Seeking Alpha

Putin addresses lawmakers, annexes Crimea

  • "You can't call the same thing black one day and white the next," says Russian President Putin, making his case for Western hypocrisy as it regards events in Ukraine. "We are grateful to those who understand our steps in Crimea like China and India ... In the case of Ukraine, our Western partners have crossed a line, a red line. They've been unprofessional, they've been irresponsible."
  • Breaking while Putin speaks: Russia cancels its March 19 bond auction.
  • The upshot: Russia looks like it's annexing Crimea and the West will complain and unleash a sanction or two, but not much more. Markets are pleased, with stock index futures reversing a small early decline to turn higher - S&P 500 (SPY+0.4%. Russia's Micex heads up as well, now +1.6%. RSX +1.5% premarket. Gold slips 1% to $1,359. GLD -0.7%.
  • Update: Following the speech, Putin signs a decree annexing Crimea to Russia.
From other sites
Comments (103)
  • al roman
    , contributor
    Comments (9742) | Send Message
     
    A game of Chess among'st Master's.
    18 Mar 2014, 07:52 AM Reply Like
  • Dorleans
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    A see Master Putin at work, but must ask, who is the other (surely, you're not referring to our bloviating politicians.

     

    When did we have the right to Mexico in 1848 (remember California, New Mexico, Arizona) and Texas (also stolen at gunpoint). Do the years make an action disappear or change its nature). We even had a name for our policy (manifest destiny). We tried for Canada in 1812 (war of 1812 for those that may have forgotten). We also grabbed Oregon and Washington from the British, creating the Oregon Territory). We forcibly pushed the Spanish out of Florida in the 1898 Spanish American war and grabbed New Orleans in 1836 after the peace treaty (by General, later American Press named "King" Andrew Jackson".

     

    Perhaps you say we've changed. We forced Mubarak out, creating complete disorder in Egypt, try and stand by the election (not free) of an enemy of our very way of life, Morsi. We forced the Shah of Iran in and then out, creating the monster that threatens Israel and us with our very destruction by Nuclear death. But who do we put pressure on? To Israel, to commit suicide at the hands of the Palestinians (who still doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist).

     

    In Syria, we back the rebels, who we are fighting in Afghanistan (like anybody can tell the 2 sides apart). At least Assad recognizes there are 2 sides, secular and Muslim.

     

    I could go on.

     

    18 Mar 2014, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • ilikemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    "Stolen at gunpoint"? Seriously?
    18 Mar 2014, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    Yes, seriously. And don't forget about the genocidal wipeout of the Native Americans. How many treaties were broken during that process?
    18 Mar 2014, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • tejinder10@aol.com
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Well, hispanics will follow the vote in California, Arizona and Texas to join Mexico in a few years once they have majority with illegal getting citizenship.
    USA will break into pieces and Rissia will be happy to encourage under the name of "Individual Rights" What will the liberals do in this case?
    18 Mar 2014, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1638) | Send Message
     
    tejinder10 - it more likely that one or more of the Mexican states on the US border will ask to join the US. You're just making up an improbable scenario.
    18 Mar 2014, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • wizjinx
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    You're un-American! You're a communist! You're....well, you get the idea lol. As Val Kilmer stated in his finest movie moment playing Doc Holliday in "Tombstone", "It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."

     

    I love my country, but I am also unafraid to see the ugly truths we sit on top of and try to hide. What Russia did and is doing is wrong, but we have no legs to stand on to criticize them.
    18 Mar 2014, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    More like skee ball.
    18 Mar 2014, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10327) | Send Message
     
    The economy of the Ukraine is the same size as the economy of Kentucky...

     

    " In 2008, at the peak of the energy boom and after a decade of run-away growth, Russia’s GDP per capita was still lower than the United States had been back in 1950."
    18 Mar 2014, 07:57 AM Reply Like
  • ilikemoney
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    At least Kentucky has bourbon. I don't know what Crimea offers to the world.
    18 Mar 2014, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • ekin09
    , contributor
    Comments (118) | Send Message
     
    Crimea is a strategic military base for Russia
    18 Mar 2014, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • Grethe
    , contributor
    Comments (36) | Send Message
     
    Pretty nice brandy!
    18 Mar 2014, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • Heefcleeve
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    Gas.
    Gazprom will enter. Firms like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni, OMV will get nothing.
    18 Mar 2014, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4375) | Send Message
     
    Some of the best vodka in the world.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • mike_simms
    , contributor
    Comments (104) | Send Message
     
