Conservatives cheering for Russia's naked aggresion

[Oldstyle]

Now what if such open criticism came from the Speaker of the House?

Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama. As Fox news put it Rep. Rogers stated, "... President Obama is getting out-maneuvered on the global stage by Russian President Vladimir Putin ...". That is a complement to Putin. Pelosi sure as Hell was not complementing the Iraqi leadership. See the difference? One does not complement the enemy in time of battle. Rep. Rogers should publicly retract his statement because as it is he still stands behind it.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Nancy_Patricia_Pelosi.aspx

In the spring of 2004 the year-old American-led occupation of Iraq had become increasingly deadly on both sides. In May, U.S. military planes attacked a rural gathering that was said to have been a wedding celebration, and forty Iraqi civilians died. In her regular weekly press conference, Pelosi issued harsh words for the president. "Bush is an incompetent leader," the San Francisco Chronicle 's Marc Sandalow quoted her as saying. "In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She asserted that U.S. soldiers were ill-equipped, despite the several billion dollars in funds that Congress had approved. She noted, for example, that parents of soldiers were sending their sons and daughters Kevlar lining, a bullet-resistant material that the Pentagon had not issued to all personnel.

It's not about criticism of a President. It is the job of congress to challange and criticize. Some here are just trying to deflect from the issue of the timing of the criticism. THAT IS THE ISSUE, THE TIMING. The tradition has been to wait and hold public criticism for a short period while discussions go on behind closed doors so as to present a united front to the enemy and for the various agencies and bracnchs of government to organize and decide how to handle a crisis. The President is given the temporary lead since it is the President who has to make snap decisions as chief executive and Commander in Chief.

Pelosi and the Democrats had made it clear about their feelings in regards to high amounts of collateral civilians casualties and the failure of the DoD and administration to equip soldiers with body armor and armored vehicals. Immediate action to resolve these issue's were being demanded by the world community in regards to the high civilian collateral causaulty rates and on the domestic front in reqards to soldiers being maimed and killed due to lack of proper equipment. Back room discussions had long been rejected by the administration and their failure to address the issue's brought about the only tactic available. Public embarrassment and pressure to force the administration into affirmative action on the issue's.

Republicans should have been banging on the administrations door about the failure to provide body armor to troops and the necessity for families to hold bake sales and car washs to privately pay for their kids body armor. Instead Republicans tied the funding to an overall defense funding bill with all the bells and whistles and the inclusion that would forgive all of Iraq's foriegn debt, an issue being hotly debated with the Democrats.

And now some folks are pissed off that Pelosi spoke up about that disgrace and compare it to the Putin love fest by conservative Americans

If you think Nancy Pelosi gives a rat's ass about anyone in our military...you're one incredibly naive individual. San Fran Nan only values one thing connected to the DOD and that's her C-20 Air Force jet that flies her from Washington to San Francisco. Her busting W's chops about body armor was strictly political as you can tell from "all" the criticism she's leveled against Barack Obama's handling of the military since he took office.

 

[bedowin62]

It's not about criticism of a President. It is the job of congress to challange and criticize. Some here are just trying to deflect from the issue of the timing of the criticism. THAT IS THE ISSUE, THE TIMING. The tradition has been to wait and hold public criticism for a short period while discussions go on behind closed doors so as to present a united front to the enemy and for the various agencies and bracnchs of government to organize and decide how to handle a crisis. The President is given the temporary lead since it is the President who has to make snap decisions as chief executive and Commander in Chief.

Pelosi and the Democrats had made it clear about their feelings in regards to high amounts of collateral civilians casualties and the failure of the DoD and administration to equip soldiers with body armor and armored vehicals. Immediate action to resolve these issue's were being demanded by the world community in regards to the high civilian collateral causaulty rates and on the domestic front in reqards to soldiers being maimed and killed due to lack of proper equipment. Back room discussions had long been rejected by the administration and their failure to address the issue's brought about the only tactic available. Public embarrassment and pressure to force the administration into affirmative action on the issue's.

Republicans should have been banging on the administrations door about the failure to provide body armor to troops and the necessity for families to hold bake sales and car washs to privately pay for their kids body armor. Instead Republicans tied the funding to an overall defense funding bill with all the bells and whistles and the inclusion that would forgive all of Iraq's foriegn debt, an issue being hotly debated with the Democrats.

