BO is perceived as being weak, so.....

...he sends someone like John Kerry to the region?
Hell, why don't we just fly a white flag atop the White House?

 

What an idiot.

 

Yes. Yes, he is. To think a traitor like John Kerry is going to somehow get something accomplished...how stupid is BO?
I wonder if this is the sort of thing BO was referring to when he was caught on an open mic promising Medvedev (and Putin) that things would be different in his second term? Hmmmm.

 

Obama was right about things being different his second term. Now we have the Right-wing in this country worshipping Putin unlike when Putin invaded Georgia and they thought he was a monster. That's different.

 

would you be happier if we sent grandpa instead?

View attachment 2327

 

Now don't go twisting facts there. I certainly agree Putin is a monster but when he says something the world listens and others are afraid to cross him...just like it used to be here. When we have a coward in the White House we are placed in a position in which we typically don't find ourselves.

 

So are you suggesting that Obama take military action against Putin/Russia like no president in history has done?
WE are not in any position. Ukraine is. They are not our allies. We are not the world's policemen. So I fail to either see what you are suggesting we do differently or what makes Obama "weak". Maybe you could elaborate instead of just throwing out invectives. I'd love to hear your plan.

Update: Russia Says It Would Retaliate For U.S. Sanctions Over Ukraine.

Seems like Obama has hit a Russian nerve.

 

I don't know what I would do at this point but I didn't put us in this position either. The whole reason for my "invectives" is to lament how BO, due to his cowardice, has put us in this position. Putin is a bad guy but he's a smart bad guy & he's exploiting BO's weakness.

 

I know that is the Right-wing meme/narrative but wouldn't you agree that the Right's characterization of Obama as a coward probably has far, far less to do with Putin's behavior than the Bush Doctrine and Bush's invasion of a sovereign country for trumped up reasons? I mean how do we dare tell any other country that invading a sovereign country for trumped up reasons is wrong when we did it ourselves to Iraq? How do we tell any other country that acting unilaterally is wrong when the Bush Doctrine says that we can do exactly that? But for some reason, the Right's irrational opinion of Obama is what Putin is using as courage to invade a neighbor? I seriously doubt Putin cares what the wing-nuts in this country think about Obama. Seriously! But nice of you guys to support Putin during this crisis anyway.

 

Oh, get serious, this perceived support for Putin is nothing more than a left wing attempt to distract from BO's cowardice & shortcomings. If Bush (or any other past president) had warned Putin not to invade Ukraine my guess is that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. The sad fact is we are cursed with a pansy in the White House & the bad guys know it all too well.

 

OK Let's test that theory. Please explain exactly what Obama is doing differently than any other president in the same situation. If he is so cowardly as you say, what options are not being considered here? Please feel free to let us know how president Romney or president McCain would act differently in this situation.

Just face it, you have nothing and sneak away once again with your tail between your legs. Bush/Cheney gave Putin all the green light he needed to do what he wanted with their foolish escapades and you just can't admit it.

 

Yeah "perceived support for Putin"

Therefore, when Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, many on the right rallied around the former KGB agent and asked that Obama follow Putin’s lead. In his column, Putin asked that the United States respect the United Nations and follow the advice of the Security Council (which Russia is a part of) and practice caution on any action related to Syria. Putin also stated that peaceful dialogue and diplomacy should be utilized first and foremost and that military action should only occur with a consensus of other nations.

At that time, you had members of the right-wing in this country go ga-ga over Putin. Pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Erick Erickson and Sean Hannity were praising the Russian President for his stance. Other Republicans like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Peters claimed that Putin was providing the type of leadership that the US apparently lacked at that moment. Basically, if you tuned into Fox News or talk radio during that time, you got a whole lot of Putin hero-worshiping.

 

What more would Putin really need than this? Oh yeah! Us invading a sovereign country like Iraq for trumped up reasons. BUSH/CHENEY the gift that just keeps on giving.