    It all tastes the same.
    18 Mar 2014, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • rubber duck
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    It provides a warm water port for Russia's navy, it's important to the West for the same reasons.
    18 Mar 2014, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    Well, they can have it. What is Russia's navy going to do? Invade the US? I think not, they would be sunk before they reached Guam.
    18 Mar 2014, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (630) | Send Message
     
    Lots of fancy words...and in the end, he signed the document "annexing" Crimea.
    18 Mar 2014, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    Can anyone state why, exactly, the US cares about Crimea besides a few energy deals in the region? This seems like it's the right outcome for everyone involved.
    18 Mar 2014, 08:11 AM Reply Like
  • abbdiver2
    , contributor
    Comments (37) | Send Message
     
    look at a globe with out Crimea how would they get to Mediterrian ,,,or there base in Syria,,there building a new base on the Black Sea but it wont be completed for a while,,For them its well worth a fight,, over 70% of the people there are Russian
    20 Mar 2014, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    We would care only if it were the cold war era. In fact if it were, it would be a full blown international crisis a-la "Cuban Missile Crisis" serious, however, times have changed and we no longer consider Russia as big of a threat as we thought they were. Sure they have nukes, but half of them wouldn't even launch if they pressed the button a handful probably detonate in their tubes and the navy is down to four aging fleets.
    20 Mar 2014, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3154) | Send Message
     
    Market is blowing kisses at Putin
    18 Mar 2014, 08:16 AM Reply Like
  • joe kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1798) | Send Message
     
    Instead of sanctions that are pretty much useless I say we annex Cuba. It has good cigars and doctors that will work for whatever Obamacare pays them. A no brainer.
    18 Mar 2014, 08:19 AM Reply Like
  • SaltyDog62
    , contributor
    Comments (791) | Send Message
     
    Putin 2. Obama 0

     

    Game, Set...
    18 Mar 2014, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    Who cares?

     

    Crimea isn't worth... anything... to us.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    Who cares?

     

    Obama isn't worth ...anything ... to us.

     

    B.O. is a Big 0.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    So Obama should have proven his manhood was bigger than Putin's at the cost of US blood, money, and political capital? Wow. Just.... Wow.
    18 Mar 2014, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    kmi,

     

    Obama kept his mouth shut while the truly freedom loving Iranian college students were being slaughtered by the mullahs. He kept his mouth shut while Christians were harassed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. He kept his mouth shut while CIA supported Syrian rebels were killing Christians and buring churches. He should have done the same with the Nazi loving, Molotov cocktail throwing Ukrainian skinheads. If the protests were indeed an CIA orchestrated event, shame on him for not learning his lesson at Syria.

     

    He embarrassing this once great nation by starting sh*t which he has no idea how to finish. Btw, Obama doesn't care about US blood. If he did, he would have changed the rules of engagement in Afghanistan a long time ago.

     

    Come to think of it, I don't think he cares much about US money either since we are still printing $65B a month.

     

    Political capital????? Our rivals are laughing at us while our allies no long think we are reliable - ask the Saudis, Israelis, Egyptians ....ect. Political capital???? Just to be fair, I think McCain is a big 0 too and I voted for him. Our country is #1 but our leaders are ZERO.
    18 Mar 2014, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    McCain's assessment of Putin and Russia was actually spot on. But even he isn't a war raving lunatic looking for any excuse to pick a fight with anyone and everyone like the commenters on this market current.

     

    I don't agree with a thing you say, it's pretty amazing.
    18 Mar 2014, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    Jake,

     

    Apparently, I'm a well informed lunatic and you're a one of those low information, sane adults whom repeat everything their brain dead leaders say, one phrase at a time, like a bunch of zombies.

     

    http://bit.ly/1gAyk9s
    19 Mar 2014, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    kmi,

     

    You don't agree with a thing I say because you let the mainstream media spoon fed you like a puppy.

     

    Do you still think Obama believed Benghazi was a spontaneous attack because of a YouTube video?

     

    Do you really believe Obama didn't know the Syrian rebels he was arming are Al Qaeda?

     

    Do you know the Syrian rebels who we armed were killing Christians and burning churches in Syria?

     

    All the militarist far right wing nuts I know don't want to get involved in Syria. It was the left wing peace nuts who almost took us to WW III and wanted to blow up anything that moves.
    19 Mar 2014, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    Seriously, the bogey man mainstream media progressive conspiracy that is out to 'get you' doesn't exist.

