Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine 582
U.S. officials today made public satellite imagery which they say proves that Russian forces have been shelling eastern Ukraine in a campaign to assist rebel groups fighting Ukraine’s government.
The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which released the civilian-taken satellite images Sunday, said they show visual evidence that Russia has been firing shells across the border at Ukrainian military forces. Officials also said the images show that Russia-backed separatists have used heavy artillery, provided by Russia, in attacks on Ukrainian forces from inside Ukraine.
One image dated July 25/26 shows what DNI claims is “ground scarring” on the Russian side of the border from artillery aimed at Ukrainian military units in Ukraine, as well as the resultant ground craters on the Ukrainian side of the border:
So (Score:4, Interesting)
Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:3)
Historically speaking, war over border, authority and assets wrote the history books. From failures to new republics to squabbles over price tags, we fought over turf and the right to rule over it. Nothing to see here, just another real estate squabble. It may even be Darwinian from some perspective. Orwellian would be a nice analogy, but Hollywood made that , so you can expect someone will get sued over copyright. The biggest lawyer backed by the biggest wallet always win, I'll put my money on Hollywood to
Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
The side that apparently blew a 300-civilian passenger jet out of the sky because they're too dumb to know what a Boeing looks like is getting direct military support from a major regional power which just happens to have nuclear weapons.
And I thought my hometown of Detroit was fucked.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Ugmm, haven't you been watching the news. A Malaysian jet knowingly and delibrately flew into an innocent russian missle that was minding its own business. The honorable president Putin is demanding an appology from Malasia and the Ukraine for the destruction of it costly missile. The USAians response to this event is completely opposite to what would have happened 20 years ago. What has changed? We (the USA) became part of the global league of economic partners who strive for transcendent harmony and economic prosperity through translateral partnerships both domestically and abroad. What that means is the Russian oligarchs have invested majorly in the USian economy and news outlets. Not only will the USA not keep illegals out of the country, it will do nothing to combat the russian bear, if it would hurt our economic partnerships. The USA is not an country, it is just a few of those points of lights that bush senior was talking about soo long ago.
The USA died in 2008 when Ron Paul lost the canidicy.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only could they not tell it was Boeing, it was flying at over 33,000 feet. The other military planes they were targeting can't even fly over 20,000 feet. Those were turboprops and fighter jets.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thatta boy, blame the civilians.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thatta boy, blame the civilians.
Uh, the Ukrainian air traffic control system is run by civilians.
The plane was just about to cross into Russia. Why didn't the Russians close their airspace either?
Seems like the rebels being issued heavy antiaircraft weaponry was a recent development. Previously they were more into mobbing police buildings.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
The side that apparently blew a 300-civilian passenger jet out of the sky because they're too dumb to know what a Boeing looks like is getting direct military support from a major regional power which just happens to have nuclear weapons. And I thought my hometown of Detroit was fucked.
Well, if you want to put it that way the plane would never have been shot down if Russia had supplied a professional crew instead of teaching the separatists how to aim and pull the trigger. At least with the Russian military firing they probably know what they're aiming at.
Re: (Score:3)
The side that apparently blew a 300-civilian passenger jet out of the sky because they're too dumb to know what a Boeing looks like is getting direct military support from a major regional power which just happens to have nuclear weapons. And I thought my hometown of Detroit was fucked.
Well, if you want to put it that way the plane would never have been shot down if Russia had supplied a professional crew instead of teaching the separatists how to aim and pull the trigger. At least with the Russian military firing they probably know what they're aiming at.
You're assuming that the 'separatists' are not actually Russian military / mercenaries. I'm not sure where I saw the statistic unfortunately, but I read 80% are Russians and only 20% are actually Ukrainians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>And I thought my hometown of Detroit was fucked.
You are correct. Detroit is fucked. Your other observations are correct also.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Interesting)
The side that apparently blew a 300-civilian passenger jet out of the sky because they're too dumb to know what a Boeing looks like is getting direct military support from a major regional power which just happens to have nuclear weapons.
And I thought my hometown of Detroit was fucked.
This is not direct military support.
These are Russians that moved into Ukrainian territory either as soldiers in Russian forces, or as "civilians" over the last few years.
The attackers are RUSSIANS. The guys operating the BUK that shot down the airliner were RUSSIAN SOLDIERS. You don't hand a BUK over to "separatists" and a few months later have them wipe out 5 aircraft in a week. Take a look at the BUK system sometime. There is NO WAY the equipment was "handed over". It was OPERATED by RUSSIANS just like every other proxy war, Vietnam, Korea, and a whole bunch of smaller ones.
