Putin is a scumbucket. That does NOT mean we should go to war.

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/putin-is-a-scumbucket-that-does-not-mean-we-should-go-to-war/

" Russia is (again) invading a sovereign nation. Just as in Georgia, they sent lots of Russians into part of the Ukraine, and now claim these Russians are in “danger” and in need of “protection” from the other country. A patently transparent way of expanding Russian territory via military force.

And of course, the War Cheerleaders amongst the Right Wingnuts are urging Obama to follow the lead of Bush the Lesser, because, well, maybe sending troops in to stop a motherf***er will work this time. But anyway, freedom. And money for the arms merchants, of course.

Too many Americans (and foreign leaders) think Obama is weak and/or as dumb as the Bushistas, who got played like a violin during the Georgia adventure. If we have seen anything during the current Prexy’s tenure, it is the exact opposite: he is smart and cautious, perhaps too willing to believe in the goodness of others, but not soft. (Anybody who really thinks that Chicago lawyers are wimps hasn’t encountered one.)

We aren’t going to war over Pooty-Pants’ invasion of a foreign country. We aren’t because our Prexy is smart, our Secretary of State is a combat veteran, our nation wouldn’t support it, and the international community still doesn’t trust us after 8 years of Bush II.

In the end, what Putin is doing today is what Shrubya did when he chose to lie us into Iraq. Nobody believes Putin, and it’s not just because he is such a motherf***er; it’s because Putin and Gee Dub are two sides of the same imperialistic coin. And that currency has lost more value than a Mt. Gox Bitcoin, due to Georgia and Iraq.

We did not intervene in Syria, even though their leader is at least as big a scumbucket as Vladimir. Nor have we sent troops to many other motherf***er-owned-and-operated countries. We have other tools that we can use, and sometimes they work better than just randomly counter-invading sovereign nations.

Plus, both Russia and America have proven that starting off by rolling in with tanks and machine-gunning the locals is not a good way to do business. It might seem like a good idea to scumbucket leaders who have big eyes and want a territory to match, but it always ends badly."

[Tommy_Carcetti]

1. Of course not.

Very few people here at DU are actually arguing that we should.

The problem is, people are assuming that calls to denounce Russia for its incursion into soverign territory automatically assumes that people are clamouring for US military intervention, and then the histrionics begin, and then other people get offended and think the first group are Putin apologists, and then the other side is accused of supporting neo-con/neo-fascist ideology, and so forth and so on, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

It's as simple as this. Someone can denounce the actions of a country when it invades foreign territory, and that does not mean they want to see the US get involved militarily.

[riqster]

11. I've seen no one advocating that course here, myself.

Mind, some have accused me of just that failing, thus today's post.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

14. I haven't either.

But for the sake of the margin of error, I might say one or two DUers might have argued such a thing. But even amongst the most vocal critics of Putin and Russia on here, that's not what's being advocated.

And yet if you look at my OP, you'll see several posters attack me for supposedly advocating for US military intervention, even though I actually expressed in the body of my original post that I wasn't advocating for US military intervention:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024595321

The strawmanning on all sides is just crazy, and yet I honestly don't think people are that far apart on the issue.

[riqster]

16. Good OP.

I think sometimes, some DUers get a bit over the top with the "reading between the lines", and "I know what you REALLY meant" schtick.

And it isn't just at DU, either. Lots of people have an exercise routine composed of multiple reps of: leaping to conclusions, making mountains out of molehills, logical contortions, and breaking eggs to make omelettes.

[SidDithers]

2. blunt and cranky rec...

Sid

[riqster]

17. TY, Mr. D.

[Democracyinkind]

3. Agree but for the revisionist bit about Georgia.

[riqster]

12. Interesting. Can you expound?

[Democracyinkind]

19. yes. to me it read like Russia was the aggressor, that's just not true.

Now don't get me wrong - Putin was all giddy for the Georgian adventure but it took the collossal stupidity of Sakaschwili to enable Putin to do it. Without that, he would have never had the justification. That parallels the events in the Ukraine to a certain extent, come to think of it.

[riqster]

20. I see what you're saying, but I disagree.

Having someone provide a pretext for invasion doesn't absolve the invader. Not in my mind, anyway. Kinda like Shrub and Saddam: the fact that Hussein was a motherfucker does not wash Bush's hands of the blood caused by the choice he made to invade rather than use other means.

I could be wrong, but that is how it looks to me.

[Democracyinkind]

21. I too agree with what you just said, but -

imagine that Saddam really would have attacked us? Wouldn't that be more than a pretext?

As far as I remember nobody disputed that the Georgian army fired the first shots, in the false belief that there was a window of opportunity to crush the secessionists and their russian allies.

[riqster]

22. Maybe I'm full of it. I shall go and read up on the matter.

Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

[Democracyinkind]

23. No problem. This interaction is the kind I am looking for on DU.

And just about everyone here knows that I am wrong quite often about things too

[riqster]

25. Oh, tell me.

I had teenagers and was thus wrong for about 13 years, all together.

[Capt. Obvious]

4. That denouncement was not enough

Putin lover.

[riqster]

7. That, my good Captain, is brilliant.

[cali]

5. unrec for anything by this creepy blogger

gad, but this is awful. terribly written, banal crap posing as analysis. anything by Mr. Bluntly-an-idiot, lowers the collective IQ of DU substantially.

Please stop posting this awful blogger.

[Rex]

6. Only Republicans go to war based on falsified information in America.

Thankfully we have Obama in the WH. McCain would already have us in WWIII along with his chicken hawk buddies.

Putin is scum.

[riqster]

9. That is why we always have to vote against the Teapubbies.

Because the greater evil is, in this case, FAR more evil, indeed.

Imagine if "President McCain" had croaked and we had "President Palin" in office today...

[Rex]

13. YES. When people say both parties are the same THIS is what they

need to be looking at! McCain/Palin would already have turned us into glowing piles of radioactive ash by now! With the Insane Clown Congress Posse riding shotgun the whole way!

People that don't see a difference are not looking hard enough.

[riqster]

15. +1 gazillion nt

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Insane Congress Clown Party is brilliant.

Except that ain't soda Boehner and Co. are drenching us with.

[quinnox]

8. And as Americans, we have very recent historical experience with having scumbuckets as a leader

See George Bush, Jr. 'Nuff said.

[riqster]

10. Very true. Nt

[applegrove]

18. Da Da Das Putine, Lover of a crimean dream......

[riqster]

24. If that is a musical reference, I am stumped.

Onk?

[BeyondGeography]

27. Boney M

&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[riqster]

28. Very cool. Thanks!

[applegrove]

31. Rasputin was a messmerizing russian sociopath who got the control

of the tsarina.

[pnwmom]

26. Thank goodness no-drama-Obama is in charge. n/t

[riqster]

29. Oh, yeah. Imagine "President Palin"...

[nolkyz]

30. K&R to that!