And now some folks are pissed off that Pelosi spoke up about that disgrace and compare it to the Putin love fest by conservative Americans

YAWN
idiotic left-wing Monday morning quaterbacking and feel good stupidity.

i was on that first wave into Iraq; i didnt have the kind of IBA (individual body armor) they have now. that doesnt mean Republicans werent trying. it takes some gall for a left-wing nutjob to even talk about a Party tying this or that to a Defense authorization bill; seeing as dems tried to put AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS on at least two bills funding the Iraq War


idiots and hypocrites

Well, thank you for your service. You did an excellent and awsome job.

IBA was not thought to be necessary for the missions most were trained for and performed. It was known that the kinds of missions that followed would require IBA and armored vehicals. The administration did not prepare for what the war turned into. Rumsfield was lecturing the country that there was not an insurrection and the start of a long lasting war. He told the country the attacks being made were being made by "dead enders" and would be "mopped up" in short order. He was told this would happen and ignored the advice and predictions. He gambled and troops lost.

'did not prep for what the war turned into"



you may want to re-think that logic genius.
NOBODY was prepared for what it "turned into". key words 'turned into"

 

[RandomVariable]

YAWN
idiotic left-wing Monday morning quaterbacking and feel good stupidity.

i was on that first wave into Iraq; i didnt have the kind of IBA (individual body armor) they have now. that doesnt mean Republicans werent trying. it takes some gall for a left-wing nutjob to even talk about a Party tying this or that to a Defense authorization bill; seeing as dems tried to put AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS on at least two bills funding the Iraq War


idiots and hypocrites

Well, thank you for your service. You did an excellent and awsome job.

IBA was not thought to be necessary for the missions most were trained for and performed. It was known that the kinds of missions that followed would require IBA and armored vehicals. The administration did not prepare for what the war turned into. Rumsfield was lecturing the country that there was not an insurrection and the start of a long lasting war. He told the country the attacks being made were being made by "dead enders" and would be "mopped up" in short order. He was told this would happen and ignored the advice and predictions. He gambled and troops lost.

'did not prep for what the war turned into"



you may want to re-think that logic genius.
NOBODY was prepared for what it "turned into". key words 'turned into"

"Commander in Chief" I was under the impression that some people here believed in personal responsibility.

 

[Kimura]

Who would have thought one would see the day when the 'Conservatives' would be cheering for the naked aggression of Russia? It seems that if they think that it might in any way be a detriment to our President, they are for it. Even to the extent of cheering for the re-instatement of the old Russian and Soviet empire.

There is a name for this, and it is treason. To work against the interests of the United States and, indeed, the civilized world, is treason of the highest sort. These are the people that would have joined the Bund. An embarrassment to our nation, an embarrassment to humanity.

This all goes back to Kiev-Rus. The Ukraine (which technically didn't exist until after the fall of the Soviet Union) was never a country. They were under the yoke of different groups, including the Mongols, and were basically pulled into the sphere of Imperial Russia.

Russia is simply ensuring that there is stability in the Near Abroad. The Cold War is over, the idiot elites running our country never got the memo. Do these people even understand what occurred after the Soviet Union dissolved?

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages, the Ukraine will never have NATO troops on its soil. This simply cannot not happen in the current geopolitical context. The Russians have had a naval base in the Crimea since 1700. Welcome to reality.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

 

[Iceweasel]

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages,....

I can't wait for you to back that one up.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

Sure. The Russians have a proven track record of trustworthyness. All they ever did was spread love.

 

[bedowin62]

Who would have thought one would see the day when the 'Conservatives' would be cheering for the naked aggression of Russia? It seems that if they think that it might in any way be a detriment to our President, they are for it. Even to the extent of cheering for the re-instatement of the old Russian and Soviet empire.

There is a name for this, and it is treason. To work against the interests of the United States and, indeed, the civilized world, is treason of the highest sort. These are the people that would have joined the Bund. An embarrassment to our nation, an embarrassment to humanity.

This all goes back to Kiev-Rus. The Ukraine (which technically didn't exist until after the fall of the Soviet Union) was never a country. They were under the yoke of different groups, including the Mongols, and were basically pulled into the sphere of Imperial Russia.