Russia is going to do what they are going to do, and for the most part, the West is going to stay out of it. Ukraine needs to start an absolutely brutal guerrilla war, or they are done for. That's all there is to it. (They are probably STILL done for no matter what they do.) The Soviets are re-building their empire.
Re: Why the fuck is this on Slashdot? (Score:2)
A) There have been political articles on Slashdot for as long as I've been a subscriber. Might as well get used to it.
B) Didn't want to read it? Then why did you?
Re: (Score:2)
You could have saved some typing by not opening the article. But then you would not have been able to write this long pointless OT rant.
Re: (Score:2)
"This submission is pretty much irrelevant here at Slashdot."
Yeah, nobody here cares about a 21st century Sarajevo.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I mean c'mon. Also, Whats up with all these stories on slashdot about computers and computing devices?
Solid state microprocessors have been around since the 1960's. All these computing devices are just modifications of that basic technology.
Oh, wait, those stories are interesting. Hey, some people may be interested in seeing how satellite technology has changed too. The satellites we have imaging the planet today are not that "same old shit" from the 60's and 70's. Sensors and their sensing capab
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously the US doctored the publically available satellite footage. And you know, since they're the only people in the world with satellites, nobody else can see if they're telling the truth. So of course it's an evil mitilary conspiracy, because they have so much to gain here by lying about a civil war across the world. Obviously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not an American. I'm not even from the west and I think Russia is responsible.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, more Mericans who believe whatever the media-military complex tells them.
I don't believe everything they tell me. But generally when they're making shit up (ie: Saddam's WMD) it's because somebody important has a real interest in promoting the lie.
Putin has an interest in promoting the separatists in Eastern Ukraine. He's using them to counter-balance the pro-Western forces in Kiev. We know this because he actually promotes the separatists. Which means having his artillery nail the Ukrainians who are fighting said separatists is plausible. More plausible then that, some low-level artillery officer who happens to be stationed in the region thinks his boss will be very pleased if the Ukrainian Army has trouble retaking Donetsk.
Obama making this shit up is not particularly plausible. He wants foreign policy to go the fuck away for a few months so he can make an economic case for firing Boehnor to the American people. If Putin is actively operating in Ukraine, bordering Romania (which is in NATO) deserves to know we'll send troops to Bucharest on short notice. But Obama's latest budget includes force reductions. One of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy initiatives was a reset of relations with Russia. That actually worked pretty well, for her term as Secretary of State.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes but what a lot of people missed was that "reset" button starts us over back in the Cold War.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The rabbit-hole goes deep. Do you not know the depth of US government corruption?
Company In Which US Vice President Joe Biden’s Son Is Director Prepares To Drill Shale Gas In East Ukraine
http://www.globalresearch.ca/company-in-which-us-vice-president-joe-bidens-son-is-director-prepares-to-drill-shale-gas-in-east-ukraine/5393403
So the Vice President of the United States of America has a son, Hunter, who was installed on the board of Ukraine's largest gas producer in May. That
producer is now preparing
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing that out. Will investigate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole things seems as innocuous as Halliburton's billion dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. It's not just Joe Biden's son either who's been "hired" on to the gas producer, Burisma Holdings:
Time Magazine reports: [time.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Chamberlein allowed Hitler to do the same tactic as he sought resources. That lead to a global war. What exactly do you think is going on now?
Finally, shell and others have all the major contracts for the oil/nat gas.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like there is a shortage of places to drill for shale oil. Russia is definitely, without a doubt or a question, the villain here. Russia is not a state sponsor of terrorism. Russia today is a terrorist state.
As opposed to the United States which never sponsors terrorists or bombs civil...
OH WAIT
Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there is a third, and perhaps more likely explanation: Parts of the Russian military is not under the control of the government. Putin is not exactly stupid, and what is happening in that area is rapidly becoming stupid, so I think it is a reasonable guess that he hasn't got things under his control.
The Russian military is exactly where Putin wants them to be. They're along the border so that they can invade Ukraine once the conditions are right. If Ukraine fires on the Russians then it will be called a provocation and the tanks will stream across the border.
Putin isn't playing dumb here at all. He got the message from the EU loud and clear that they could care less about Russia invading Ukraine, and that the US is pretty upset about it but doesn't really have the power to do anything without getting into a shooting war, which they won't actually do. So, how is shelling the Ukrainians dumb? If the EU doesn't care about commandos taking over cities, the annexation of Crimea, Russian fighters shooting down Ukrainian aircraft, rebels shooting down airliners, and a nearly full-scale war raging in Easter Ukraine, then why would they care about a few shells landing on military units?