     

    Did I discuss Syria at all? That's all you sir. And by the way, calling out Obama on inaction in Ukraine is the most asinine thing his haters have yet done. If it weren't for Bush squandering global goodwill on his Cowboy 'Shoot First' Bush Doctrine the US might be relevant as a 'Protector of Democracy and Defender of Freedom' but those days are long, LONG gone.

     

    And you can choose to paint me as a 'lib', progressive, dem whatever you want. But you'd be wrong. That's the rhetoric of the wingnuts who can't make valid arguments and instead apply labels in the erroneous thinking by using labels their position is somehow enhanced. Well, news flash: it isn't.

     

    By the way: being mainstream isn't a bad thing. It means you pretty much are in the center along with most other people around you. If you think the 'mainstream' are the bad guys, here's another news flash: that makes you the minority opinion.
    19 Mar 2014, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    "If you think the 'mainstream' are the bad guys, here's another news flash:"

     

    I don't even trust FOX any more, you think I'd trust the mainstream media! I think the banks and the oil own both side of the aisle. I started wondering about FOX when they didn't go after Jon Corzine, connecting him to Obama would have been helpful before the election but they didn't. Nobody would criticize Saudi Arabia or report anything which might embarrass the Saudi. It's the same with the bankers whom are within the inner circle. The only one who did, Glen Beck, was gotten rid of in nano second while Hannity was still bombarding Obama every single day. That was when I suspected Obama was just another puppet not much different from McCain, W Bush, Clinton and maybe even H Bush.

     

    Btw, I just got off a cruise ship last month. I noticed CNN was replaced by FOX and MSNBC-International. MSNBC apparently couldn't get anybody to buy their commercial time slots and they filled it with advertisements pushing their talking heads - watching Al Sharpton on MSNBC is truly hilarious.

     

    As far as " Bush squandering global goodwill on his Cowboy 'Shoot First' Bush Doctrine", the second Iraq war wasn't about goodwill or WMD. Bush was defending the petrol dollar status against the intrusion of petrol euro - Saddan was killed because he wanted to sell his oil in euro, Ghaddafi was killed because he wanted to sell his oil in gold back dinar. If you think the EU was mad at Bush because he broke whatever BS international laws, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
    19 Mar 2014, 06:04 PM Reply Like
  • Great Swami
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    Is a world wide land grab in the works?
    How about China takes back Taiwan.
    Mexico occupies Texas, California, and Arizona.
    England goes back to Africa.
    And then the Germans can take their turn!!
    18 Mar 2014, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • COBeeMan
    , contributor
    Comments (1638) | Send Message
     
    Don't the opinions of the people of those areas count? Isn't that what started this (during the Olympics to Russia's dismay) in the first place, when protestors in Kiev were shot, then their president ousted, and then Crimea called for help?
    18 Mar 2014, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11528) | Send Message
     
    Haha, shouldn't the US take something like Mexico. Sorry, maybe I have that wrong, Mexico is trying to take California and Texas.
    19 Mar 2014, 05:23 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    Here is what's funny. These people went to Spain and Italy already and ruined their economy, so now they are coming to the US in droves in order to exploit and destroy it as well, and we let them do it, its just easy pickings. Taking the path of least resistance.
    19 Mar 2014, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Valueplay98
    , contributor
    Comments (584) | Send Message
     
    I think y'all are assuming the game is over when we're still in the first inning.

     

    Putin gets Crimea, but what happens if the Euros re-think their nuclear power strategy. 10 years from now who does Russia sell NatGas to ? They won't have any economy to speak of.

     

    Also if I'm Putin - I don't know why I'd alienate NATO when China is moving in to Russia already.
    18 Mar 2014, 08:41 AM Reply Like
  • TheAxe
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
     
    Ha Ha perhaps Russia should annex Poland..maybe the S&P can get another 20 points.....
    18 Mar 2014, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • User 353732
    , contributor
    Comments (5000) | Send Message
     
    Russia takes over (or takes back) Crimea; the US takes over an oil tanker in international waters. 
    The West turns Libya into a failed state and thus spreads sectarianism, tribalism and terrorism in North Africa and the Middle East.
    Russia refuses to abandon its allies in Iran and Syria while the West betrays allies all over the world, including Egypt and Israel
    Who has been skillful and successful in geo strategy and the application of power? Who impresses the peoples and Regimes of Asia, Africa and Latin America more with clarity of purpose and steadiness of will?
    There will be no notable economic consequences for Russia and positive political ones.
    18 Mar 2014, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • financeminister
    , contributor
    Comments (942) | Send Message
     
