Monday, March 17, 2014

Crimea River

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday that Crimea's vote to secede from Ukraine and join Russia "would never be recognized" by the United States, as he and other top U.S. officials warned Moscow against making further military moves toward southern and eastern Ukraine.

The two leaders spoke after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in favor of the split in a referendum that the United States, European Union and others say violates the Ukrainian constitution and international law and took place in the strategic peninsula under duress of Russian military intervention.   HERE is the full article.

I don't know about you, but it appears Obama's treating the Crimean people the same way he's treating us.  They voted for this, but he doesn't recognize it?   I don't know enough to care one way or the other if Crimea goes with Russia or not, except any country that sides with Putin like this doesn't impress me.  Still, they VOTED.   And yes, there was probably plenty of 'duress' but did they hold Russian guns to their heads as they voted?

What do you think of the people of Crimea going with Putin and what do you think of Obama and the EU's coming sanctions?  The title of the article I linked from is "Obama REJECTS Crimea vote."  Really?   Can we DO that?  And how's it done?  We just omit"c/o Russia" when we address mail to them?

z

114 comments:

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Two points. I know nothing of the Ukrainian Constitution, so their vote is likely illegal under that document. Second, the 'nationalization' of Ukrainian state property is nothing less than theft.

I have no sympathy for the Crimeans. If they desired so badly to be Russian, I'm not sure what was stopping them from moving.

Dave Miller said...

It is my understanding that there was no No vote option. Both options were effectively a vote to join Russia.

Dave Miller said...

The US has a long history of disputing even open and free elections if we do not like the outcome, so this response should not be seen as anything new from us policy wise.

Waylon said...

Funny how the western media, the so-called voices of the "free world" conveniently omit the obvious precedent event that led to the secession vote in the Crimes—the putsch that replaced an elected President of the Ukraine with a hand-picked stooge that now represents the whole country.

Arseniy Yatsenyuk (aka "Yats" was apparently the choice of those that destabilized (the United States of America and their "allies" in bringing on the next war) the country to bring this situation to its present state.

Waylon said...

Supposedly it was Russia that leaked the above linked and taped phone call of the representative of the American State Department. Funny, too, how this gets no mention in the American and western media, no?

Libtard Smasher said...


What? Sorry Dave Miller I look at the broad picture. I don't have the liberal blinders on.
Reid is doing what his third world "leader" and dictator asked him to do.Sorry Dave Miller but the threat we have here in the US isn't from abroad it's in the White House.

sue hanes said...

Z - I like the saying you have on the side: Never lose hope you never know what tomorrow may bring.

It gives me a good feeling to read that.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"....the putsch that replaced an elected President of the Ukraine with a hand-picked stooge that now represents the whole country."

A large difference in your analogy is where a visibly oppressive kleptocrat with ties to an external state that we would never allow, was overthrown internally....as many here may opine for in our own nation.

The Crimean 'seccession' event, was wholly stage managed by that same external state, under a de facto occupation.

Duckys here said...

CI, you are correct that the vote is not legally recognized.

Unfortunately,since the recent overthrow, the government in Kiev is also questionable.

A Tea Party Patriot said...

Oh Boy, Obama just announced sanctions against Russia! I bet that they are shaking in their boots.

Another slap on the Bear's wrist.

Silverfiddle said...

The larger point in all of this is the complete collapse of a coherent US foreign policy.

Why isn't anyone calling for Mr. Heinz Kerry to resign?

Our intelligence apparatus is too focused on spying on Americans and chasing goat herders, and our diplomatic corps is incompetent, almost criminally so.

We are off the rails. George Bush wielded a big stick and bellowed at the top of his lungs and didn't give a damn what other countries thought.

Barack Obama threw the big stick in the wood chipper and whispered sweet nothings into the world's ear.

Can we get some balance here? Is it too much to ask for some adult leadership and basic competence in our government?

Political Junky said...

I don't even see how the administration can expect to do anything with sanctions. They never work and with Russia, it’s meaning less. The left was so worried about the world not liking us under Bush...they still don't like us, and in fact they hate us, and now with this president they don't respect us either! So what are our goals here? We never had any interest in Ukraine. Our goals have always been to help defend our interests in liberty and freedom..Shedding more American blood in a war we can't win?. ..Who knows, Obama's goals may be different.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"Can we get some balance here? Is it too much to ask for some adult leadership and basic competence in our government?"

Heh....I think you know that the answer to that is a resounding no. The political paradigm...the duopoly...prevents sane policy from being practiced. Reason takes a back seat to rhetorical hyperventilating at the political opposition....and our posture towards the rest of the world, reflects that.

