Looks like we're going to get a chance to see how the kid who got elected President does in a real crisis. He's about to be tested.

When the Russians tried to infiltrate the Western Hemisphere when JFK was President, he stood up to them and backed them down. We'll now see what Obama's made of.

My prediction: He'll give in and let them have their way with us while he worries about Gitmo, gays in the military, and pet liberal projects like the endangered mouse nest in San Fransisco.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.9776268a25e75ad5b44b4d87e8a32a02.4a1 &show_article=1

Russia basing bombers in Cuba in 2009 isn't the same as the Soviet Union basing missiles in Cuba in 1962. The Russians have how-many thousand ICBMs that could be quickly re-targeted to the US again? The Soviets had no such capability in 1962. And 1962 was the height of the Cold War. In that period, American troops faced Soviet troops at the border of East/West Berlin in what was then considered a likely flashpoint in the Cold War. That's why Soviet missiles appearing in Cuba were so alarming.

I don't see this as a big deal at all. Some posturing for show. Only paranoid right-wingers who are looking for yet another excuse to criticize Obama are pretending to be worried.

*yawn* are we done yet Deane?

It's a test to see whether he will stand up to them or lay down and let them kick us around, ala Jimmie Carter.

Liberals, being basically wimps, will think it's just fine to let them have their way. What do we care about a few bombers on our borders. Just like what do we care about turning loose a few terrorists so they can go back to killing our military folks. Who cares, right?

"*yawn* are we done yet Deane?"

I don't think so Brian. The bombers haven't arrived yet. We haven't been made to look impudent yet.

OK then. We have a motion on the table. Awesome. A good concrete example of something that doesn't need Deane's penchant for hyperbole. A tangible, specific thing that is important to Deane.

I know you've kind of already said what the problem is by citing that story - and you've added your own take on it too. It's very fair. But I would like to hear it in your own words;

If " X " happens, then you will be right about the things you've said about Obama.

If " X " doesn't happen, you will be wrong about the things you've said about Obama.

Find " X ".

I've already defined "X".

He either stands up to them, or he doesn't. That "X".

You're right in your last statement and that's the thrust of my position. He's either a man who handles this right, or he fumbles it.

Right now, he's being tested by China, N. Korea and Russia. He wanted the job, now it's time to perform and deal with the real issues. Saving a mouse nest in SF, or figuring out why pig shit smells in Iowa is hardly a test.

There is nothing I would like better than saying I was wrong and Obama was the best President we ever had.

Cowboy diplomacy, also known as chest thumping, doesn't work.

Face it Deane, you're just a pissed off old man. A far majority of Americans disagree with you, and your ways have been proven failures.

I'm not sure what he may do.

But one thing I know he won't do is invade Belieze.

(which makes as much sense as invading Iraq for 9/11)

President Obama has already started cleaning up Bush's mess in Afghanistan. NATO counties have been demanding that the US send reinforcements because the Bush/Rumsfeld “NATO” approach is clearly not working. I don't think the 18,000 additional US troops that are scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan would consider their work some sort of flight of fancy.

Russia has been engaging in all sorts of provocative actions of late; well before President Obama became President. The Russian invasion of Georgia being a prime example. Russia will push; we will push back accordingly. It happens all the time.

Deane, so if Russian bombers do not get stationed in Cuba, that is a win BY Obama? No matter how it happens. No mater what the method. No matter if Russia just decided not to do it or Cuba changes IT'S mind, this will be Obama's credit? Or blame?

C'mon, you can't have a real discussion with Deane anymore. He'll just reply by making things up or calling people names like "wimps." If you were hoping a Republican would change your mind about the stereotypical Republican...it won't be Deane, I fear.

"I've already defined "X".

He either stands up to them, or he doesn't. That "X"."

No Deane. That's not "X." Clearly you didn't study math, philosophy or world history very well if at all.

"Standing up to them" is not a result of action/inaction. It is the action itself. The result might be considered to be better security at home, better security overseas, improved international relations (clearly decimated by Bush), or one of a host of other possibilities.

If you are going to troll here, the least you can do is write with some intelligence and not just aplomb. I am not sanguine about that possibility.

" "Standing up to them" is not a result of action/inaction."

That was my next point.

Deane, when I ask for specifics, it's not so I can box you into a corner or pick a fight. It's so ambiguous terms like " stand up to them " don't form a policy or platform. I was always bugged by the term " Win the war on terror " without ever having a definition of that presented in any form.

And here, for once, you cite a clearly specific case - but leave the outcome strived for undefined.

All it does is leave you some kind of " out " because you won't commit. It's all to serve you being right. That's much easier to do when you move the target, isn't it?

And to use your own words, being able to say " Obama was the best President we ever had." is not the goal in this case. Or is it? Are you saying that you expect this single thing will allow you to say that or not? I suspect not. But you don't even like to be able to say " Well, it's a start." That would take too much pride away from you.