    Putin just used Obama's "red line" analogy... one difference I see between them is that Putin takes action and then talks.
    18 Mar 2014, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • tom_t
    , contributor
    Comments (281) | Send Message
     
    Obama will say "You crossed that line? Okay, well, if you cross THIS line, you're in big trouble, mister!"
    18 Mar 2014, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    Right, let's go to war over Crimea. Cause that's what tough guys do, and we wanna be tough. Cause tough is smart.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • traderfelix
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Haha, my thoughts exactly.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    @kmi
    "tough" is projecting strength so you don't get in situations like this in the first place. "Tough" is not concocting red lines that you don't intend to enforce (Syria), while allowing yourself to be bailed out by a person who wants to beat you.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2181) | Send Message
     
    "If you like your nation's borders, you can keep your nations borders"*

     

    * Not referring to actual borders, or actual nations, or any particular "you" in the world. "Like" also does not mean an affinity for. We don't actually know what it means - but we'll get back to you in a few years.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    Kim,

     

    If Obama were tough, he wouldn't let the Saudis dragged us into that embarrassing situation at Syria.

     

    If Obama knew or care about the responsibility of the POTUS, he would stop the Saudis and Qatar from venturing into Syria. He refused to lead. It's almost like he's this little mindless girl being lead into a motel by her boyfriend to have sex, let the boy undress her and himself, and then proclaim that she is a virgin and ran out of the room buck naked.
    18 Mar 2014, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    There have been some good scholarly studies on the value of "looking tough". Conclusion -- "acting tough" has little to no impact on anything in geopolitics. It all comes down the hand that each side has.

     

    As my Negotiations professor put it, "bluffing and puffing has squat to do with what happens in a negotiation, 95% of the outcome can be predicted by the hand that each side has going into it".

     

    We don't have squat for a hand re: Crimea, and not a lot more with Ukraine or Georgia. It wouldn't be *any* different under St. Reagan.
    18 Mar 2014, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    Tricky,

     

    You don't poke the hornet's nest and then negotiate. We poked the nest in Syria and then ran away like a little girl. We did it again in Ukraine like a bunch of nerds wearing muscle T-shirt picking on an old gangster and got our asses kicked.

     

    We are now further embarrassing ourselves, shadow boxing around this old gangster, after we got our asses handed to us.
    18 Mar 2014, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    Hmmm, I'm not sure I believe your Negotiations prof. I don't think Obama was holding a very strong "hand" in 2008 - jr. senator with no executive experience or real accomplishments - yet he successfully negotiated the presidency on hope, change ... and a whole lot of BS.

     

    Re geopolitical affairs - I'm not talking about "bluffing and puffing." I'm talking about strength of character and convictions, integrity and trustworthiness, and commanding respect. I've not seen Obama exhibit those traits on a consistent basis, if at all.

     

    Your assertion that things would be no different under Reagan is absurd. If you mean that, then why bother having elections?
    18 Mar 2014, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    ltsgt1 -- I completely agree that we shouldn't make promises we don't intend to keep. The Syrian "Red Line" was indeed such a situation. And since we can't really do anything about Ukraine, I agree that we should just find a face saving way to let it go rather than mouth off about sanctions w/o thinking about the effects of inevitable retaliations.

     

    getreal10000 -- The geopolitical situation and outcomes would not be any different under Reagan. But if you want to keep getting all your opinions from right wing pundits, rather than people who actually study such things, that is your right. The last time the West enjoyed an expansion at Russia's expense (some during Clinton's admin, some under W), Russia was still reeling from a self-induced implosion from the collapse of its flawed economic model and oil was at a very low price. Well, that isn't the case anymore. People who don't know anything about the geopolitics way oversimplify the diagnosis. Putin invaded Georgia during W's reign and still occupies some of it... was W a wimp?
    18 Mar 2014, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    At least we now know what the militarist far right wing nuts would have done: blow up anything that moves, shoot nukes at Russia and DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES!!!
    18 Mar 2014, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    "At least we now know what the militarist far right wing nuts would have done: blow up anything that moves, shoot nukes at Russia and DAMN THE CONSEQUENCES!!!"

     

    And you know this because??? No one has posted anything of the sort. I doubt anyone believes it. But here we go again, another progressive grossly exaggerating because the truth isn't unflattering enough. For the record, I'm opposed to a violent escalation and pray it doesn't come to that.