Duckys here said...

It's not as if there isn't an ethnic separatist alive and well.

Catalonia and Scotland vote next.

Dave Miller said...

Fair words Silver...

Waylon said...

@CI

Are you saying that you're okay with the US State Department backing the putsch that installed a neo-Nazi style stooge to replace the elected President. That he wasn't elected by the majority of Ukrainians that voted? He may have been a flawed choice in your eyes but was that the intent of those that framed the Constitution of the United States of America?

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
skudrunner said...

I am glad the administration is going to put sanctions in place against Russia. It has worked so well getting Cuba in line and has really aided the Cuban people.

From the news it looks like the killing in Syria and Venezuela are over, that tough stance by de prez has had an effect.

Impertinent said...


@CI:

"The political paradigm...the duopoly.."


You're killing me CI....were you an officer...LOL

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Waylon - I'm saying that when choosing between a Moscow stooge and far-right wing stooge, if forced, I would back the stooge placed into power by a popular internal uprising....over an external occupation. I would back the sovereignty of a nation over the enrichment of that sovereignty by a foreign power.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"....were you an officer...LOL"

Not a chance! I would never have been somebody's PowerPoint monkey.

Waylon said...

@CI

" I would back the stooge placed into power by a popular internal uprising....over an external occupation."

I disagree that it was a "popular internal uprising". It was more external agitation pretending to back some internal opposition then abruptly turning to install a "chosen favourite" when the opportunity presented itself when the elected President left.

Seems that Russia is more popular in some parts of the Ukraine. Yatsenyuk is more popular in parts of the Ukraine that supported the German invasion of WWII. But that figures in some bizarre way, I guess.

Waylon said...

Catalonia and Scotland vote next.

Ducky, there's one much closer to Beantown than Scotland or Catalonia. Quebec is voting on that same issue—Secession from Canada on April 7, 2014.

Better polish up your army boots if you're planning on being part of the "occupation" to restore the status quo.

Actually that's a hell of a lot closer to home than the Ukraine. What will Uncle Sugar do there?

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Waylon - "I disagree that it was a "popular internal uprising."

I certainly concede that in this case, it is a difficultly defined label. I think the Ukrainian elections scheduled for May 25th will be the benchmark for how popular and how legitimate this regime change was.

From an academic perspective, I'm enjoying the similarities in our responses to both the Crimean issue and the Georgian issue of 2008...and how those similarities are being exploited and/or perverted by the political bobbleheads.

Sam Huntington said...

It is certainly convenient to blame muttonheads for a dearth of cogent foreign policy, but we have to keep returning to that sad, sad fact that there are consequences to voting idiots into the presidency. Nor can we lay the blame entirely at the feet of the under-educated voter. Who decided that Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, Romney offer viable candidacies? Who decided that the world is ready for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama? Who imagined that Terry McAuliffe, Howard Dean, Tim Kaine, or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz \or Michael Steele, or Reince Priebus have any business leading their respective caucuses?

Garbage in, Garbage out ...

Jim at Asylum Watch said...

Let's see. Obama is supporting al Qaeda in Syria and a Neo-Nazi in Ukraine. Excue my language but if Putin is an ass, then Obama is an asshole!

Duckys here said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Impertinent said...

@CI:

"if forced, I would back the stooge placed into power by a popular internal uprising."

Really...Trump thumps Obama?

Z said...

I had to do a translation thing to get this but found it beneficial to this conversation:
Here is information on the March 16 ballot:

1. Description
×
The ballot paper is in three languages. Russian, Ukranian and Crimean Tatar - the language of the indigenous Tatar community of Crimea. The opening sentences explain that the ballot paper is for use in the referendum on the future of the Crimea set for 16 March.

First option
×
Voters are directed to check one of two boxes corresponding to two questions. The first asks: do you support reunifying Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

Second option
×
The second question asked is: Do you support the restoration of the 1992 Crimean constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?

(The wording "restoring the 1992 constitution" does not make it clear whether this refers to the original version of the constitution, declaring Crimea an independent state, or the later amended version, in which Crimea was an autonomous republic within Ukraine).


Warning
×
The ballot paper carries a warning in all three languages that choosing both available options makes it invalid.


That's important and I'm hoping we get some comments on that...

thanks for all your input; fascinating, if not all wrong or right!

Duckys here said...

Our Lady of the Perpetual Martini explains all.

"Not invading countries is not a foreign policy."