So you start a thread to start a discussion. Then you get people talking with you. Then you pull the " I'm not taking any questions right now " thing.

Maybe I'm just giving you too much credit. Maybe the only person you are trying to convince is you - when I thought it was that you were trying to convince some of the people that take the time to read your posts. Just because I post for that reason, I guess, doesn't mean that you do. So I guess I'll work on that.

Can you at least define what " standing up to Russia " would look like? What's an example of a way that it would come from Obama? And I will have to assume that " diplomacy " is not an option. Given your previously tooth-pulled statements before on that.

So no diplomacy? Only, what, is available - military something?

Geeze. You and Broadway are offered the ability to name the game, the rules and what defines the finish line and you STILL fold. Any questions pertaining to how your game is played is dismissed as absurd and without merit or you pretend you didn't see it. Waiting until another post shifts the subject juuuust enough for you to jump in again.

Kinda lame.

" Well, it's a start."
Can't say that. He ain't started.

Specifically, Russia has to realize there is a penalty for screwing with us. It's been that was ever since the end of WWII.

Russia doesn't want our missile defense system in Europe. Good. Obama can have the Pentagon begin plans for more deployment. Bring bombers to the west, you get more missile defense system than you wanted.

We made an agreement that we would not invade Cuba if the Russians would stay out. Let them know that if they bring bombers in, they have broken the agreement and we're free to have our way with Cuba.

Let Chavez know if he brings in bombers, we'll stop buying his oil. He's almost bankrupt now.

Let Raul Castro know that if he brings in bombers he'll see an embargo that makes the current one look pretty weak. We can begin stopping anyone from entering the island with imports.

Let Raul Castro know that if he fools around too much, he'll have to ask our Marines for permission to enter his office. He hasn't had to worry about that with our promise not to invade, but now he might if Russia breaks the agreement.

If Obama has any balls, which he has not demonstrated yet in his lifetime that he does, he'll get tough with the folks so they understand where the bear shits in the woods, and I don't mean the Russian bear.

Of course the weak minded liberals will call this gun boat diplomacy. Any thoughts that the likes of the Russians, the N. Koreans, the Arabs, etc. understand anything else is pretty naive.

Probably the dumbest, most naive statement I ever heard from the liberals was on this forum several years back. It was that the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor if we had been nice to them. Typical of the naive liberal thinking that exists now.

OK libs, time to start the attempts at personal insults against me. That's all you've got. I won't be reading them, however, I'm going to watch the Fifth Element in high definition in my home theater while you guys pound away with your silly attempts to degrade me. Trouble is, I already realize that's all you got so it just goes in one ear and out the other.

C'mon, Deane, admit it: you've going to watch "Dr. Strangelove" for the 834th time not "The Fifth Element."

Trolls always lurk. Deane is no exception.

"Probably the dumbest, most naive statement I ever heard from the liberals was on this forum several years back. It was that the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbor if we had been nice to them. Typical of the naive liberal thinking that exists now."

You mean like probably the most liberal President in the history of the United States, one Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "appeased" the Japanese? Do you forget who was President back then?

Why is it always a "Conservative" vs. "Liberal" slant here? Did Kennedy appease the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis? No, he stared right at Khrushchev in the eyes, and ol' Nikita blinked first. Was Kennedy a liberal? Yessir!

How about ol' Give 'Em Hell Harry getting us involved in the United Nations action on that far-away place called the Korean Peninsula? Or dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was Truman liberal? Absolutely.

The escalation of the Vietnam conflict happened under the watchful eyes of one Lyndon Baines Johnson. Wait, he was liberal too? Gol-lee!

How the hell do you know what Obama is going to do? Just because you don't agree with his views domestically, or you question his desire to get us out of Iraq, close Guantanamo Bay, or God forbid let gay people have the same rights as far as service to their country as everyone else, you're going to paint Obama as some milque-toast softy who's gonna roll over and play dead?

For the record, A) I am not liberal and B) I am not slamming you or lobbing personal insults your way. I am just calling to question you endlessly blasting the POTUS on actions BEFORE he acts.

Deane, most people have HD TV's these days. And cell phones. You're not that special anymore.

I'm trying to understand the article posted by Deane. Please let me know if I have over simplified my understanding by asking this question. Is Russia drawing a line in the sand in defiance to the US and if so for what purpose?

Perhaps it's Russia's answer to the United States and NATO becoming allies with many former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact satellite countries, including building military bases and putting missiles in these countries. Putin has been bickering about that for a long time.

This is the kind of tit for tat that has happened time and again since the end of World War II. To assume that President Obama and his team are not capable of dealing with it clearly underestimates their knowledge of history and the current state of US/Russian relations. No matter what some conservatives wish to think, having Hillary Rodham Clinton dealing directly with the Russians shows how credible the US takes Russia. She is takes no shrinking violet (no matter how conservatives want to paint her).