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please point to the fascists riddling the current Ukrainian government.
Oh what's that? You were just repeating Putin's party line and didn't realise the Ukrainian far-right only got 2% at recent elections compared to say, France's NF getting 25% in recent elections?
By all objective measures, support for fascism in Ukraine is lower than in most countries across the globe. Fascism is just the thing Putin points to try and justify his actions which would be funny if it weren't for the fact that he's the one whose been building a society that treats ethnic minorities and homosexuals in a way only a truly fascist nation could over the last 10 years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few months ago, the Russian government was trying to woo Ukraine into an "economic union" with Russia. Cue street protests, a president that flees, and new democratic elections for a president that the people actually want. Now, Russia is shooting rockets and artillery into Ukraine. That has to be the worst case of sore-loserism and poor sportsmanship I've ever seen. All Russian behaviour does is prove to Ukrainians that they made the right choice in steering their country away from a madman. Friends
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh god, someone has fed you such a backwards picture of the story. Let me give you a highly abridged recent history of Ukraine:
In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, who has always been buddy-buddy with Putin, ran for President against Viktor Yushchenko. He wanted closer relations with Russia wheras Yushchenko wanted closer relations with the EU. Yushchenko was poisoned in the middle of the campaign and nearly died. He was left permanently disfigured. He also claimed that it was the KGB that tried to assassinate him.
Yanukovych won the election initially, but the Ukranian Supreme Court overturned the election results because of widespread fraud and voter intimidation. In the new elections, Yushchenko won despite still being seriously ill from the poisoning.
In 2010 Yanukovych ran for president and narrowly won, defeating a candidate from Yushchenko's party: Yulia Tymoshenko. Yulia Tymoshenko became PM (in Ukraine, the PM is second in command to the President, but they can be from opposing parties), and since the elections were so closer, she and her minority party still had a lot of power. When they made moves to advance the integration process with the EU, Yanukovych charged Tymoshenko with several counts of corruption. She was found guilty and imprisoned. The Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International both claim that the charges were trumped up and were political in nature. Just a couple of years later, in 2013, Yanukovych had finally gathered enough of his own party members in Parliament and cancelled the EU integration process entirely.
This is what sparked the protests in Ukraine: repeated attempts of the pro-Russian faction to use undemocratic means to defeat the pro-EU faction.
Re: (Score:3)
It's more complication than that, natural gas pipline from Russia to Western Europe pass through the Ukraine, and Russia has leased a open water naval base in the Ukrane. Russia has to go all in on this one are it's back to third World status for them.
Re: (Score:2)
The easiest way top tell the BS propaganda from reality is figure out who has a motive to lie.
In this case a) Putin obviously has a motive to shell Ukrainian military units fighting ethnic Russian separatists, b) Putin would have clear reason to lie about that shit, and c) Obama's trying really hard to convince everyone foreign policy is perfectly fine.
I wouldn't be totally shocked if it turns out some idiot is misinterpreting satellite photos in DC. But I would be totally shocked to learn that the photos t
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the morons at the crash site were drunk enough for that to make it to the investigators' reports.
Re: (Score:2)
I did not know that English was the language of temperance.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Funny)
Bet he can't tell ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet you could not tell the difference between a civilian plane and a military plane flying at 30,000 feet over a war zone either.
I bet he can't tell them apart either, but I also bet he wouldn't fire a missile at it. *Firing a missile anyway* is the important thing here, not a failure to identify the aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
400 civilian aircrafts flew over it each day until one of them was shut down.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet you could not tell the difference between a civilian plane and a military plane flying at 30,000 feet over a war zone either.
I could. The civilian plane would have a radar transponder that said "Hi, I am Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17".
Re: (Score:3)
That's if you send the plane a MODE-S interrogation. Otherwise all you will get is altitude, MODE-3A and a 12 bit number, MODE-3C.
Since the rebels had no planes of their own and apparently assumed that the area was closed to civilian traffic they may have completly ignored SSR returns.
Working out what is being targeted turns out to be the hardest part of operating such a SAM system. Especially if all you h
Re: Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd be foolish to shoot unknown aircraft on a civilian route. Well, you'd either be foolish or criminally insane, take your pick.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, there is supposed to be a 4 vehicle fleet, but they only had the launcher. It only has target control radar. The regular radar that reads things like civilian transponders is on a command vehicle, which Russia didn't equip them with.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes we should. Especially since the US has shown it is willing to use them against another country in anger. Not once but twice.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Self defense is not "in anger."