I'm not sure which countries she is advocating invading.

Let's try Iran or North Korea. That should put that nasty talk about military cuts on the shelf for a long time.

Sam Huntington said...

Ducky, do have a reading comprehension deficiency? Maybe you should go back and read that article again. Slowly this time. Maybe read the words aloud. And then think about them before you open your yap.

Waylon said...

Obama is supporting a neo-Nazi?


What would you find unusual about that, Ducky?

Guess you'll have broaden your horizons and try another "news" outlet than MSNBC. Never hurts to do your own research and there are plenty of references to the putsch and neo-Nazism in the Ukraine.

Duckys here said...

Waylon by way of comparison... illegally selling arms to radical Islamist regimes who are sworn enemies of the United States, then funneling the proceeds to death squads in South America, then in turn giving giving chemical weapons--and tacit approval for their subsequent use--to a dictator at war with the aforementioned Islamists... now that is foreign policy. I mean, at the very least, Obama could explore a little illegal cocaine trafficking.

----
Now, just what neo-Nazi regime is he supporting?

Waylon said...

Now, just what neo-Nazi regime is he supporting?

---

Good God, man. The topic of this blog post by Ms. Z is the Ukraine, but you're all over the map.

Duckys here said...

What neo-Nazi regime is he supporting?

Frida Van der Wiener said...

Don't answer him, Waylon. Give the nasty little leftwing duck a taste of his own crap!

Frida Van der Wiener said...

This is revisionist history from the Beantown Bolshevik:

"Waylon by way of comparison... illegally selling arms to radical Islamist regimes who are sworn enemies of the United States, then funneling the proceeds to death squads in South America, then in turn giving giving chemical weapons--and tacit approval for their subsequent use--to a dictator at war with the aforementioned Islamists..."

******************

Reagan fed arms to both Iraq and Iran, keeping them both tied up fighting and killing each other so we didn't have to contribute our blood and treasure to the admirable project.

The money Ollie North made (when was the last time anyone in government MADE money, btw), did not go to 'South American Death Squads.' It funded the anti-communist Contras, who ended up unseating your violent heroes, the Sandinistas, headed up by child rapist Danny Ortega.

Only a bean-brained, beantown bolshevik would think any of that was a bad idea.

Z said...

Frida, this is a guy who still think's Obama was only following Bush's "fast and furious" policy so what are we so upset about?
I've explained it countless times but it doesn't comfortably fit the 'hate Bush' agenda.

Z said...

This Ukraine/Crimea/Russia thing is tougher than most of us think; who knows where Putin will go next? I personally don't think he will, but he COULD....
do we sit and watch it happen?

Do we give money we don't have to Ukraine to 'buck them up' (pardon the unintentional pun?)

Our media is constantly displaying American dirty laundry in our 'free press'.....is Putin just going to play along until we have to send precious lives to defend against him and break ourselves entirely, financially, in the effort?

he's clearly WAAAAAAAY more cunning and smart than Obama who not only has no foreign training but even fires experienced generals who give him information he doesn't want.

what can we expect now?

Mustang said...

According to a news bulletin, Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed an order that recognizes Crimea as a sovereign state, Russian media reports, after region voted to break off from Ukraine.

Where is Obama?

Glad you asked. He’s in the Lincoln bedroom weeping.

Z said...

Mustang....just thinking of him IN the Lincoln Bedroom gives me chills. The cut of this man is so inferior, sadly. How I WISH we could admire and support this president.

Did you see the ballot instructions I found that were on Crimea's ballots? Sounds like a clear choice to me...pretty cut and dried.

Then here comes Obama who DOESN'T RECOGNIZE it.
Big surprise.

Let's see what the EU does; I'd leave it to them, or the UN, at this point.

Let US step back for a change.
Yup...now that I think of it, I'd say that if I were Obama;

"The United States of America feels that this election was problematic and feels that the problem must be tackled by the EU and the UN, both of which are formed in part just for that purpose."

end of responsibility.

How wrong AM I, folks?

Mustang said...

I agree that the ballot appeared to be straightforward ... and one of the first things I heard this morning is that there were “concerns” about how the election was conducted. Sour grapes, perhaps?

Meanwhile, the EU is following Obama’s lead and imposing sanctions against individuals involved in the movement inside Crimea. It is a childish behavior, but I think the EU has to be seen doing something. Later, when no one is looking, the EU will cancel sanctions. This will leave Obama sulking, of course.

You are not wrong, Z ...