Russia is simply ensuring that there is stability in the Near Abroad. The Cold War is over, the idiot elites running our country never got the memo. Do these people even understand what occurred after the Soviet Union dissolved?

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages, the Ukraine will never have NATO troops on its soil. This simply cannot not happen in the current geopolitical context. The Russians have had a naval base in the Crimea since 1700. Welcome to reality.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

it's almost funny; you lecture on reality; and say the Cold War is over an that "idiots" never got the memo; then you use historical context to show how much things are still the same. i wonder of some of you ever bother to read what you post here

 

[Camp]

YAWN
idiotic left-wing Monday morning quaterbacking and feel good stupidity.

i was on that first wave into Iraq; i didnt have the kind of IBA (individual body armor) they have now. that doesnt mean Republicans werent trying. it takes some gall for a left-wing nutjob to even talk about a Party tying this or that to a Defense authorization bill; seeing as dems tried to put AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS on at least two bills funding the Iraq War


idiots and hypocrites

Well, thank you for your service. You did an excellent and awsome job.

IBA was not thought to be necessary for the missions most were trained for and performed. It was known that the kinds of missions that followed would require IBA and armored vehicals. The administration did not prepare for what the war turned into. Rumsfield was lecturing the country that there was not an insurrection and the start of a long lasting war. He told the country the attacks being made were being made by "dead enders" and would be "mopped up" in short order. He was told this would happen and ignored the advice and predictions. He gambled and troops lost.

'did not prep for what the war turned into"



you may want to re-think that logic genius.
NOBODY was prepared for what it "turned into". key words 'turned into"

Sorry you are not betten informed. I am not trying to be a genius or defending any particular person, party or whatever. Just trying to help the conversasion move along with some accurate information.

CENTCOM under the Command of Gen. Anthony Zinni studied and made contingency plans for an invasion and occupation of Irag in 1999. He and his working group determined several hundred thousand troops would be needed to control the very predictable chaos that would follow a defeat of Saddam.

On Feb. 25, 2003, almost a month before the start of the war, Gen. Eric Shenseki, Chief of Staff for the US ARMY, testified publicly in an open hearing in congress that "several hundred thousand" troops and personel would be needed if the country went to war in Irag.

 

[bedowin62]

Well, thank you for your service. You did an excellent and awsome job.

IBA was not thought to be necessary for the missions most were trained for and performed. It was known that the kinds of missions that followed would require IBA and armored vehicals. The administration did not prepare for what the war turned into. Rumsfield was lecturing the country that there was not an insurrection and the start of a long lasting war. He told the country the attacks being made were being made by "dead enders" and would be "mopped up" in short order. He was told this would happen and ignored the advice and predictions. He gambled and troops lost.

'did not prep for what the war turned into"



you may want to re-think that logic genius.
NOBODY was prepared for what it "turned into". key words 'turned into"

"Commander in Chief" I was under the impression that some people here believed in personal responsibility.

simply hilarious coming from a nutjob who supports an inept President who is still blaming his own failures on bush

seriously is this stand-up?

 

[GreenBean]

Did The US Just Attack Russia’s Largest Oil Refinery?

 

[Old Rocks]

Did The US Just Attack Russia’s Largest Oil Refinery?

Silly

 

[RandomVariable]

'did not prep for what the war turned into"



you may want to re-think that logic genius.
NOBODY was prepared for what it "turned into". key words 'turned into"

"Commander in Chief" I was under the impression that some people here believed in personal responsibility.

simply hilarious coming from a nutjob who supports an inept President who is still blaming his own failures on bush

seriously is this stand-up?

We are discussing Bush so you bring up Obama for blaming Bush...

Don't forget to tip your waitress.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

As much as I dislike the posters on this board cheering Putin there is someone who trumps that, Representative Rogers. That a sitting U.S. Representative would go on a Sunday talk show and openly and blatantly criticize the President while a major international incident is occurring. Rep. Rogers himself states how significant the crisis is. I would love to see him in front of a Congressional hearing. Anyone with even the smallest concept of national security knows that one does not openly criticize the Commander in Chief in time of national crisis. This is why we must defeat as many Republicans as we can possibility can this fall. They have lost any regard whatsoever for national interests and national security. Trying to grab a little personal gain at the expense of national security? Disgusting. One really has to question where his priorities really lie.