     

    Tricky - I get my news from sources across the spectrum and try to make up my own mind with the understanding I'm reading biased, limited info regardless of the media outlet. I'm far less an idealogue than is the current occupant of the White House, and would never oversimplify a geopolitical issue this complex.
    18 Mar 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • ptTL9
    , contributor
    Comments (176) | Send Message
     
    Why war, and why Crimea? It's about Russian dominance in the world, about Europe being at their feet. Lets sell gas and oil to to Europe, and lets Russian eat and choke on their gas and oil. But you need Iron Lady and Reagan to do it, not Obama. I will vote for Hilary next time, may be she has more guts and brain
    18 Mar 2014, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (831) | Send Message
     
    How can we do anything after Republicans made us the laughing stock of the world. President Obama is just getting us back on track as a world leader and I can tell you he isn't paying attention to the "tough talkers" in the right wing national media and their lemmings.
    18 Mar 2014, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    @tricky

     

    I'm not sure "scholarly studies" are worth more in the real world than tried-and-true strategies, e.g. "speak softly and carry a big stick" vs. Obama/Biden "speak loudly and carry nothing"

     

    But if you want a scholarly study, here's one:

     

    http://amzn.to/1kIhydI

     

    My favorite story in it is about the little old lady "bag men" that could walk through the middle of Harlem with $10,000s and nobody touched them. Wonder why?
    19 Mar 2014, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    "Putin invaded Georgia during W's reign and still occupies some of it... was W a wimp?"

     

    By 2008, W Bush was a wimp. Now ask your self why was Bush a wimp by 2008. Which party were incessantly calling Bush a war criminal, a liar who is responsible for the dead of American soldiers who sacrificed their lives in Iraq?
    19 Mar 2014, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    If Bush was a wimp by 2008, it's because he had blown all his credibility on Iraq.

     

    But more to the point, it was the geopolitics. The US can't defend Georgia and shouldn't try. Doesn't matter who is president right now dealing with Ukraine or Geogria, not even St. Ronald (who, btw, slunk out, tail between legs, from big bad... Lebanon).
    19 Mar 2014, 04:00 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    So Bush was a wimp because he blew all his credibility. Well then, I infer Obama must be a little whore after Fast&Furious (invoked executive privilege to stop the congressional inquiry), NSA (not a problem until Congresswoman Feinstein-D realized she was also spied on), Benghazi (spontaneous protests until it wasn't), IRS (5th amendment Learner), wiretap FOX and AP reporters (was that ever investigated?)..........

     

    Now, lets talk about St. Reagan. Why did St. Reagan slunk out, tail between legs, from big bad Lebanon. I knew the Democrats must had facilitated that tail between the legs move and did a little research.

     

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

     

    In 1984, seven Democratic Presidential candidates joined in opposing a military presence in Lebanon. House Democratic leaders agreed on a Congressional resolution that would urge President Reagan to begin ''the prompt and orderly withdrawal'' of the Marine contingent in Lebanon.

     

    The proposed resolution, which will be presented to a caucus of all House Democrats on Wednesday, also urges the President to issue a report within 30 days detailing a plan for removal of the marines and their replacement by troops from other nations.

     

    The statement was written by two leading House members, Lee H. Hamilton of Indiana and Dante B. Fascell of Florida, and then refined today by a group of lawmakers appointed by Democratic leaders to monitor the Lebanon situation.

     

    With the economic recovery continuing, some Democrats view Lebanon as their most promising political issue against Reagan.

     

    House majority speaker Mr. O'Neill (D) stated to the press, ''To be perfectly truthful, his policy scares me,'' the Speaker said. ''We can't go the way of gunboat diplomacy. His policy is wrong. His policy is frightening.''

     

    KKK-Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat West Virginia, the minority leader, moved to expand the war powers resolution by adding a long statement urging the President to replace American troops in Beirut with a more neutral international force as soon as possible.

     

    Senator Steven D. Symms, Republican of Idaho, defended the security of the marines in Beirut, but Senator Biden (foot in mouth senator and now foot in mouth vice president of the US) said the real issue was the underlying United States policy in Lebanon. On that score, Mr. Biden said, Mr. Reagan's justification for the mission Thursday night amounted to ''pieces of a puzzle that don't fit together.''

     

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

     

    Btw, Reagan did retaliate but his efforts was limited and restrained by the DEMOCRATS. I guess Reagan didn't want a knife in the back like Bush or to be treated like a war criminal. Come to think of it, what has Obama done to avenge the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi? Ah, it must be the republicans holding him back like the democrats to Reagan. Hmmmm.. half the truth is not the whole truth.
    20 Mar 2014, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    This is one of your more humorous attempts at revisionist history. All it took was 7 senators to scuttle a policy? Wow, who knew it was so easy. LOL.