Z said...

mustang..'sanctions against INDIVIDUALS?'.....how so?

the rabble rousers? Take their apartment away? Deny them asparagus at the green grocer? :-)

what kind of sanctions on individuals?

Mustang said...

From The Guardian:

"The US and the European Union have retaliated over the Crimea referendum by targeting sanctions against Russians and Ukrainians.

European foreign ministers imposed EU-wide sanctions on Monday against 21 Russian and Ukrainian officials linked to unrest in Crimea. Washington followed up an hour later with a list of its own, targeting seven top Russian government officials and politicians and four Crimea-based separatist leaders accused of undermining the "democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine".

"Barack Obama is to visit Europe next week for discussion of the crisis with allies. Speaking to journalists at the White House, he said the new sanctions increase the costs on the Russian government for its actions"

I think this means that none of these individuals can visit Disney Land. You know ... a time out.

They are so laughing at the US right now.

Z said...

Exactly, Mustang! A sanction against an individual? WHO CARES? He can't come to the States? Or if he does, he doesn't have an ambassador "get out of jail free" license plate?
He's denied the best table at Rao's or LeCirque? Gee.....:)

Is this a way of looking tough but doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on our part?

Then Kerry spends hours talking with the Russians and nothing happens. Bravo, Johnny.....I thought you could be more 'flexible' since your boss won the last election.
What did that mean, exactly.

Suddenly, no leftwingers here...typical.

Z said...

HERE'S THE DEAL AS I SEE IT:

Could the WHITE HOUSE have said nothing throughout this Ukraine/Crimea situation?

I think not

Could the WHITE HOUSE have not threatened?

yes...it's the finger-wagging threats that have us looking weak right now

Could the president and Kerry have come out and said they were leaving this to the EU and UN?

yes

CAN they say they 'reject' the election when it looks like the election was fair and square, according to the exact ballot verbage I found (see my comment somewhere above)

I think not

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z, unless a Constitution specifically allows for such a plebiscite......is a vote to secede really "fair and square"?

Sam Huntington said...

CI

So then, your argument is that unless the Constitution allows something, people may never do it? How then did people ever write a constitution before there was a constitution? I’m not convinced that the terms “fair and square” appear in a libertarian dictionary ...

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I'm saying that if such a plebiscite is illegal under the law of the nation....how is it to be characterized as "fair and square"?. Would the seccession of Arizona under martial occupation by Mexico, be considered such?

Sam Huntington said...

It is the right (or duty) of virtuous men to overthrow any government that acts against their common interests.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I don't disagree.....but I don't see that case being made in favor of the Crimeans. An oppressive regime has to exist for the axiom to be true.

Sam Huntington said...

No, it doesn’t have to be an oppressive regime, as in thugs stepping on your neck; it only has to be a regime—a government structure that does not pursue the will of the people. And if the will of the people is to change that structure, vis-à-vis withdrawing from Ukraine, then those people not only have the right to do so, they have to duty to do so.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

So is my Arizona analogy legitimate, given similar circumstances? And if not, why not?

Sam Huntington said...

If I understand your analogy, a clear majority of the people in Arizona is of Mexican descent; they have invited the Mexican Army to occupy Arizona and help them achieve separation from the United States. Is that right?

If it is the will of the people to secede from the United States, then I think they have that right according to this political philosophy. It is another question whether the US government would allow them to do that. In another three years, the US will not have an army large enough to stop secession—or the Mexican army either, for that matter.

If people were forever trapped in the bubble that is their nation state of birth, then we should be part of the British Commonwealth today.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Yes, that was my analogy, so thank you for the answer. I tend to think most would disagree with you would a similar event occur in our own nation, regarding the legitimacy of both an occupation and annexation/secession.

I'm a bit perplexed by your assessment of the US military in three years. The effectiveness of a military in this era is not measured solely by it's size, but also by it's lethality. I would disagree that the measure of both in another three years would equate to impotency.

Z said...

CI, yes, I think so.
One of the definitions for plebiscite is about self-determination, is it not? For some reason, the Crimeans self determined.
By the way, we're going to get judgmental (and HE is) with our own president changing laws every Wednesday morning?


Sam, I think I agree with you. If AZ wanted to go back to MX, "adios, amigos"...
What are we going to do, threaten
'individuals' with sanctions? What's the sanction?...can't get their favorite taco at the local bodega? I put it that way because of the point made above by Mustang (and me, sort of) about sanctioning individuals;

how DOES one sanction individuals like the EU is threatening to do to a handful of Crimean bigwigs who backed Russia?

