended similar to Soviets being exluded from G8 after Soviet  annexation of Crimea a few months back..