Well, while everyone is watching the news and banter about NBA basketball teams, race-baiting, and minimum wage versus 1% class warfare socialist rhetoric, maybe we need to turn down the noise and look at some of what is going on globally for a moment.
Let's talk turkey, no let's talk Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea instead today - let me start off this dialogue.
You see, there was an interesting article in the New York Times on April 30, 2014 titled; "Ukraine Says That Militants Won the East," by Allison Smale and Andrew Roth which stated; "It is by now a well-established pattern.
Armed, masked men in their 20s to 40s storm a public building of high symbolic value in a city somewhere in eastern Ukraine, evict anyone still there, seize weapons and ammunition, throw up barricades and proclaim themselves the rulers of a people's republic.
It is not clear who is in charge or how the militias are organized.
Through such tactics, a few thousand pro-Russian militants have seized buildings in about a dozen cities, effectively establishing control over much of an industrial region of about 6.
5 million nestled against the Russian border.
" Answer me this: the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in trade for being protected by the USA and NATO, but now Obama has basically said that treaty won't be enforced and Kerry is looking for a new treaty - covering debt for Ukraine, loaning more.
Maybe the treaty and promises of a nation say a little bit about the integrity of the leadership.
If the Ukraine gave up its nukes, and now is challenged by Russia, they lost by doing so, thus, why would any other nation ever give up their nukes, in fact, they'd be better off to get some nukes as a perceptional based last defense, like the stinger on a poisonous creature - saying don't screw with me.
What do you think other nations are thinking right now about all this? Iran for instance, I bet Russia drives a bunch of nuclear weapons over to Iran now, and then Iran can continue to neutralize all its enriched uranium in trade for released economic sanctions and international banking flows.
And what happens now with Belarus and Poland, if the EU and USA turn their backs on Ukraine in their time of need what does this say - I'd be worried about a volunteer reuniting of large chunks of the former USSR - Sun Tzu style, without a shot fired, merely through intimidation and show of strength.
Think about that for a minute, think I am wrong for pointing out the obvious? If you don't think that these issues have global impact on our allies and the trust factor we have with them, you might want to read another article, same day as the NYTs piece, but this one in Reuters "Philippines says U.
S.
obligated to help in case of attack," by Manuel Mogato, Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Editing by Michael Perry and Robert Birsel which stated; "The US has a treaty obligation to help the Philippines in case of an attack on its territory or armed forces in the South China Sea, the Philippine foreign minister said on Wednesday, rejecting questioning of a security pact.
The US and the Philippines on Monday signed a 10-year Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement allowing U.
S.
forces wider access to Philippine bases and to position ships, aircraft, equipment and troops for maritime security.
The deal was testimony to an "ironclad" U.
S.
commitment to defend its oldest Southeast Asian ally, U.
S.
President Barack Obama told troops from both countries this week while on a visit to Manila.
" Well, I am not sure about you but I'd ask if this means that the US would go to war with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea all on the same day? I mean we sure have a lot of "red lines" and promises going on by this administration, some of which it could not fulfill if push came to shove.
I think our administration is not being taken seriously by our adversaries anymore and our allies must be asking the same questions, wouldn't you if you were a US ally at this point? So much for Catsup diplomacy - what message are we sending in that bottle, a bloody one I fear.
Think on that.
Let's talk turkey, no let's talk Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea instead today - let me start off this dialogue.
You see, there was an interesting article in the New York Times on April 30, 2014 titled; "Ukraine Says That Militants Won the East," by Allison Smale and Andrew Roth which stated; "It is by now a well-established pattern.
Armed, masked men in their 20s to 40s storm a public building of high symbolic value in a city somewhere in eastern Ukraine, evict anyone still there, seize weapons and ammunition, throw up barricades and proclaim themselves the rulers of a people's republic.
It is not clear who is in charge or how the militias are organized.
Through such tactics, a few thousand pro-Russian militants have seized buildings in about a dozen cities, effectively establishing control over much of an industrial region of about 6.
5 million nestled against the Russian border.
" Answer me this: the Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in trade for being protected by the USA and NATO, but now Obama has basically said that treaty won't be enforced and Kerry is looking for a new treaty - covering debt for Ukraine, loaning more.
Maybe the treaty and promises of a nation say a little bit about the integrity of the leadership.
If the Ukraine gave up its nukes, and now is challenged by Russia, they lost by doing so, thus, why would any other nation ever give up their nukes, in fact, they'd be better off to get some nukes as a perceptional based last defense, like the stinger on a poisonous creature - saying don't screw with me.
What do you think other nations are thinking right now about all this? Iran for instance, I bet Russia drives a bunch of nuclear weapons over to Iran now, and then Iran can continue to neutralize all its enriched uranium in trade for released economic sanctions and international banking flows.
And what happens now with Belarus and Poland, if the EU and USA turn their backs on Ukraine in their time of need what does this say - I'd be worried about a volunteer reuniting of large chunks of the former USSR - Sun Tzu style, without a shot fired, merely through intimidation and show of strength.
Think about that for a minute, think I am wrong for pointing out the obvious? If you don't think that these issues have global impact on our allies and the trust factor we have with them, you might want to read another article, same day as the NYTs piece, but this one in Reuters "Philippines says U.
S.
obligated to help in case of attack," by Manuel Mogato, Additional reporting by Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Editing by Michael Perry and Robert Birsel which stated; "The US has a treaty obligation to help the Philippines in case of an attack on its territory or armed forces in the South China Sea, the Philippine foreign minister said on Wednesday, rejecting questioning of a security pact.
The US and the Philippines on Monday signed a 10-year Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement allowing U.
S.
forces wider access to Philippine bases and to position ships, aircraft, equipment and troops for maritime security.
The deal was testimony to an "ironclad" U.
S.
commitment to defend its oldest Southeast Asian ally, U.
S.
President Barack Obama told troops from both countries this week while on a visit to Manila.
" Well, I am not sure about you but I'd ask if this means that the US would go to war with China, Russia, Iran and North Korea all on the same day? I mean we sure have a lot of "red lines" and promises going on by this administration, some of which it could not fulfill if push came to shove.
I think our administration is not being taken seriously by our adversaries anymore and our allies must be asking the same questions, wouldn't you if you were a US ally at this point? So much for Catsup diplomacy - what message are we sending in that bottle, a bloody one I fear.
Think on that.
SHARE
