The Obama Years- A GOP love story

Good leaders can draw appropriate lines, AND explain to tired fathers/mothers/sons/daughters WHY the line is drawn, and why we need to be prepared for all eventualities..

I respect what you say ,you and JR but I don't agree with it .This line tells all I need to know . I know you can't seem to understand it but will you be ok sending you son,daughter /wife to Russia to die for a policy ,they might have a different idea .This whole conversation is bringing back the 60's/70's and Vietnam .

Didn't say that, I asked you ,what it is you want him to do ?

It's what he hasn't done. His statement says it all

I respect what you say ,you and JR but I don't agree with it .This line tells all I need to know . I know you can't seem to understand it but will you be ok sending you son,daughter /wife to Russia to die for a policy ,they might have a different idea .This whole conversation is bringing back the 60's/70's and Vietnam .

My son is 17 years old, my next oldest is 15years old. I don't think Fathers/Mothers in WWI or II or Korea, or Vietnam or Iraq/Afg. were "OK" for sending it, but there is a thing called national security, and world politics, and if Putin is willing to take food off his own people's shelves, I guarantee he won't give a rat's ass about any US child. Do I want my son to go to war. No, no sane US citizen does. Do I accept that the world is not friggin ponies and fairy tales and group hugs. Yes. It shouldn't bring back the 60 and 70's because that's not the world structure that is in place. It should bring back the time before both World Wars, and if we don't want to see that type of fire engulf the whole world, our leaders better sure as hell have the backbone and reality check to make a case for protecting US interests abroad and at home. And it ain't by taking one of our biggest strengths off the d*** table before we even started the process.

It's what he hasn't done. His statement says it all

I get it you're mad , again what is it you want him to do ?

My son is 17 years old, my next oldest is 15years old. I don't think Fathers/Mothers in WWI or II or Korea, or Vietnam or Iraq/Afg. were "OK" for sending it, but there is a thing called national security.

Russia and Ukraine is not a national security risk for US .When there is one of course I believe in defending our country .WW I an II there was , we were openly attacked in II ,not in Korea or Vietnam .Buy the end of Vietnam there were as many parents wanting out as there were young kids ,this is what I meant by age in my other post and no it was not a shot at anyone .At 17 my number in the draft was pulled(I still have my draft card) ,they had stop the draft put were still pulling the numbers in case needed.7 kids in my family and I was the only one that could be drafted ,it was fun at night to hear the fighting on what I should do from everyone else and all I kept asking is why are we there and no one could answer me , tell me policy and I would have punch you in the mouth then ,I had already lost a cousin in Vietnam in 1970 .Sorry for the digression ,look I understand the viewpoint, I just disagree with it .

I get it you're mad , again what is it you want him to do ?

So if I dont have a plan or strategy, me, a guy on a redskins message board, its understandable, im a nobody. You dont understand what Im saying?

Im lost on how people will blindly follow someone regardless of what they say or do. Its like people refuse to think for themself. Welcome to the U.S.

When I gave the 2 ways a President could react, I said, if it's NOT worth fighting for then the president should clearly express where (if any where) that line is. I get that Ukraine isn't, we don't have any specific alliances with Ukraine, we don't have any direct national resources dependent on them. That's fine. I disagree that a country being invaded, particularly when the nation doing the invading has shown a propensity for it, but I get it. You draw the line somewhere else. But where we disagree is that if this isn't a line in the sand point, with non -allies (or potential adversaries) like Russia and China, you can't speak in group huggeese, and you don't just take one of your biggest advantages (a strong military) out of the equation at the onset, because that emboldens them. You have to come out, and not in 30 second radio quips, or even Saturday morning shows. No matter what you believe our response should be on the ground, a country has had one part of it forcibly removed (Crimea) and another under siege by the same style tactics. The President of the United States should address the US on National television, as a whole, setting aside political bickering and draw a rousing bipartisan speech that unites the country to understand that this is a bad thing, and IF Russia or China continue to behave in that manner, it will become a US national issue at x point, (ie invading Estonia), and why. And should condemn nationally, and follow it up in the UN General Assembly, the attack on sovereign territory unambiguously.

... all I kept asking is why are we there and no one could answer me , tell me policy and I would have punch you in the mouth...

In fact you outline exactly what I am saying this President should do when you say no one could tell you why we were in Vietnam. In the bipolar world, that ambiguity was hid a little because the USSR was a useful threat. In the unipolar world, the US could protect a state like Kuwait because well we were top dog, and US citizens felt pretty near invincible, and we were. But in the world we are heading into, we need our leaders to be decisive, and clear in their stance (and I don't mean by simply saying "let me be clear"), and in their actions. Develop our national stance with both sides of the aisle, draw up a clear unambiguous statement of national policy and find the common core values that all US citizens can understand and believe in, and then go before the nation, and world, and tell it to those who are acting in ways that might bring confrontation, This is where we as a nation stand. Read my second one (not the one where we actively defend Ukraine, but where we set our principles in tangible actions), I believe that the President could make that speech, with minimal diplomatic coverage, and imo 70% of both sides of the aisle would cheer him. (minus the far right warnicks , and the far left peaceniks).

G1, so when would you commit US troops? I get Ukraine is not the place and, while I think it will only encourage Putin to be more aggressive, I am okay with saying "Sorry Ukraine, if economic sanctions don't stop him, we're out."

When Putin sends people troops to "support" the Russian enclave in Western Estonia, claims the Estonian govt. is repressing their freedoms, etc., will we honor our NATO treaty commitment?

What is your line in the sand?

one thing is for sure - i think everyone in hindsight is glad obama pulled back from his red line with syria after the chemical use and didnt do missile strikes to assist the "rebels" against assad like everyone wanted .... as it appears that would have just cleared the way for ISIS "rebels" to control all of syria.

im glad obama didnt listen to the media and pundits who were calling him weak and indecisive. man - could you imagine how hard those same pundits would be now blaming obama for helping ISIS if he had listened to them!!

Obama made his initial Red Line comment in an unscripted statement. I don't think he was ever particularly comfortable with it. It was a sound bite that sounded good but then he realized it boxed him in. Not sure he was being particularly "decisive" in backing down from it - he waffled his way away from a remark he never particularly liked, and it just happened to break his way.