U.S. credibility zero when lecturing on invading Ukraine

[ManFromUncle]

from
Op-Ed: U.S. credibility zero when lecturing on invading Ukraine

No one can possibly have missed it. Even hardcore Neocons must recognize the irony of the U.S. outrage at Vladimir Putin for sending troops into Crimea. Hey you can't invade a country unprovoked! Only we can do that! Do as I say, not as I do!

Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, a number of commentators talking mostly to themselves as everyone else waved flags and cheered, used strange, wimpy words like "credibility" and "moral standing."

Some said that the true cost of the Iraq invasion would become apparent not a year from then, as the bills and coffins rolled in, or five years hence, but farther down the line. In terms which were intangible at that time, but which would be reckoned with far in the future.

This is what these naysayers who weren't on the winning team, to use the kind of sports analogy Americans love, meant. Now, no one in the world cares what the US thinks about anyone invading anybody.

Every time Secretary of State John Kerry opens his mouth and lectures Putin on the importance of respecting state sovereignty and national borders, the angel of a dead Iraqi child somewhere must choke on his heavenly lunch.

Does this man have no shame?

Which is probably exactly why U.S. President Barack Obama deployed him to utter these statements about "respect for sovereignty," so that he wouldn't have to himself. Kerry is like the lawyer in the joke lawyers like to tell about rats. Did you hear the scientists are using lawyers for certain experiments? Why? Because there are some things that a rat just won't do.

You mean after what former President George W. Bush did, I've got to lecture Putin on invading countries? Un uh, thinks Obama. I'm giving that one to Kerry. He'll do anything.

Nevermind even that Ukraine is not halfway around the world from Russia, the way Iraq was to us, but across the border and arguably intertwined with Russian national interest. Nevermind that it was the U.S., as admitted to recently by Kerry's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, which funneled $5 billion into the Ukraine to foster "democracy," only to watch the "revolution" predictably hijacked by a strong and growing Neo-Nazi movement, led by Right Sektor and Svoboda.

Imagine if Russia were sending billions to narco bosses to overthrow the Mexican government, and putting in its place a government friendly to Russia, which would allow it to place its missiles across the Texas border. Yes, honest protesters against Mexican corruption were in the streets, but they have been pushed aside, and now the pro-Russian narcos are running the show.

This is pretty much an accurate analogy for what has happened in Ukraine. Now it emerges that the shooters who sparked outrage which led to the ousting of the former Ukrainian president may have been working for the Neo-Nazis, who understand the value of inflaming a situation, so that the most organized and ruthless can walk in and take control. The Neo-Nazi parties in Ukraine now control numerous government departments, including the defense ministry. With 37 seats in the Ukrainian Parliament, the Neo-Nazis were the big winners in Washington's attempt to "foster democracy."

The world watches as Kerry, Obama, and the American media play the "how dare they!" card against Putin and Russia, and the losers are us. Every well-meaning American who may even disagree with U.S. policy now, must bear the weight of what is going on in the mind of the average Frenchman or Nigerian or Brazilian, as they put us in the same category as the John Kerry's of the world, who, after all, like it or not, speaks for us.

Alas, have these Americans no shame? To lecture over invading countries. Imagine. Now who gives a damn about anything they say, ever?

[youtube]5SBo0akeDMY[/youtube]
[youtube]BFp9GtDYWNA[/youtube]

RELATED

Questions arise over which side deployed snipers in Ukraine

Op-Ed: What the world must do about Ukraine

US fueled rise of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, McCain stands with Oleh

 

[mindlight]

.........No one can possibly have missed it. Even hardcore Neocons must recognize the irony of the U.S. outrage at Vladimir Putin for sending troops into Crimea. Hey you can't invade a country unprovoked! Only we can do that! Do as I say, not as I do!.................

Having supported both Iraq wars I continue to think that the long term effects will be on balance positive.

Obama and Kerry are lecturing Russia loudly but notice they are not actually committing anything substantial to this. They are bound by treaty obligations to the Ukraine to make these noises but I think Real Politik is the real mover when it comes to their actions.

International law is really just a language to make the appropriate noises of outrage in and to express the balance of power rather than something any major power takes too seriously. There are always loop holes, alternative ways of presenting the case within a rather woolly framework and sometimes people just don't sign up to the bits they are not going to keep anyway.