And every serious analysis agrees that more Japanese civilians would have been killed by a traditional invasion, because the women and children had been told that they Americans were taking all civilians as slaves, and they had been armed, and were hiding in bunkers without any contact with other bunkers or the outside world for them to learn that no children were being eaten and no women sold as slaves.
If you're looking at cases where the US lashed out in anger, there are lots of them, but none of them involved nukes.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Self defense"? Look, you can call it a lot of things, but you can't call it that. Otherwise I could call the following scenario "self defense":
Guy comes to my house and kills a member of my family. In "self defense", the next day I go and burn down his house with him and his family in it.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Self defense"? Look, you can call it a lot of things, but you can't call it that. Otherwise I could call the following scenario "self defense":
Guy comes to my house and kills a member of my family. In "self defense", the next day I go and burn down his house with him and his family in it.
Is that seriously your characterization of the war in the Pacific in WWII? Japan bombed Pearl Harbor then the US dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There was a lot more to it than that.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather that just reading the anti-U.S. rants about this, you should try visiting Asia and talking to the Asians who had to live under Imperial Japanese rule. Much like the Nazis, the Japanese saw themselves as a genetically superior race, and other races were nothing more than cattle to them. My grandmother was forced to watch as her sister and niece were raped and killed by Japanese soldiers, all to coerce my grandfather (a doctor) into treating one of their officers. The Imperial Japanese needed to be put down, at all costs, for the sake of civilization.
The correct analogy is guy terrorizes neighborhood killing hundreds of people. Then happens to go into your house and kill a member of your family. You fight back and eventually surround him in his home where he's instructed his entire family to die defending the house. You manage to take him and one family member out with a new weapon that vaporizes the part of the house he's in, which spares the rest of his family. The loss of the family member is regrettable, but it's a positive outcome when you consider the part you've conveniently left out of your analogy - that killing his entire family would have been an acceptable cost to free the neighborhood from his reign of terror.
Re:Great... (Score:4, Interesting)
Self defense is not "in anger."
Actually, it is a case of "in anger". The term has nothing to do with anyone's emotional state or any particular defense/offense scenario under which they might find themselves. "Used in anger" with respect to a weapon means that the weapon is being used as designed with intent to kill someone.
So much unnecessary trouble (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much unnecessary trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt he's got enough enemies in Russia with enough power to take him out. He controls the state police and the armed forces. There would have to be mutiny in the armed forces and that won't happen because they do not want to be shot by the state police.
Putin is doing this because he fears others believe he has a small dick. There's nothing more to it than that. Everything else is window dressing to cover up his lack of manhood. The state police are tasked with defending his small dick.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at a minimum it explains all the topless photo shoots he poses for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because this was never about independence. Russia installed their own primer minister to prevent Ukrain from joining the EU. But he sucked. The EU and the US helped stage a Coup and installed their own pro-west leader in the hopes of getting Ukrain in the EU. No way Russia is letting that happen. The EU has its own problems but they pale in comparison to Russias. The last thing Putin wants is a country with a lot of relatives of Russians getting the EU treatment and finding out how nice it is to be out of t
Re: (Score:3)
The last thing Putin wants is a country with a lot of relatives of Russians getting the EU treatment and finding out how nice it is to be out of their largely lawless, virtual dictatorship of a state.
You should update your propaganda-driven beliefs. I've got a russian girlfriend and I've been to Russia myself. At least for where I was (St. Petersburg), it looks much like any european city, except more beautiful (but that's a St. Petersburg special, they made very sure to keep all the old palaces and buildings in shape).
Crime was horrible in the 1990s, my girlfriend says, but here's why most russians actually love Putin: Since he became the top dog, things have been continuously improving. Crime is low,
Re:So much unnecessary trouble (Score:4, Informative)
Your arguments aren't backed up by real actual statistics.
Russia has atrocious crime rates, abysmal life expectancy, major problems with alcoholism, rampant corruption that means investment on public infrastructure rarely comes close to improving it to the extent it should due to the amount milked away, ranks poorly on civil liberties and freedoms, need I go on?
