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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GiantOne
... 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).