The Real Politik behind the USAs manoeuvrings is IMHO.

1) America is broke and domestic issues have been prioritised by the Obama administration so they do not want any serious wars on his watch.
2) The Russians have nukes
3) The Crimea does not want to be a part of the Ukraine and there is very little that the USA can do about that short of war.
4) The Obama administration has been working to undermine Russian power in the Middle east and in Eastern Europe and is working towards the goal of getting the Ukraine into the EU and NATO and removing Russias ally Assad in Syria.

Regarding the international image of the US politicians I am not sure they really care about that as much as how they look to their own US audience. Talking tough with the Russians usually earns points but starting a war with them would lose points. Mouthing the language of freedom and liberation works well but siding with Ukrainian fascists or stamping on the clear will of the Crimean people does not.

Internationally I doubt if anyone really believes the Americans give two hoots for International law. With Bush - love him or loath him you could trust that if he made a commitment he would probably keep it but he did that cause his word meant something not because he was committed to International treaties and laws. Obama tries to avoid making any commitments at all and dithers about the big decisions. If we were looking at another 8 years of him I would worry how committed he was even to the NATO alliance.

But overall this is not really a moment for Anti-Americanism. I want America to stay top dog. The alternative is China and there is a theological vacuum and accute moral emptiness in that culture that deeply frightens me. This whole gefuffel in the Ukraine is not really the USAs thing. It will not be resolved by them and if they intervene too much then that is likely to be counterproductive.

A stronger Russia is also a good thing as a long term balance against China, a decadent tendency in European legal institutions, as a substantial trading partner and source of raw materials and also as a force against Islamic extremism.

 

[Billnew]

Uncle-
I agree, but you argue the wrong point.

Bush built upto war giving many options. Obama has invaded many countries that we are not at war with, not following combatants into the country, but attacking them at the source unprovoked.
Obama's drone wars have invaded several surrounding countries.

Obama ran against Bush's handling of the war, then expanded it even further.

Bush's invasions were long ago, Obama's have been much more recent. Obama can't control what the president did before him, but he has to be responsable for all actions since he took office.

 

[Grooms Day Prepper]

Amerika is the biggest HYPOCRITES on the face of the earth.
Pride comes before the fall.
And Fall we will....soon.

 

[ManFromUncle]

4) The Obama administration has been working to undermine Russian power in the Middle east and in Eastern Europe and is working towards the goal of getting the Ukraine into the EU and NATO and removing Russias ally Assad in Syria.

I think this really gets to the heart, meddling in Ukraine is basically Putin's punishment for getting in the way of the US bombing Syria and Iran, although neither are in the US interest. But it's what Israel wants and what Israel wants Israel gets. Wes Clark as much as let the cat out of the bag when he revealed before the Iraq invasion that the plan was to wipe out "7 [Middle Eastern] countries in 5 years."

They are behind schedule and it's Putin's fault. He outmaneuvers Obama on attacking Syria, by coming in with a deal on the chemical weapons, and keeps blocking Iran. Israel wants a clear path to the Arabian Sea in this century, and America will be used to get it for them, lots of dead Muslims and bombed-out Muslim infrastructure. After that they are done with us.

[youtube]9RC1Mepk_Sw[/youtube]

 

[David Waffen]

The US didn't annex the countries were recently invaded.

 

[David Waffen]

from
Op-Ed: U.S. credibility zero when lecturing on invading Ukraine

No one can possibly have missed it. Even hardcore Neocons must recognize the irony of the U.S. outrage at Vladimir Putin for sending troops into Crimea. Hey you can't invade a country unprovoked! Only we can do that! Do as I say, not as I do!

Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, a number of commentators talking mostly to themselves as everyone else waved flags and cheered, used strange, wimpy words like "credibility" and "moral standing."

Some said that the true cost of the Iraq invasion would become apparent not a year from then, as the bills and coffins rolled in, or five years hence, but farther down the line. In terms which were intangible at that time, but which would be reckoned with far in the future.

This is what these naysayers who weren't on the winning team, to use the kind of sports analogy Americans love, meant. Now, no one in the world cares what the US thinks about anyone invading anybody.

Every time Secretary of State John Kerry opens his mouth and lectures Putin on the importance of respecting state sovereignty and national borders, the angel of a dead Iraqi child somewhere must choke on his heavenly lunch.