To make the point and actually provide some numbers, people make a big thing of murder rates in America, but in Russia you're almost twice as likely again to be murdered. You're over 9 times more likely to be murdered in Russia than the UK, France, or Germany and five times more likely than even the poorest European nations like Romania. The average wealth per person in Russia is lower than Iran, Tunisia, Brazil, and Mexico. It's well below the global average, and certainly below that of every single EU member nation. Russia's average life expectancy is 4 years below the poorest and lowest EU nation (Romania) and only 1.5 years higher than Iraq with it's decade of war and killings. Whilst Europe has been legalising gay marriage and so forth Russia has been outlawing talking about homosexuality and not ensuring his police investigate brutal beatings and murder of people for being gay, or of an ethnic minority.
This isn't propaganda, this is statistical fact.
It sounds like you've been won over by the facade of corrupt spending and wealth in touristy areas (the only bits of Russia anyone would want to live in) and are completely oblivious to the other 99.99% of the country.
People don't love Putin because he's improved the country, they love him because like all dictators he's a master of propaganda and populism, or did you think all those photoshoots and the massive military parades each year and the nationalist rhetoric over Crimea were all just for his own personal scrapbook? They love him because he gives them hope that they're still a global superpower that could if it wanted rule the world. The problems we're seeing with Russia now are occurring because Putin has started believing his own bullshit - this is ultimately what's referred to by the age old saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - when you're installed as an untouchable deity of politics, eventually you start believing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Whilst on this subject, it's probably also worth also noting that this is why the Winter Olympics were held in Sochi - a primarily summer beach destination.
Because just about everywhere else in Russia where you would normally hold winter Olympics is an utter shit hole compared to the primary holiday destination of Russia's oligarchs.
It's telling that in a country as large and as full of cold places as Russia that the only city they could find that was even remotely acceptable for the world to see was Sochi.
Re: (Score:3)
What coup did the EU and US stage?
There was no coup in Ukraine. There was an impeached president that decided to flee the country and the existing elected non-modified parliament appointing a new temporary one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Methane Anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Putin is an idiot. He started playing games with Ukraine and never saw the long game.
Doubtful this evidence is fabricated. The US isn't going to fabricate evidence that can be corroborated by others independently. Its not like any of those images are too small for Google Earth. The EU, China, Japanese, and all even some commercial interests have satellites that can see the same thing. Now the US has told them where to look, others can see for themselves. Nobody (except maybe Pravda) has called BS on this.
But the Russians may be right about a US lead smear campaign..... This is all about sanctions by the EU, which is really all about who sells the EU Natural Gas. The US has some serious gas reserves that is itching to sell for good money. Hard to do if EU is purchasing from Gazprom.
But this is all on Putin. If he didn't provide the smear material, the US couldn't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU would like to buy American gas rather than Russian, but getting enough LNG infrastructure to replace piped gas is incredibly expensive and not something that can be built quickly.
Taking them at face value eh? (Score:2)
At least by the headline it seems so. I took a look this morning at two of them and you can clearly see some areas in the "pre" that had "bomb craters" just as the purported second "post" image. Also notice differences in resolution.
These images - just like anything the Russians or Ukranians give - should not be taken at face value.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure the images were heavily edited, if for no other reason than to hide the imaging capabilities the US has.
I'm sure the UK and Germany have their own satellites/etc, and there are commercial services as well. They can easily go looking for themselves, and probably have done so already.
Russian army or Russian rebels? (Score:3)
The summary says "Russian forces" which is generally assumed to mean official troops, but I think it's far more likely to be Russian rebels firing on Ukraine from Russia.
Putin has no need to involve official Russian troops when there are more than enough "volunteers" willing to carry out the battle. Russia gives them a few big guns and they keep them safe on the Russian side of the border so the Ukrainians can't fight back. The bonus is that by keeping the Ukrainians away from the border they can keep it open and continue the flow of troops and arms from Russia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's still a question in most of eastern Europe. Russians got their propaganda machine in full spin mode... and it's working.
Re:What a surprise. (Score:5, Insightful)
As an Eastern European, all I could tell you is: you're so very wrong.
NOBODY in Eastern Europe is believing the Russians. We all know better, after being under their boot for 45 years or so.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish they would actually do that. Czech are notoriously bad when it comes to foreign languages. I live in Germany and visit Prague every now and then.When I ask for directions in English, I get something unintelligible as reply. When I try in German, they give me blank stares. When I repeat my question in Russian (yes, I speak Russian as well), they either reply in Russian or they reply in Czech but it is often close enough to understand - Slavic languages are like that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
US Government: "Russia caught attacking another country - the nerve!"
World responds with skeptical glances from all corners.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: GET THIS CRAP OFF OF SLASHDOT! (Score:2)
If you don't want to read it, go to the next article.