Rogers: Putin 'running circles' around the United States | Fox News

Now what if such open criticism came from the Speaker of the House?

Let's not forget what context that statement was made. Do you think Rep. Pelosi was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You don't think the Iraqis fighting American soldiers did not know our troops were ill prepared? Rep. Rogers stated very plainly for the world to hear that he believed Putin was a more capable leader than Obama.

How exactly can you take what she said out of context? She was very clear in the words she chose to use with regard to President Bush. If she never meant it, she shouldn't have said it publicly in the FIRST place.

"..... the only way for the United States to triumph in Iraq is to replace him as commander in chief." - Nancy Pelosi

 

[Kimura]

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages,....

I can't wait for you to back that one up.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

Sure. The Russians have a proven track record of trustworthyness. All they ever did was spread love.

Yeah, so Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) isn't an umbrella group for every ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi faction in the country? The Russians have a right to ensure political stability in the Near Abroad. This is the same as the US ensuring there isn't chaos in Canada or Mexico. I'm not a fan of Putin, but he can annex Crimea if he chooses and all people can do is stomp their feet.

 

[Kimura]

Who would have thought one would see the day when the 'Conservatives' would be cheering for the naked aggression of Russia? It seems that if they think that it might in any way be a detriment to our President, they are for it. Even to the extent of cheering for the re-instatement of the old Russian and Soviet empire.

There is a name for this, and it is treason. To work against the interests of the United States and, indeed, the civilized world, is treason of the highest sort. These are the people that would have joined the Bund. An embarrassment to our nation, an embarrassment to humanity.

This all goes back to Kiev-Rus. The Ukraine (which technically didn't exist until after the fall of the Soviet Union) was never a country. They were under the yoke of different groups, including the Mongols, and were basically pulled into the sphere of Imperial Russia.

Russia is simply ensuring that there is stability in the Near Abroad. The Cold War is over, the idiot elites running our country never got the memo. Do these people even understand what occurred after the Soviet Union dissolved?

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages, the Ukraine will never have NATO troops on its soil. This simply cannot not happen in the current geopolitical context. The Russians have had a naval base in the Crimea since 1700. Welcome to reality.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

it's almost funny; you lecture on reality; and say the Cold War is over an that "idiots" never got the memo; then you use historical context to show how much things are still the same. i wonder of some of you ever bother to read what you post here

How are they the same? The Soviet Union, as a political entity, has been dissolved. It's sort of funny watching idiots like Kerry with his double standards, though.

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text"

--- John Kerry

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The United States Constitution makes no reference to prisoners captured outside the United States on foreign soil of having any Constitutional rights. How ignorant are you with respect to the Constitution? Perhaps this below will help educate you on United States Constitutional rights towards captured enemy combatants overseas.

Senator Graham Nails AG Eric Holder - YouTube

So you bring up yet another Unconstitutional asshole to make your case? Graham is beginning his "history" at 2001. And he's playing what you guys love, gotcha.

Seriously..

I said force feeding you to clauses was a waste of time.

You've proved it.

Perhaps you can tell us at what point were captured Japanese soldiers in the Philippines placed in civilian court using the United States Constitution? What about those captured Germans following the battle of the bulge, when did they see their time in civil court using the Constitution? Can you give me an example of any of the thousands of soldiers captured in battle appearing before civilian court back in the states? You are all talk about what's unConstitutional, but historical proof appears rather thin in backing up your argument.

By the way, I know more about the UCMJ than you will ever know Sallow, I very much doubt you even served in the military yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages,....

I can't wait for you to back that one up.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

Sure. The Russians have a proven track record of trustworthyness. All they ever did was spread love.

Yeah, so Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) isn't an umbrella group for every ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi faction in the country?

What evidence do you have that Pravy Sektor is "an umbrella group for every ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi faction in the country?" Even if it was, how does that give Putin permission to invade the country?

[The Russians have a right to ensure political stability in the Near Abroad. This is the same as the US ensuring there isn't chaos in Canada or Mexico. .