     

    You mistake me for jake or terry. I'm not a Dem apparatchik. I think all politicians of both parties suck. And you'll NEVER see me write a good thing about Sen. King of Pork Byrd.

     

    I merely enjoy pointing out two things: 1) hypocrisy, and 2) how geopolitical hands are WAY WAY more important than "looking tough".

     

    You need to diversify your sources of information, sir. Cheerio.
    20 Mar 2014, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    All it took was 7 ""senators"" to scuttle a policy? This is one of your more humorous attempts at revising my writing. I wrote 7 Democratic Presidential candidates, not senators, they were former vice president, governor, senators and a reverend (Lol, who would have thought a community organizer will be the POTUS back then) who joined the cackle of hyenas (all democrats) to destroy Reagan at all cost.

     

    I think all politicians of both parties suck too as I'd stated in previous comments. And you'll NEVER see me write a good thing about Sen. McCain or Gov. Christy or J Bush.

     

    I merely enjoy pointing out one things: hypocrisy. I concur that geopolitical hands are WAY WAY more important than "looking tough". However, the POTUS should not make hallow threats repeatedly which make us look unnecessary weak and stupid.

     

    Regarding revisionist history, maybe I should diversify my sources of information from NY Times.

     

    http://nyti.ms/1kLMMAO

     

    http://nyti.ms/1kLMMR3

     

    http://nyti.ms/1kLMKcb
    20 Mar 2014, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    We are in complete agreement that POTUS should not make threats that we won't really back up.

     

    Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the barracks got bombed and the American population made it clear it didn't support exposing our troops for such purposes. There's always a group of people against anything, that is hardly news. Aren't there >7 prominent Republicans opposed to Obamacare, yet it lives? There was a fairly dedicated group of well more than 7 prominent US leaders opposing our misadventure in Iraq. Too bad they were bulldozed by the Freedom Fries chickenhawks.
    20 Mar 2014, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    Obamacare...what an example...it will soon collapse itself out of existence, its hilarious to watch its flailing death spiral as they delay, delay and delay the inevitable.
    20 Mar 2014, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    It's great that we agree on something. However, I believe Reagan was not the one who wanted to flee with tail between his legs. As always, democrats used the mainstream media to set the tone for the president.

     

    I trust that if it weren't for the democrats purposely sabotaged Reagan's Lebanon policies. He would likely be able to make a honorable retreat without looking weak or foolish. Believe it or not, one can lose a battle and not appear vulnerable or weak. It's all about strategy.

     

    Putin is a master of strategy. He had no intention to start a war but he managed to achieve the objective without firing a shot. If Obama had surrounded himself with competent advisers, he wouldn't have embarrassed this once great US of America.

     

    Just to be fair, McCain is as much an idiot as Obama and I think Romney is a RINO. I simply don't see anybody, Democrat or Repulican, who can get us out of all the messes we are in in 2016. This country is doomed.
    20 Mar 2014, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    I take a longer view on everything. While we like to believe how special we are, the truth is that the US enjoyed a perfect storm in the 20th century to enjoy the peak of power that we did -- which I would place right after the collapse of the USSR.

     

    In the 20th century, look at what our rivals for economic power were doing. Russia, China and India were shooting themselves in the foot with fundamentally flawed economic policies. Europe had huge portions of its physical capital, let alone human capital, wiped out *twice*. Those things are no longer happening. And the US enjoyed the economic effects of the baby boom -- rapid growth and being able to mask the fatally flawed structure of entitlement programs.

     

    Now, everything is different. It is inevitable that we will lose power, at least on a relative basis. Sure, individuals can have *some* impact, I don't deny that. But I just disagree on the level of impact that you think it has. The cards in everybody's hands are just very different today than they were in the 1980's/90's. That matters a lot more than whomever the next set of POTUS's will be. That's my view.

     

    Cheerio.
    20 Mar 2014, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    "..and I think Romney is a RINO."

     

    that's why he lost, because you among others sabotaged his chances
    20 Mar 2014, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    Like you, I used to believe that no matter how good or bad a president is, the impact is limited. However, after dumb and dumber, two consecutive disasters of Bush and Obama, I begin to think that maybe Jeremiah Wright is onto something about God xxxx America.

     

    I know you don't think very highly of Reagan but we need someone like him to turn this sinking ship around. I like Giuliani but he doesn't even have a Chinaman's chance.