Sam Huntington said...

Yes, we should all be perplexed. Size and lethality is one consideration, capability and will are something else entirely. Based on what I see going on inside the DoD, which is social engineering at the expense of combat efficiency, I do not share your confidence in fielding an adequate defense.

I have to tell you that your analogy made me feel uncomfortable as it forces me to acknowledge the racism of America’s Southwest. No white American would hesitate to shoot rebellious “Mexicans” or other hyphenated Americans of color. The next time, perhaps we should instead consider Vermont, Michigan, or Minnesota desiring to become part of the British Commonwealth once more.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I agree....capability and will are also to be counted. But still working within a DoD agency, and supporting the warfighter now as a Contractor.....I have not witnessed the feared charge of 'social engineering' [also a charged term], nor it's effect on combat efficiency.

This could of course change, if exceptions to efficiency and capability were changed by an act such as mandating inferior females to Combat Arms [by which I mean females who cannot meet the minimum standards, not that females are generally inferior].

Sam Huntington said...

That is precisely what I am talking about, CI. With Ordierno bragging about making these changes for the good of society, I have grave concerns about the future of our defense structure. Here is a man I once respected who now reveals himself as a White House lackey ...

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I'm less concerned. I've been through a fair share of experiments in quality of performance [in the Army at least]. I share no small amount of caution, but I do not think the worst will come to pass. At most, I see perhaps, females being admitted to the Combat Arms in another decade....but event then, only those who meet the universal standards of performance. There have simply been too many trials that show lowering standards in this way, specific to gender, have been a disaster.

Z said...

SAM, "No white American would hesitate..." WHAT? I'd hesitate!

CI; so there are 'too many' trials on things like women in combat but you think it will come to pass in spite of those trials?

Duckys here said...

@z ---
Could the WHITE HOUSE have not threatened?

yes...it's the finger-wagging threats that have us looking weak right now

----
Was he supposed to threaten to invade Ukraine?

Impertinent said...

@Z:

".I thought you could be more 'flexible' since your boss won the last election."

Putin took that literally and has bent him over the kitchen table.

And DeBlotto of NYC has invited Putin to march in the saint paddy day parade next year as a grand marshall. But knowing Putin...I don't think he'd like the rainbow flags.

Duckys here said...

Exactly, Mustang! A sanction against an individual? WHO CARES?

-------
Finding a way to make things uncomfortable for the oligarchs is about the only way to bring any effective pressure.
Have London put a freeze on their accounts and stop their money laundering (sorry HSBC) and you might find them more willing to negotiate.

Duckys here said...


Sam, I think I agree with you. If AZ wanted to go back to MX, "adios, amigos"...

------What about southern California?

Adios, L.A.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z, trials can dissuade "good ideas" by their failures, just as surely as they can proceed on successes.

Sam Huntington said...

But CI ... we cannot laud the DoD leadership for knowingly injuring young women to test a leftist notion. Nor should we get these young women killed, or their male squad members killed, for no other reason than to validate another looney notion from the fringe left.

@Z ... you know I didn't mean everyone.

Z said...

Ducky, so it's fine to just threaten? Maybe that's why we're losing our standing in the world.
The world's probably clamoring for the Cowboy Bush again.

As for sanctions against individuals; closing accounts, etc..makes sense. Good point. Unless they have private clandestine accounts all over the place.
And yes...California could easily go. As if I hadn't thought of that when typing my comment? :-) "Gee, duh.."
But I don't hear Californians discussing turning on Hispanics nearly as much as I hear Hispanics talking about taking us over; stories of our cops stopping speeding cars and finding them replete with guns and ammunition, etc. And, of course, we keep voting for those weak on immigration. Liberals, of course. But then you'll consider me MEAN for wanting to uphold our laws; I know :-)


Imp; Putin certainly did take that literally...so did the Americans who gave it some thought. Unlike those who voted for him again anyway. Man, the long list of warnings Obama gave us (Joe the Plumber remarks, F&F's outrageous and stupid malfunction, "you have to pass the bill to know what's in it", etc etc etc) should have awakened more Americans than it did, huh?



CI, we have women in combat now, do we not, come to think of it??

Z said...

SAM, thanks :-)

I DO see women on the news who seem to be in combat; am I wrong?
That's as bad as the women in subs in the navy! Young people stuck in close quarters ...now our DoD has to pay for babies born out of wedlock, etc etc...and they STILL haven't changed the rules!

Sam Huntington said...