Utter horseshit. The Russians have no such right, and neither does the US. The idea that we could occupy Toronto or Tijuana because of some kind of political instability is beyond absurd. Talk about fascists, what could be more fascist than the idea you just enunciated?

[I'm not a fan of Putin, but he can annex Crimea if he chooses and all people can do is stomp their feet.

There's a lot we could do, but that doesn't mean we should do it.

 

[bripat9643]

This all goes back to Kiev-Rus. The Ukraine (which technically didn't exist until after the fall of the Soviet Union) was never a country. They were under the yoke of different groups, including the Mongols, and were basically pulled into the sphere of Imperial Russia.

Russia is simply ensuring that there is stability in the Near Abroad. The Cold War is over, the idiot elites running our country never got the memo. Do these people even understand what occurred after the Soviet Union dissolved?

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages, the Ukraine will never have NATO troops on its soil. This simply cannot not happen in the current geopolitical context. The Russians have had a naval base in the Crimea since 1700. Welcome to reality.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

it's almost funny; you lecture on reality; and say the Cold War is over an that "idiots" never got the memo; then you use historical context to show how much things are still the same. i wonder of some of you ever bother to read what you post here

How are they the same? The Soviet Union, as a political entity, has been dissolved. It's sort of funny watching idiots like Kerry with his double standards, though.

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text"

--- John Kerry

The USSR was just a politically correct term for the Russian empire as it existed under the communists.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It's not about criticism of a President. It is the job of congress to challange and criticize. Some here are just trying to deflect from the issue of the timing of the criticism. THAT IS THE ISSUE, THE TIMING. The tradition has been to wait and hold public criticism for a short period while discussions go on behind closed doors so as to present a united front to the enemy and for the various agencies and bracnchs of government to organize and decide how to handle a crisis. The President is given the temporary lead since it is the President who has to make snap decisions as chief executive and Commander in Chief.

Pelosi and the Democrats had made it clear about their feelings in regards to high amounts of collateral civilians casualties and the failure of the DoD and administration to equip soldiers with body armor and armored vehicals. Immediate action to resolve these issue's were being demanded by the world community in regards to the high civilian collateral causaulty rates and on the domestic front in reqards to soldiers being maimed and killed due to lack of proper equipment. Back room discussions had long been rejected by the administration and their failure to address the issue's brought about the only tactic available. Public embarrassment and pressure to force the administration into affirmative action on the issue's.

Republicans should have been banging on the administrations door about the failure to provide body armor to troops and the necessity for families to hold bake sales and car washs to privately pay for their kids body armor. Instead Republicans tied the funding to an overall defense funding bill with all the bells and whistles and the inclusion that would forgive all of Iraq's foriegn debt, an issue being hotly debated with the Democrats.

And now some folks are pissed off that Pelosi spoke up about that disgrace and compare it to the Putin love fest by conservative Americans

YAWN
idiotic left-wing Monday morning quaterbacking and feel good stupidity.

i was on that first wave into Iraq; i didnt have the kind of IBA (individual body armor) they have now. that doesnt mean Republicans werent trying. it takes some gall for a left-wing nutjob to even talk about a Party tying this or that to a Defense authorization bill; seeing as dems tried to put AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS on at least two bills funding the Iraq War


idiots and hypocrites

Well, thank you for your service. You did an excellent and awsome job.

IBA was not thought to be necessary for the missions most were trained for and performed at the beginning of the war. It was known that the kinds of missions that followed would require IBA and armored vehicals. The administration did not prepare for what the war turned into. Rumsfield was lecturing the country that there was not an insurrection and the start of a long lasting war. He told the country the attacks being made were being made by "dead enders" and would be "mopped up" in short order. He was told this would happen and ignored the advice and predictions. He gambled and troops lost.

I'm quite sure efforts made by the previous administration to gut the military budget had nothing to do with it.

Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), 1992-2001 (FY1993-FY2001)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB85159.pdf

The FY1993 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 4403, P.L. 102-484) granted temporary authority (which expired on September 30, 2001) for the services to offer early retirements to personnel with more than 15 but less than 20 years of service. TERA was used as a manpower tool to entice voluntary retirements during the drawdown.TERA retired pay was calculated in the usual ways except that there is an additional reduction of one percent for every year of service below 20. Part or all of this latter reduction could be restored if the retiree worked in specified public service jobs (such as law enforcement, firefighting, and education) during the period immediately following retirement, until the point at which the retiree would have reached the 20-year mark if he or she had remained in the service.

Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military.html
By Lynn Woolley — Posted Dec 21, 2006

In 1994, troops were sent to Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Clinton asked for a Defense increase of just $2.8 billion but Congress approved a decrease of $17.1 billion. The shrinking budget caused sharp reductions at the Pentagon.

There were more peacekeeping missions to come, including in Somalia where 1,800 Marines provided cover for the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers. But the downsizing of the military continued with 40,000 troops removed from Europe. The Base Closure Commission recommended shuttering 79 more bases. Clinton’s budget request for fiscal 1996 was $10.2 billion lower than the prior year.

At this point, we are well into the Clinton presidency and the eleventh straight year of declining military budgets. The president and the Congress have slashed the defense budget to the point where, after adjusting for inflation, it is some 40% less than in 1985 during the second Reagan term.

The year 1996 saw cruise missile strikes against Iraq and 18,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Balkans as part of a NATO force. Clinton sent the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence and three other ships to the Taiwan Strait because of tensions between Taiwan and China. For 1997, Clinton sought another $10 billion reduction, though the bill he eventually signed set aside $244 billion for defense—finally halting the long string of declining budgets, but just barely.

Defense Secretary William Cohen had become concerned about his budget, and so he called for more base closings—and more money. The Joint Chiefs said that unless funding levels could be increased, some weapons systems or overseas deployments would have to be eliminated. In 1999, the budget was at $250 billion—the same year we were using our military to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo.

For fiscal 2000, Defense requested $267.2 billion billion, including a pay raise for soldiers. The USS Cole was bombed and peacekeeping efforts continued in the usual spots like Kosovo and Bosnia. Clinton’s presidency was winding down and his final Defense budget totaled $288 billion with a supplemental bill of $6.5 billon to help pay for all the peacekeeping.

After Bush was elected and the country had suffered the 9/11 attacks, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said Clinton had cut back the military so much that we might not be able to fight a war on terrorism on several fronts. He listed the problems brought on during the Clinton years: lost air and sea lift capacity, two or three years during which nothing was procured for the military, and cuts in R&D.

 

[Sallow]

This all goes back to Kiev-Rus. The Ukraine (which technically didn't exist until after the fall of the Soviet Union) was never a country. They were under the yoke of different groups, including the Mongols, and were basically pulled into the sphere of Imperial Russia.

Russia is simply ensuring that there is stability in the Near Abroad. The Cold War is over, the idiot elites running our country never got the memo. Do these people even understand what occurred after the Soviet Union dissolved?

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages, the Ukraine will never have NATO troops on its soil. This simply cannot not happen in the current geopolitical context. The Russians have had a naval base in the Crimea since 1700. Welcome to reality.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

it's almost funny; you lecture on reality; and say the Cold War is over an that "idiots" never got the memo; then you use historical context to show how much things are still the same. i wonder of some of you ever bother to read what you post here

How are they the same? The Soviet Union, as a political entity, has been dissolved. It's sort of funny watching idiots like Kerry with his double standards, though.

"You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text"

--- John Kerry

THAT..was embarrassing.

 

[Sallow]

Here's the bottom line: despite the EU and US funding a bunch of fascists and neo-Nazis via NGOs and aid packages,....

I can't wait for you to back that one up.

The only way Russia will integrate into Europe is if NATO is dissolved. The Europeans need access to vast resources in the Russian Federation and the Russians need access to European markets. Problem solved.

Sure. The Russians have a proven track record of trustworthyness. All they ever did was spread love.

Yeah, so Pravy Sektor (Right Sector) isn't an umbrella group for every ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi faction in the country? The Russians have a right to ensure political stability in the Near Abroad. This is the same as the US ensuring there isn't chaos in Canada or Mexico. I'm not a fan of Putin, but he can annex Crimea if he chooses and all people can do is stomp their feet.

Essentially yeah.

When a country has nukes? They are on a whole other level. And when you have more than one?

Whooo boy.