One thing we need to remember is that there are HUGE economic disincentives for Russia to so alienate the US. They need the European market to sell their petroleum and natural gas products. Plus steel and natural resources like timber. It’s not as if the only thing they have to export these days are troops to Angola and copies of Das Kapital. Plus they owe western banks tons of money. They have much to lose if they go too far.

"Deane, most people have HD TV's these days."

Right you are, but my screen is measured in feet, not inches.

Deane_johnson:

Right you are, but my screen is measured in feet, not inches.


Oh, I could go in a million different way directions with that statement.

A lot of the times folks with screens measured in feet are white trash losers.

The bombers

They're those slow, mostly-malfunctioning, ultra-fuel-consuming, crash-prone, barely-meeting-African airworthiness-standards soviet-built "planes", right? They'll get shot down by drones flown by bored pilot-wannabes taking "games" electives at our army's boot camp.

Well I have to admit, with a good dose of humility, I did NOT see that coming Deane. The content of your answers aside for a moment - you fucking gave me answers. And for the record, that is what I asked for. I got them. When I ask questions, it's not like I want answers just to, you know, exercise any kind of dominance over anyone. I really would like to know where a person is coming from. Yeah, it comes out with a bit of anger sometimes. But that is usually only after I am being viewed as asking them to corner someone or to use it against someone later. I'm asking becasue I don't know. Not to make any point - yet.

And to pretend that there is NO possible scenario in which invading Cuba would be needed would be kind of foolish, to me. So Deane, believe it or not, I actually follow your logic. I disagree that it's something to be ready for and implemented quite as soon as you would exercise that plan. But that is ultimately what I was asking for; To have you paint a picture of what it would all look like. And boy, you did it in spades. I am not shocked or even yet persuaded - but it is something to consider. I can fully envision your ideas getting implemented in a few areas. You've shown as much work as I asked for and more. And even though I am unconvinced that your ideas are the right course of action, at least I can think about it and give it some merit and not dismiss it purely because it came from you.

For what it's worth, I'd like to see you do that more often. I like it.

You're still more hawkish than I can currently relate to - but - shit - at least you can communicate your ideas when you want to. Maybe I'll catch you in that mood more often.

We'll see how this all pans out. All of it.

"Russia doesn't want our missile defense system in Europe. Good. Obama can have the Pentagon begin plans for more deployment. Bring bombers to the west, you get more missile defense system than you wanted."

Tell us Deane, does Russia have the right to have it's own Monroe-like Doctrine? It seems to me that the Russian Bases would be tit-for-tat response to our anti-missile bases in Russia's 'sphere of influence.'

If you were POTUS, what would you do? Start another Cold War?

Some help: Monroe Doctrine

"Tell us Deane, does Russia have the right to have it's own Monroe-like Doctrine? It seems to me that the Russian Bases would be tit-for-tat response to our anti-missile bases in Russia's 'sphere of influence."

That's a good question, and one I have thought about many times. I am inclined to think that there are so many decades of precedence, it would be hard for the Russians to invoke one now. I'm sure there are other arguments I'm just not knowledgeable enough to think of. Of course they can invoke anything they want if they are strong enough.


"If you were POTUS, what would you do? Start another Cold War?"

I would try to avoid one by being very strong from the very beginning. But, I would stand up to aggression. If we don't, we'll become subservient to bullies.

This is not much different than school yard bullies and what keeps them in line. Pick out the meanest one, beat the crap out of him, and everyone will leave you alone.

Most of us in this country would prefer the be nice and get along with everyone approach, but it just doesn't work with bullies. The best way to get close to this solution is to be the most powerful nation on earth so that they know we can beat the crap out of them, then we can play nice and get on with more productive things.

Drifting a bit off subject, China has long been a country we have been concerned about militarily in the future. We may have solved that problem with our deficits. They have so much money loaned to this country, and they have expressed their concern, that they won't want to bring us down. They would far rather have us economically strong so we can handle our debt to them and continue to fill our Wal-Marts with their goods.

Being the most powerful nation on earth requires a self-sufficient economy, complete with domestic energy production, manufacturing, and education to support that power, does it not?

Given that it does, the President is being tested right now! We have seriously diminished these things. Building them out means cultivating that with which we derive our power.

And I completely agree with power. It's a great deterrent. Couple it with a policy that takes the high ground as much as is possible, and we will see a very significantly improved quality of life, with fewer risks than we do today.

BTW: It's totally possible to hammer on the bully, and keep the higher ground. These are not exclusive things.

Naked aggression is dangerous. We've seen the results of that many time. Reasoned aggression, with clear goals and set expectations is much better.

Sometimes I believe you confuse these things Deane.