In today's hostile environment, combat can occur in the rear logistics areas as well as on the forward edge of the battle area ... so in that sense, women are "in combat." But driving a truck is not the same thing as being in a rifle squad. There are few similarities, and we have seen no serious effort in the existing army to train women to become proficient with the service rifle. So to me, at least, a decision to place women in the infantry is worrisome.

Kid said...

Lip service. His zombie supporters will come away thinking he actually did something. They never follow up on things. it's why they're stupid.

In other news, Many Americans don't recognize the election of obama.
So there.

Kid said...

PS @Z, I'm with you. Personally, I don't care what happens in Crimea, that I want to spend money on it or even read about it with a child in the white house who surely knows more about reading teleprompters than he does about 'foreign policy'.

As do his staff of children advisors.

obama's foreign policy consists of being an appeasing toothless blowhard.

Z said...

SAM, good point about combat happening anywhere...if there is an attack on trucks driven by women, that's combat; very well said.

Kid....Cool..very cool. WE don't recognize OBAMA's election. SO THERE :-)

Ed Bonderenka said...

@Sam: My niece (adopted daughter) was a mechanic in Iraq. Drove trucks in convoys, yet carried a SAW, was marksman and trained to clear rooms!
Not exactly untrained.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Ft Lost in the Woods has mock villages, and the women train there.
Always made me wonder how they justified training them in assault.

Ed Bonderenka said...

There is nothing this metro president can do now, but live with the consequences of his last five years.
If there had been more resolve and strength earlier, we may not see such agression today.
He, however, lives in a world different than ours. A world of the future where nations do not war, so do not need strong militaries.
We, however, live in this world.

Impertinent said...

If women are allowed in combat now...why do we not have them integrated into the civilian side of "combat"? Say, by allowing women to get all suited up, shoulder pads, helmets and all...and become full backs , running backs or line backers too?

As soon as they get slammed, dropped onto their heads, tackled and crushed by three, 300 pound defensive tackles...they suffer a broken collar bone, maybe a concussion, a broken leg with a referee in attendance....we'd all go...NO fair...poor little girl...we'd go ape shit and boo, right?

So now...they're in one of our lovely "stans" all suited up with kevlar, helmets, M16's...but no referees anymore...to be shot at, captured or killed? And subjected to many other horrors by the enemy. Why do we accept one....but not the other? Why do we not realize that this social experiment can only end up one way?

Are we all OK with the rape, murder and torture of our women soldiers?

Combat isn't a GD locker room or a playground with 50 yard lines.

Just sayin'.

Kid said...

Most excellent point IMP.

Impertinent said...

@Kid:


And I have to add that anyone who finds this acceptable, that their wives, girl friends, nieces or daughters are subjected to this and think it's...OK...for lack of a better word...are totally full of shit.

We have a history of reverence for our women...and respect and admiration. So now we want to expose them and sacrifice just ONE of them...to some feminazi bullshit, "equality", diversity quotas?

Impertinent said...

Mustang..CI..mustang forever, skudrunner and silverfiddle....weigh in..come on men...I want to hear from combat vets, or any service vet if they're willing to put their women into combat.

Kid said...

IMP, While I'm not going to deny a woman freedom of choice(That's God's greatest gift to us and the founding principle of our country), I see your point and would at least acknowledge that women who choose to do such things must meet the current standards of ability. Hauling a load or equipment, and ammo up 300 yards of mountain for example. Day after day.

And I deny no woman a career life.

But I do believe in general this whole women's lib movement was initiated by the communist activist subversion to break up the American Family Unit. One of the main things to put the FUBAR on our country.

I will say if a couple wants to have children, then someone has to stay home and raise them and not send them off to the communist indoctrination centers known as daycare, and preschool, head start - etc.
You make that choice, you accept the responsibility in my opinion.

Z said...

Imp, I totally agree with you.
There are women who desperately want combat but I just plain don't get it. There is no way a woman can compete with a strong, heavily built man. If she was heavy enough to compete with him, she'd not be allowed in the military, anyway, right? "too heavy?"

I think our society loses a LOT by putting round holes in square pegs, so to speak.


Ed, I've heard of some amazingly well trained/talented markswomen, too. REALLY good shots, and in the military. Otherwise, too, of course.

Impertinent said...

@Kid:

"And I deny no woman a career life..."

I would Kid...death by high velocity bullets fired by an enemy combatant is one "career" position I'd deny to any woman. And I don't care how damn prepared or qualified they are.

The men who allow this..are the weakest, silliest, most misogynistic assholes on the planet. And these men shouldn't be allowed to command a KP kitchen.