     

    Any way, thanks for a civilized debate.
    20 Mar 2014, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    I was going to hold my nose and vote for Romney even after he disrespected the libertarians at the RNC. However, he lost my vote when he revealed himself to be a non confrontational coward at the second presidential debate. He couldn't even straighten out that shameless fat lying sack of meat regarding "act of terrors" or "terrorist acts" and he wants to be the POTUS?? He was actually visibly stunned and back down from that smiling fat thing. When he decided not to revisit Benghazi in the third debate, I decided to stay home.
    20 Mar 2014, 09:49 PM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    Romney would have made a better president than he was a candidate. As a pragmatic, problem-solving moderate with executive experience and solid accomplishments, I don't see how he could be any worse than what we have now. He would have been under more scrutiny than Obama though, with every misstep amplified. That influences public opinion for those who only read headlines or believe everything they hear on network news.

     

    I'm still hoping for a miracle candidate for 2016 because this country is going downhill, and fast.
    20 Mar 2014, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    Its

     

    you and 4 million tea party stayed home
    20 Mar 2014, 11:18 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4024) | Send Message
     
    Dr. Paul ?
    20 Mar 2014, 11:19 PM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    He's promising. Conservatives are accusing him of pandering today at Berkeley, but I like that he's reaching out and trying to expand the party. Does he have what it takes to dig us out of the hole we're in? I don't know. We'll see.
    20 Mar 2014, 11:41 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    Paul? Please, Rand or Ron are lunatics with a few good ideas, and a lot of bad ideas. Tea Party lost me, their just idiots.
    21 Mar 2014, 01:40 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    Yes, I stayed home because he is a coward whom couldn't even handle a smiling and yapping obese meat pie.

     

    The another 4 million tea party stayed home because of his ego. Have you ever heard any democrats critizes OWS? Those lunatics were fighting cops and burning cars. Do you hear the democrats say anything negative about them? No, they said they understand their frustration.

     

    What do the republicans say about the TP who clean up the street after every protest? Mitch McConnell said he would squash them like flies. You and the rest of the establishment republicans casually call them lunatics, following the narrative of the dem like an abused wife. Are you really surprised that the TP stayed home?

     

    If there is anyone to blame for losing the election, don't look at the TP but do take a look into the mirror. Oh, do me a favor, don't be surprised when the TP stay home again if the establishment try to shove someone like Romney or Jeff Bush down our throats again in 2016. AND THAT IS WHY I THINK THIS COUNTYR IS DOOMED.
    21 Mar 2014, 05:52 AM Reply Like
  • ltsgt1
    , contributor
    Comments (1520) | Send Message
     
    Rand and Ron are libertarians. TP shares some of their core principles but not all, especially their foreign policies.
    21 Mar 2014, 06:00 AM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    This exchange perfectly exemplifies the dilemma for Republicans, so maybe the question should be is there anybody who could beat Hillary Clinton. If tea partiers stay home again, or if the Repub candidate is seen by the establishment as too out there, Hillary wins. Christie was the only one ahead of her in some polls until the bridge incident, which was way overblown.

     

    A lot of elections are a choice between bad and worse, so I vote for who I think will least harm the country. Lately that's been anybody with an "R" after their name, and the same will likely be true in 2016. The bogus "war on women" sure won't influence me. :-) Too much is on the line for me to not vote.
    21 Mar 2014, 10:44 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (4367) | Send Message
     
    Then you stick with your Aiken and Christine O'Donnell candidates, and stay home when a viable and successful person like Romney runs, because he actually has a track record of success...ya, don't vote for that guy. Also, what are you talking about EGO? Running for President requires you to have a gigantic ego, who are you kidding?

     

    Romney was the last actually qualified candidate we will see in decades. We haven't had a person who was actually qualified to be president since Bush Sr.
    21 Mar 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    Christine O'Donnell was a nightmare candidate and whoever oversaw her advertising should be run out of the industry. Those "I'm not a witch" commercials were a killer, exactly what you don't do...repeat a negative which of course reinforces it. Sharron Angle (NV) and Joe Miller (AK) both cost the GOP Senate seats. Hopefully Repubs have learned their lesson and won't nominate any more nut jobs.
    21 Mar 2014, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4024) | Send Message
     