Re:GET THIS CRAP OFF OF SLASHDOT! (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking as a Ukrainian, you're completely mistaken. Russia has been agressive towards Ukraine for centuries. Besides many millitary invasions, an occupation that lasted generations, there was also the genocide planned in Moscow that in the 1930's killed 11 million Ukrainians. Russia has historically been hungriest for Ukrainian blood above all else, and it doesn't look like things will change any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that Bin Laden guy saw the bike picture and laughed his head off at weak, ineffectual Obama.
Memory Troubles: (Score:5, Informative)
"The last time the Russians got this aggressive was their invasion of Afghanistan under Jimmy Carter"
I think you're forgetting that they invaded Georgia when George W. Bush was president.
I think that counts as pretty aggressive.
Re:Memory Troubles: (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, I had no idea Jimmy Carter was the leader of Afghanistan, but if so it makes sense that Russia would follow up by invading his home state...
Re: (Score:2)
Holy crap, this AC got modded up +2 already? I notice on this story that the stupidest comments so far are all ACs. There should be a rule that whenever someone says how some leader here or there is screwing up, then the commenter is required to say how they would do it better. As everyone who has made it there seems to have found out once elected President of the USA (or Prime Minister of somewhere else), the problems are a lot more complicated when you actually have to deal with them and then the fallo
Re:Weakest US President ever (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get this bravado from some Americans that think we should be directly involved in every conflict around the globe. Ironically, all these global conflicts are a huge drain on the national treasury. Can't cut the budgets and join a few wars at the same time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Try 6000 years. They were bashing each other over the head way back then as well according to the ancient history book I read.
The wars aren't what's bankrupting the budget, it is the 2/3 of "non-discretionary" expenses that are dong that job quite nicely.
The U.S. is involved world wide because the U.S. has defense agreements and economic interests world wide. The U.S. had their head stuck up their ass before WW II and then WW II happened. It happened because "the world" didn't have the balls to stop German
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So what are they going to do about it? Give another speech about how Russia is acting against its own interest?
Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Iraeli citizens and they won't even say a word.
Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word.
Russia can take over Crimea and they get bashed harshly with... a speech.
ISIS can take over Iraq and kill thousands and they won't say a word.
Any country depending on the US for support is lost and left to fend for themselves.
However, if you DARE mention the government should cut a dime of spending you will be labled a terrorist and the IRS, and DOJ will be used illegally to harrass you and oppress you. This administration is far harsher on peaceful critics of its policies than it is on genocide or mass killings of allies.
What a joke.
Out of all those conflicts you posted I can not think of a single one worth the life of even 1 member of the US military. Lets Europe take care of itself, let Saudia Arabia and the other gulf states take care of Iran and the sunni, shia conflict. The USA has been the worlds police force for too many decades, we need to take care of things here at home. Everytime we try to intervene in another country's conflicts since WWII it has been a disaster except perhaps the 1991 Gulf War, President Obama is keeping u
Re:Weakest US President ever (Score:5, Insightful)
* Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Israeli citizens and they won't even say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
* Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
* Russia can take over Crimea and they get bashed harshly with... a speech.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
*ISIS can take over Iraq and kill thousands and they won't say a word.
Affects Americans right now? -- no. Is there a clear course of action in this conflict that will be best for America in the future? -- no.
Now here's a bullet point that you didn't mention:
* Ubiquitous healthcare for Americans
Affects Americans right now? -- YES! Was it a clear course of action that will be best for America in the future? -- YES!
Re:Weakest US President ever (Score:4, Insightful)
You're jumping from Russia trying to annex Ukraine to Russia trying to invade Alaska. They're more likely to send the tanks rolling into Germany first, and they'll probably annex China long before then.
Russia vs Ukraine is like most of the wars the US has gotten into over the last 20 years - find some little country and push it around since it can't really do anything to hurt you back. Russia doesn't have the navy to threaten the US in a serious way in a conventional war, and the reverse is definitely not the case. There is little reason for Russia to get into a shooting war with the US, and certainly no reason for the US to get into a shooting war with Russia either.
I think the Europeans are making the bigger mistake here, but this is one big case of short-term thinking. Nobody wants to suffer the short-term loss to deal with Russia, and everybody is likely to take advantage of their neighbors if they try to do something about it. If the US cuts off all loans to Russia, the London banks will just step in to make a fortune in their place, etc.