Z said...

Kid; BRAVO. I couldn't agree with you more on that.

If a woman wants to do combat, she simply MUST be judged EXACTLY like a man. Not a BIT of a handicap should be offered. Same as the police force or fire dept.., in my opinion; otherwise, someone's going to get hurt because she couldn't handle it.
That goes for a guy who isn't up to it, too, by the way.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

Thanks. I don't care if a woman thinks she's "butch" enough to carry a 160 pound backpack with her unit...she still has the DNA..XX..period. I'd accept her as as a Lt. general...like the female commander of the AF academy...but not a sub...or a ship..or a platoon.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

"Same as the police force or fire dept...."


But they are NOT...men need to carry a 200 pound body...NOT women. Men have to do 10 pull-ups...women ONE. Now...when you're in a burning building ( or in combat ) who do you want to depend on to pull your ass out of a fire...or the line of fire?

Z said...

Imp; of course they are as smart as any commander anywhere. We're specifically talking combat and I don't agree with it.
Women have held white color military positions for years.

Kid said...

IMP, What about the IDF?

But, I disagree anyway. if she qualifies and wants to do it, then the only thing left is unit cohesion considerations.

Is she going to cause undue distraction (saving her life, not sexual) on the unit (tho sexual should be considered too).

I'm thinking a soldier wants to save a buddie's life (lie on a grenade) just as much as a potential woman in the unit. Is it different?

Z said...

I guess I'm not making myself clear..sorry.
What I said was she SHOULD be expected to do exactly what a man does before being accepted to do any job, military or not, that might put her or her partner in danger. Bad enough when two partners are men and strong and have to defend themselves against a might advocate...add a woman who can't do what they can do to protect her or him, and that's just plain not fair to anybody.

Z said...

Kid...Israeli defense Forces? IDF?


"qualifies and wants to do it"....if she can do everything exactly as a male candidate...why not? Though, as a woman, why ANY woman would want to do combat is way beyond me. Man, too, come to think of it!
The sexual part is very problematic and seems to be ignored by the military today; particularly the navy, where young women are getting pregnant by other sailors and it's causing big problems. .. particularly for those young husbands and wives left back on land!
We'll have to build men and women's latrines, etc..showers...how STUPID. $$$$

Impertinent said...

@Kid:

The IDF? Show me how many sabra's were in combat against the Egyptians and were killed...in combat? Zip baby.

You know where women excel? As undercover operatives...spies...intelligence gathering. In WW2 we had women like Marelene Detrich and many others that made exceptional spies. Guess why? Cause men are weak...that's why.

Kid said...

Z, IDF, yes, Israeli Defense Force.

Well, allowing women in combat is again, part of the communist agenda as far as I'm concerned too, but I give a lot of consideration to free will.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

With all due respect...really...women are not...men...there are huge differences and women...at least 99.99% of them,,,due to DNA will always be women. So...lets say we have one women in 10,000 that can "equal" a man? We accept that one...or allow 10,000 to be put in jeopardy? Just to be...."accepting" and not...the BS phrase of being called...bigoted.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

"articularly the navy, where young women are getting pregnant by other sailors and it's causing big problems."


I have two idiotic, stupid nieces that have done that. After a year in the Navy...they change their minds...both got knocked up...Yes...KNOCKED up on warships...and collect a very pretty penny monthly today...and who pays these two tramps...? Yes...tramps.

Kid said...

IMP, IDF. Well, I don't know actually. Is it different now? What if they're fighting on 3 or 4 fronts?

Also See above comment to Z, (communist crap).

Well, it's happening. Women on submarines. No privacy There.

Some women will be infantry. Practical experience will decide if we have leaders that can think past their teleprompters. If not?


Starship Troopers? (The movie w/ Denise Richards)

Z said...

Imp, I'm not sure how you're reading my comments, but I'm totally in agreement with you..

Kid, I think free will stops when you're endangering your partner in the military or fire department, etc. It's YOUR free will to be less strong and able, but you're putting someone else at risk.

Z said...

Imp...I'm so sorry about your nieces. Yup, WE are paying. Nice job, GIRLS.
grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Kid said...

Z, I agree, but the first thing I said was that they have to meet (current) standards (should have said pre-female standards because maybe they are already lowered)
then as long as they are not endangering anyone purely from the female aspect.

Impertinent said...

@Z:

I know you are. But the question...the original one still BEGS to be answered.