Does this man have no shame?

Which is probably exactly why U.S. President Barack Obama deployed him to utter these statements about "respect for sovereignty," so that he wouldn't have to himself. Kerry is like the lawyer in the joke lawyers like to tell about rats. Did you hear the scientists are using lawyers for certain experiments? Why? Because there are some things that a rat just won't do.

You mean after what former President George W. Bush did, I've got to lecture Putin on invading countries? Un uh, thinks Obama. I'm giving that one to Kerry. He'll do anything.

Nevermind even that Ukraine is not halfway around the world from Russia, the way Iraq was to us, but across the border and arguably intertwined with Russian national interest. Nevermind that it was the U.S., as admitted to recently by Kerry's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, which funneled $5 billion into the Ukraine to foster "democracy," only to watch the "revolution" predictably hijacked by a strong and growing Neo-Nazi movement, led by Right Sektor and Svoboda.

Imagine if Russia were sending billions to narco bosses to overthrow the Mexican government, and putting in its place a government friendly to Russia, which would allow it to place its missiles across the Texas border. Yes, honest protesters against Mexican corruption were in the streets, but they have been pushed aside, and now the pro-Russian narcos are running the show.

This is pretty much an accurate analogy for what has happened in Ukraine. Now it emerges that the shooters who sparked outrage which led to the ousting of the former Ukrainian president may have been working for the Neo-Nazis, who understand the value of inflaming a situation, so that the most organized and ruthless can walk in and take control. The Neo-Nazi parties in Ukraine now control numerous government departments, including the defense ministry. With 37 seats in the Ukrainian Parliament, the Neo-Nazis were the big winners in Washington's attempt to "foster democracy."

The world watches as Kerry, Obama, and the American media play the "how dare they!" card against Putin and Russia, and the losers are us. Every well-meaning American who may even disagree with U.S. policy now, must bear the weight of what is going on in the mind of the average Frenchman or Nigerian or Brazilian, as they put us in the same category as the John Kerry's of the world, who, after all, like it or not, speaks for us.

Alas, have these Americans no shame? To lecture over invading countries. Imagine. Now who gives a damn about anything they say, ever?

[youtube]5SBo0akeDMY[/youtube]
[youtube]BFp9GtDYWNA[/youtube]

RELATED

Questions arise over which side deployed snipers in Ukraine

Op-Ed: What the world must do about Ukraine

US fueled rise of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, McCain stands with Oleh

Someone is eating up the Russian propaganda. The protestors are not 'fascists' and 'neo-nazis'. They are people that have tasted freedom at suffering at the hands of Russia for decades and generations. Aligning with Russia meant a return to totalitarianism.

 

[TerranceL]

 

[David Waffen]

What is 'intervention' exactly?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Russia wants to own land with ports in the Black Sea. That is good business.

 

[Psalm 91]

from
Op-Ed: U.S. credibility zero when lecturing on invading Ukraine

No one can possibly have missed it. Even hardcore Neocons must recognize the irony of the U.S. outrage at Vladimir Putin for sending troops into Crimea. Hey you can't invade a country unprovoked! Only we can do that! Do as I say, not as I do!

Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, a number of commentators talking mostly to themselves as everyone else waved flags and cheered, used strange, wimpy words like "credibility" and "moral standing."

Some said that the true cost of the Iraq invasion would become apparent not a year from then, as the bills and coffins rolled in, or five years hence, but farther down the line. In terms which were intangible at that time, but which would be reckoned with far in the future.

This is what these naysayers who weren't on the winning team, to use the kind of sports analogy Americans love, meant. Now, no one in the world cares what the US thinks about anyone invading anybody.

Every time Secretary of State John Kerry opens his mouth and lectures Putin on the importance of respecting state sovereignty and national borders, the angel of a dead Iraqi child somewhere must choke on his heavenly lunch.

Does this man have no shame?

Which is probably exactly why U.S. President Barack Obama deployed him to utter these statements about "respect for sovereignty," so that he wouldn't have to himself. Kerry is like the lawyer in the joke lawyers like to tell about rats. Did you hear the scientists are using lawyers for certain experiments? Why? Because there are some things that a rat just won't do.