The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of former United States president George W. Bush. The phrase was first used by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001 [1] to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawals from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[2]

Different pundits would attribute different meanings to "the Bush Doctrine", as it came to describe other elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate; a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism; and a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. military interests.[3][4][5] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[6]

The phrase "Bush Doctrine" was rarely used by members of the Bush administration. The expression was used at least once, though by Vice President Dick Cheney, in a June 2003 speech in which he said, "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq."[7]

 

That is what you get when you read your "news" from blogs. I listened at that time and I heard none of your supposed BS.

 

So, just how dense are you?
A villian like Putin will pounce on any sign of weakness. The turning point, in my estimation, came when Syria crossed BO's "line in the sand" & continued to do as they pleased...that is, up until Putin stepped in. Putin learned that if BO was too cowardly to stand up to Syyria he certainly wasn't going to cross Russia.

 

You have a very cartoonish view of the world. Must be the result of being such a looney tune.

 

You call it cartoonish only because it doesn't fit the narrative you're being fed when in reality it's a scenario that's played out everyday...the paradigm shifts, power changes hands and new leaders emerge. The question now is: what is BO going to do about it?

 

So you think Obama has done such a wonderful job with foreign relations. Name a couple countries where relations have improved. To get you started, here are a few where out relations have NOT improved among others;
Iran
Syria
Russia
Iraq
Israel
Canada
Afghanistan
Libya
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Germany
Poland
Czech Republic
North Korea
Pakistan
Jordan

 

Now don't you regret pulling this list out of you arse?

Views of the US continued their overall improvement in 2011, confirming the trend seen in 2010. Of the 27 countries surveyed, 18 hold positive views, seven hold negative views, and two are divided. In the 24 tracking countries surveyed both in 2010 and 2011, an average of 49 per cent of people have positive views of US influence in the world, and 31 per cent hold negative views. This represents a substantial improvement since 2010, as positive views increased by four per cent and negative views dropped three points.

The most favourable views are found in the Philippines (90%, up 8 points), Ghana (84%, up 12 points), and Nigeria (76%, up 12 points). South Korean views on US influence markedly improved as positive ratings rose to 74 per cent (up 17 points), while negative ratings dropped from 38 per cent to 19 per cent.

Elsewhere, a marked improvement in perceptions of the US is seen in Brazil, where positive views are up nine points (64%) and negative views declined significantly (21%, down 14 points). In Indonesia, opinion shifted from being divided to being positive. Fifty-eight per cent of Indonesians have positive views in 2011, compared to 36 per cent in 2010, and negative views decreased by 14 points (25%). In Russia, opinion also shifted: while 50 per cent had a negative view of US influence in 2010, Russians now lean favourable; a plurality of 38 per cent (up 13 points) now has a positive view, while negative views dropped 19 points (31%). In another country at the edge of Europe, Turkey, perceptions remained negative overall, but there was nevertheless a 22-point increase in positive views (35%) and a strong drop in negative ratings (49%, down 21 points).

In Western Europe, views have cooled somewhat, and the improvement that was seen in most countries in 2010 has not continued. Leaning favourable in 2010, opinions in Spain and the United Kingdom are now divided, as negative views have increased in both countries (up 5 points and 8 points, respectively). German views remain stable and still lean negative (37% vs 44%).

A major shift in perceptions of the US has taken place in Egypt, where a majority of 50 per cent now has negative views of the US. This represents a 21-point increase since 2010, while positive views decreased by 19 points to 26 per cent. Canada offers a similar picture: after becoming more positive than negative in 2010, Canadians reversed the trend in 2011, and a plurality of 47% (up 9 points) is now leaning negative.

In Asia, a majority of Chinese is now holding negative views (53%, up 9 points), and although views improved a bit in Pakistan, they are still largely negative overall (16% vs 46%).

In Mexico, views softened a bit, with a ten-point increase in positive views (23%) and a drop in negative views (38%, down 11 points), but the overall picture remains largely negative.

 

3 year old data! WOW and you could not even think for yourself. And I notice hoe their opinion is "up" since 2010. Who was president in 2010? Oh, and what has happened since Benghazi, Arab spring, Syria, Putin, Snowdon, etc. BTW, I was talking about governments.

I notice your list includes Egypt.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140214/187524953/Russia-Egypt-Reach-Initial-3-Bln-Arms-Deal--Report.html