And my nieces? Unfortunately...it;s the two kids that are more phooked up than their mothers...which is a lot. The two Navy dads are doing their best...but they're ( the nieces ) sucking the life and blood out of these guys.

Impertinent said...

@kid:

Sabras's are not in combat. The Jews revere their women...more than we do.

I know...I'm half a Jew. Through osmosis.

Impertinent said...

I adore women as much as Adam did Eve...even though she did him wrong.

Impertinent said...

Shit...I started too damn late.

For the east coasters apparently.

Ms. Z....maybe we can carry this over?

Impertinent said...

@Z:

"The sexual part is very problematic and seems to be ignored by the military today.."

Not at all. Look at the Brigadier General accused of "rape". The poor bastard had a three year relationship with a female Captain...THREE years! And now she claims she was assaulted?

The mans 27 year career is ruined....an commander of the 82nd Airborne too.

And in the plea bargain deal...she was found to be a damn liar.

Baysider said...

Ducky actually took the very words out of my mouth - about what we could have threatened to do.

"Finding a way to make things uncomfortable for the oligarchs is about the only way to bring any effective pressure.
Have London put a freeze on their accounts etc...."

Unfortunately, we didn't. And those guys are smart, moving fast to transfer assets out of the reach of potential U.S. sanctions.

Z, you asked what can we expect from Putin next? Peggy Noonan's fine assessment is worth chewing on (plus her clarity and grace with the language makes her such a joy to read). http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304185104579437630685108064

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Sam - "But CI ... we cannot laud the DoD leadership for knowingly injuring young women to test a leftist notion. Nor should we get these young women killed, or their male squad members killed, for no other reason than to validate another looney notion from the fringe left."

While various political factions may use issues such as this for their own ends, I don't ascribe the fundamental notion of allowing competant females serving alongside men, to be an intrinsically leftist notion.

I don't pretend that this would come to pass anytime soon, but rather the natural course of social evolution that we've been traveling on [suffrage, legal equality, etc...] will bring us to a point in the future where women and men will enjoy the same challenges and benefits in demanding environs. The key to success is to ensure that fundamental standards of competancy are not degraded in a false pursuit of equality.

Always On Watch said...

Please see this opinion piece at CNN: Obama can't have it both ways on Crimea. Worth your time.

Z said...

Mustang and everybody:

Boy, did I nail it on the ridiculousness of sanctions on individuals? (see above!) Even CNN covered it a little ; FOX did, but they tell the whole story, including the tweet where a Russian guy called Obama a PRANKSTER for being dumb enough not to have realized not all of them have assets he can "Sanction!" WE knew that; why doesn't the WHITE HOUSE?
yup....Mustang, did you see that coverage? :-)
It felt odd to ME...and I'm a middle aged woman living in Santa MOnica, California...but our diplomats and PRESIDENT decided to sanction individuals!? Boy, is the PUtin bunch throwing it back in Obama's face!
I so hope they realize WE are not HIM !!

Liberalmann said...

Yawn....Bush said noting when Outing invaded Georgia. Bush was weak! Bush emboldened Putin! Lol!

Kid said...

Z, You got that right. I read a short piece today from a stock Market soothsayer, and chief strategist at a big wall street house. He said the antics by obama make him feel like he's in Kindergarten. (how many times have I wrote that over 6 years)

But this is a guy who deals heavily with the public and everything he says also reflects on his firm. No small comment flung out into space by an opinion flinger.

So, just saying how right you are..

Baysider said...

Z, individual sanctions have to sanction the right individuals. Seven guys aren't going to amount to much. But 150 mobsters .... maybe there's some leverage.

We have gas in the development to sell. It's not a live threat. But Obama could make strong and real push for this to show we will turn the economic engine loose on Russia again by threatening to take away their big source of revenue from natural gas. Repositioning tanks and ships on the chess board helps, but only when you look credible doing it. BHO does not, sadly. Dangerous in his hands.

And for Liberalman's comment: I've been saying for ages, "and Obama had George Bush's mistake to learn from and still screwed it up!" Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME.

Always On Watch said...

Liberalmann spewed: Bush said noting when Outing invaded Georgia.

Wrong.

GWB put sanctions in place. Obama removed those sanctions -- thus emboldening Putin.

Z said...

Kid, thanks./.and yes, you HAVE used the term KINDERGARTEN for a long time now; and you are RIGHT, too.

Z said...

and not ONE kudo to my title of this post.

alas. :-)

Always On Watch said...

Z,
I didn't offer you any kudos here about your title. But I did tell my Current Events students about it. **grin**