Re:Weakest US President ever (Score:5, Informative)
"Gaza can send thousands of rockets targeting Iraeli citizens and they won't even say a word." -- I'm pretty sure the US is saying a word, and it is desire for a cease fire. Also, Hamas is dumb, but death count in the recent spate of attacks? Israelis: 1 died to a rocket, Palestinians: 1000 died in shelling. Looks like Israel is doing comparatively alright here. Why do you need the US doing more here? What is it you want them to do?
"Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word." -- Clearly you are unaware of the current state of diplomacy on this issue. Last November an interim agreement was made, observers are checking to verify Iranian compliance in agreement for a lessening of economic sanctions. We'll see if a continuing agreement can be reached by next November. What would you have done differently? The fact that you claim that the US has not said a word makes me inclined to think you are not aware of reality enough to make a sensible suggestion, but you could surprise me.
"Russia can take over Crimea and they get bashed harshly with... a speech." -- The US can invade Iraq and Afghanistan and run military operations in Pakistan and get bashed mildly with... a speech. Iraq was a disaster perpetrated upon a bed of lies and incompetency. Would you consider it money well spent? Seriously? What is your proposed action on Russia and Crimea? You have complained about actions taken, without expressing what it is you actually want... and that's just not helpful at all. It sounds like you want more dick waving and war and are under the impression that it will help, but I could just be stereotyping you...
"ISIS can take over Iraq and kill thousands and they won't say a word." -- What do you want? Unending US military presence in Iraq? Who do you even want to be in charge of Iraq and why? What implications would your desires have?
Basically, it sounds like you want the US to prop up Israel, stop Iran by any means necessary, remove Russia from Crimea, and crush ISIS and prop up Iraq indefinitely. You want to do all of this heavy work and military mobilization (hint: that costs a ton of money [oh, and lives, especially if you count foreigners and care about that kinda thing]), yet simultaneously you complain about the government not cutting a dime of spending.
Your brain is broken.
Re:Weakest US President ever (Score:5, Informative)
Iran can make nuclear weapons and they won't even say a word.
Iran dilutes nuclear material
July 21, 2014
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/iran-dilutes-nuclear-material/story-fn3dxix6-1226995916083 [theaustralian.com.au]
IRAN has turned all of its enriched uranium closest to the level needed to make nuclear arms into more harmless forms, the United Nations' nuclear agency says.
THE move was expected. Tehran had committed to convert or dilute its 20-per cent enriched stockpile under an agreement with six powers last November that froze its atomic programs pending negotiations on a comprehensive deal. Those talks were extended on Saturday to November 24.
Still, the development was noteworthy in reflecting Iran's desire not to derail the diplomatic process with the six countries - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
If you really cared about Iran and not about piling up perceived failure at Obama's feet, you sure as shit would have seen this headline from last week.
It wasn't a secret. The AP, AFP, Reuters, and pretty much everyone was talking about it.
/Naturally Fox News did their best to report only on the extension of talks.
Weakest Russia ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Wreck their economy. It worked once and the way Russia acts it would work again, no doubt. Russia has only a GDP a little better than Italy and less than Germany, France or the UK. They are utterly weak and exactly because they know it they have to act like a bully. Russia is a dwarf trying to convince itself it is a giant by making others think it is.
Re:Weakest Russia ever (Score:4, Interesting)
Russian domestic politics are a bitch.
They're all drunk and angry. Putin has to continue pretending to be a world power, or the anger will land on him.
Considering they die so young (pickled on Vodka), the last living memory of their world power days should be dying soon.
They should settle down to being a 3rd world resource exporter soon.
Re:Weakest Russia ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Wreck their economy. It worked once and the way Russia acts it would work again, no doubt. Russia has only a GDP a little better than Italy and less than Germany, France or the UK. They are utterly weak and exactly because they know it they have to act like a bully. Russia is a dwarf trying to convince itself it is a giant by making others think it is.
The reason Europe wont back harsher sanctions is because if they do it will have the cascade effect of damaging their own economies because Russia and all the countries of Europe economies are all linked fairly tightly, along with the fact Russia exports a huge amount on natural gas to western Europe and if that got cut off in response to sanctions it would make things even worse so the sanctions in place target political and industrial leaders in Russia.
Re:Weakest Russia ever (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with economic sanctions is that they, ironically, work to solidify Putin's power hold.
The original reason for strong popular support behind Putin was that he oversaw a decade of steady economic growth. For many people in Russia, it was the time where they saw their lives change from borderline poverty to something reasonable. It can be argued that he is not the one to take credit, and that it's all due to high oil prices etc, but either way he got to reap the benefits. It's also what triggered the entire "imperial revival" mentality: people see that their country is more prosperous, therefore it is stronger, therefore it is time to remember the old squabbles.