You mean after what former President George W. Bush did, I've got to lecture Putin on invading countries? Un uh, thinks Obama. I'm giving that one to Kerry. He'll do anything.

Nevermind even that Ukraine is not halfway around the world from Russia, the way Iraq was to us, but across the border and arguably intertwined with Russian national interest. Nevermind that it was the U.S., as admitted to recently by Kerry's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, which funneled $5 billion into the Ukraine to foster "democracy," only to watch the "revolution" predictably hijacked by a strong and growing Neo-Nazi movement, led by Right Sektor and Svoboda.

Imagine if Russia were sending billions to narco bosses to overthrow the Mexican government, and putting in its place a government friendly to Russia, which would allow it to place its missiles across the Texas border. Yes, honest protesters against Mexican corruption were in the streets, but they have been pushed aside, and now the pro-Russian narcos are running the show.

This is pretty much an accurate analogy for what has happened in Ukraine. Now it emerges that the shooters who sparked outrage which led to the ousting of the former Ukrainian president may have been working for the Neo-Nazis, who understand the value of inflaming a situation, so that the most organized and ruthless can walk in and take control. The Neo-Nazi parties in Ukraine now control numerous government departments, including the defense ministry. With 37 seats in the Ukrainian Parliament, the Neo-Nazis were the big winners in Washington's attempt to "foster democracy."

The world watches as Kerry, Obama, and the American media play the "how dare they!" card against Putin and Russia, and the losers are us. Every well-meaning American who may even disagree with U.S. policy now, must bear the weight of what is going on in the mind of the average Frenchman or Nigerian or Brazilian, as they put us in the same category as the John Kerry's of the world, who, after all, like it or not, speaks for us.

Alas, have these Americans no shame? To lecture over invading countries. Imagine. Now who gives a damn about anything they say, ever?

[youtube]5SBo0akeDMY[/youtube]
[youtube]BFp9GtDYWNA[/youtube]

RELATED

Questions arise over which side deployed snipers in Ukraine

Op-Ed: What the world must do about Ukraine

US fueled rise of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, McCain stands with Oleh

I'm certainly not defending the U.S. in their invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but, we didn't invade in order to take over the countries permanently. Russia is taking over Crimea and maybe the Ukraine and will never give them up. Putin wants to rebuild the USSR and that is wrong. We didn't go into Iraq to make it another state of the United States.

 

[mindlight]

I think this really gets to the heart, meddling in Ukraine is basically Putin's punishment for getting in the way of the US bombing Syria and Iran, although neither are in the US interest.

The coup against the proRussian government in the Ukraine happened for a lot of reasons but it is clear that the Americans were broadly supportive and consider it to have served their interests. But the Ukraine is Russias Mexico or Cuba and Obama probably miscalculated how they would react. When did the USA bomb Iran or Syria? Obama made a mess of his engagement with Syria and Russia has been playing the whole Shia alliance thing with Iran, Iraq and Syria. The Russians have been helping to some extent with the Iranian nuclear power programme (which is stupid in my view) but they have not supplied the Iranians with their S300 missile system so there is some caution there also. Obamas plan was probably to undermine Russian influence, depose Assad and the proRussian government and get rid of Irans bomb programme to boot. Russias plan is to secure its own back yard. I would not be surprised if Putin has been waiting for an excuse to get the Crimea back and with his rearmament programme gathering pace he probably calculated he was in a position to do so now. The coup gave him the excuse he needed and the Sochi games which Russia won were a successful wave to surf to Victory in the Crimea also.

But it's what Israel wants and what Israel wants Israel gets. Wes Clark as much as let the cat out of the bag when he revealed before the Iraq invasion that the plan was to wipe out "7 [Middle Eastern] countries in 5 years."

They are behind schedule and it's Putin's fault. He outmaneuvers Obama on attacking Syria, by coming in with a deal on the chemical weapons, and keeps blocking Iran. Israel wants a clear path to the Arabian Sea in this century, and America will be used to get it for them, lots of dead Muslims and bombed-out Muslim infrastructure. After that they are done with us.

That sounds a little anti-Semitic to me. Israel are the good guys in my view in the context of the Middle East. Bushes Axis of evil of speech stopped short of sorting out Syria, Iran and North Korea. Maybe its a shame he never had the political capital to finish the job.

Noone is really talking about killing Muslims here and I am not sure where that came from.