Now, Russian economy was already in recession as it is, and likely one from which it will not require. The sanctions will undeniably accelerate it, but at the same time they give Putin and his clique the ultimate excuse with respect to anything bad that happens with the economy: "Americans did it". Thus, all the rage will be channeled overseas, instead of the people in charge. And if economy does collapse, what you have now is a country of 140 million, raging, armed to teeth, with a history of willing and able to pile up the bodies two to one (and even higher) to win. Oh, and with nukes.
I strongly suspect that, if the sanctions are ultimately successful, the immediate consequence will be the full-on ground invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Not the present proxy war with subtle aid here and there, but Russian tanks on the streets of Kiev, that kind of thing.
If the West really wants to help Ukraine, it needs to give it direct military assistance.
Re: (Score:3)
The price of oil is expected to drop next year, and the US is building export terminals for Canadian gas and oil so it can be exported to Europe. Sanctions came first, and when the next cyclic shock hits the Russian energy-based economy, it will crash hard.
If it takes 2 or 5 or 10 years to get rid of him, that is fine. If his hold strengthens in the short term, that is expected; Putin is a tactician with little interest or skill in long-term strategy. Fighting him with short-term moves is more likely to bac
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dude, you've got extras, just accept it.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama's foreign policy decisions have basically been exactly what a majority of it's citizens want. It's not pretty by any means but he is fulfilling his promises in this one area of state.
Re:Oh, bore off (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason we're still "blathering about non-existant [sic] WMDS" is because "WMD" is a shorthand for "nukes". The yellowcake uranium evidence, the aluminum tubes that "were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium", the quote "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
All of the WMD arguments for war were in the context of nukes, not chemical weapons.
So yes, you're technically correct - which is the best kind of correct - but you're also missing the point. None of the WMDs that we were warned about were found.
Not to mention if chemical weapons were a casus belli, just about every country in the world would be a legitimate target.
Re: (Score:3)
Real veto is nukes and aircraft carrier groups. If your nation doesn't have any, accept your new limited sovereignty.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry; your claims aren't close to 'barely credible'.
Re:obviously a NATO plot (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget all the ones with an Su25 being involved in shooting it down (haha).
I love how all these conspiracy nuts paint the US govt as some scheming Machiavellian mastermind, when the reality is that they keep getting caught unprepared with their pants down whenever some unanticipated international development happens.
Ahhh but the nutjobs will claim "that it is all part of the deception!"
Re:Bombing a city is ok ? (Score:4, Informative)
Funny that they illustrate this report with the actual shelling of the city of Gorlovka by the Ukrainian army. Yeah, actual civilians being bombed by their US sponsored government to the complete indifference of the western media. I guess those reporters can't be bothered to point that out.
Yeah, the Ukrainian military should instead write a kind letter asking the separatists to go back to Russia.
Wow, so you think it's alright to bomb civilians once they're been labeled 'separatists'. One can justify pretty much any atrocities with your thinking.
It's always amusing how the Putin apologists bend over to misinterpret sentences.
The civilians are not separatists, the separatists are Russians who illegally entered Ukraine, with weapons, and took control of several cities. The local component to this 'separatist movement' is largely comprised of local criminals looking to cash in.
The intention is quite obviously not to bomb civilians, but the armed Russians who are occupying the city. The Russians set up bases in residential areas and on top of apartment buildings precisely because they know the Ukrainians are reluctant to fire at their own citizens.
The civilian deaths that result from Ukrainian attempts to attack the separatists is tragic, but arguably less tragic than leaving the civilians of Donetsk and Luhansk to live under a fascist autocracy run by Russian cossasks and local criminals.
You might wonder that I used the word 'fascist' since the Russians are so fond of using it to describe the Ukrainians. I use it because in this case it is accurate, I can't think of a country today that could be better described as fascist than Putin's Russia. That you would defend such an enterprise then seek to blame the victims for the resulting human toll is disgusting beyond words.
Re: (Score:3)
This imagery is from unclassified civilian satellites. The early-warning satellites that detect IR emissions from rockets and explosions a) don't produce sexy high-res imagery, and b) releasing said imagery would expose our capabilities.
Re:Not so bad (Score:4, Insightful)
And I cannot wait to learn who really shot down MH 17.
I usually don't take sides, but it must be the side who doesn't let anybody else approach and destroys the evidence?