    Matthew,
    Look, I've been following American politics for more than a half century now, I've probably read more texts written by American candidates than most Americans ever have.
    I can tell you therefore that in my opinion Ron Paul is the smartest of them all. He has the best ideas about politics and about the economy.
    His only shortcomings are: he's old and he's an awful bad speaker.
    21 Mar 2014, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • Arion
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Let's see. Russia annexes the Crimea which the current coup President in Ukraine rejects. And yet gold, silver and the miners are sharply down whereas the world is destabilizing dangerously. Of course there is no manipulation going on with the PM prices, eh? Coiled spring baby. Just frankly amazed they can still get away with the paper pushing.
    18 Mar 2014, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • Arion
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Let's see. Russia annexes the Crimea which the current coup President in Ukraine rejects. And yet gold, silver and the miners are sharply down whereas the world is destabilizing dangerously. Of course there is no manipulation going on with the PM prices, eh? Coiled spring baby. Just frankly amazed they can still get away with the paper pushing.
    18 Mar 2014, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4311) | Send Message
     
    As bbro said, "it's an economy the size of Kentucky" - so its impact on the world isn't significant enough to move needles much.
    18 Mar 2014, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • rubber duck
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    On the contrary, this is the first time the East has stood against the West in the West's attempt to overthrow a pro East gov't and put into place a pro West gov't. Funny how the gov't was overthrown just as Ukraine's gov't was starting to lean towards Russia. All a coincidence I'm sure.
    18 Mar 2014, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • getreal10000
    , contributor
    Comments (237) | Send Message
     
    As soon as Obama told Medvedev he'd have "more flexibility" after his final election, Putin put Crimea on his to-do list.
    http://reut.rs/1l0rgut
    18 Mar 2014, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4024) | Send Message
     
    I have the impression that the markets overlook one minor detail: nothing has been settled yet.
    Oh yes, Kiev-Ukraine declared itself independent from Russia by a coup and, oh, yes, Crimea declared itself independent from Ukraine by another coup, but what about East Ukraine ? Russian too ? (majority is ethnic Russian)
    And what about relations Kiev-Ukraine and Crimea ? Is it all peace and light ?

     

    I think the next days/weeks/months we'll see some interesting events that might shake the beleif of those who want to see equity markets go up.
    18 Mar 2014, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • Krakin
    , contributor
    Comments (82) | Send Message
     
    Pootin could be attempting to dislodge the minority Tarters (Turkmen) from Crimea as a bonus move as they are not great pals of the Russians.
    18 Mar 2014, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • Krakin
    , contributor
    Comments (82) | Send Message
     
    Also the Mullahs better watch their backs.Putin would love to get his hands on their resources.
    18 Mar 2014, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3154) | Send Message
     
    Putin has now announced sanctions on US senators. No Bolshoi tickets for you buddy. Downright comedy now. I still think the revoking Starbucks privileges option is still on table at the WH.

     

    Nobody ever planned on doing nothing. Reminds me of when VP Cheney went over pump fisting to Georgia . 2 Russian speaking areas then seceded from Georgia. All theater for the viewers and voters , politics as usual
    18 Mar 2014, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • SoCalNative
    , contributor
    Comments (573) | Send Message
     
    Pump-fisting?
    18 Mar 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3154) | Send Message
     
    Yeap. The then VP flew to the Georgia capital in the midst of serious turmoil there to deliver a pledge to help them out. The 2 Russian areas then separated from Georgia declaring their independence ; grandstanding , theater is probably more accurate. Its a rerun.
    18 Mar 2014, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4024) | Send Message
     
    It appears McCain got a no to his virtual request to visit Petersburg. Who cares anyway ? All these sanctions are child's play.
    18 Mar 2014, 05:46 PM Reply Like
  • taxman100
    , contributor
    Comments (328) | Send Message
     
    As long as misurp ammo and old firearms keep coming out of Ukraine and Russia, the rest is like two kids fighting on a block on the side of town we shouldn't even be visiting.

     

    If Qater all of a sudden had a "uprising" and anti-American forces were taking over, I'm sure by happenstance that would be reversed, and our Command and fleet would somehow be allowed to stay.

     

    That is a port that matters to us - Crimea does not.
    18 Mar 2014, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • IMSchur
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Dorleans is right in highlighting the hypocrisy of politicians.
    I would also like to add, western Ukraine, which favors the west, revolted against their government which favored ties with Russia. The Crimea is made up of ethnic Russians that now feel alienated. They were a part of Russia for 250 years so it's no wonder they want to go back. I feel we've got no business over there. What would we do if say, Quebec separated from Canada and Russia tried to get involved. We would tell them to keep their nose out of it the same way they're telling us now.
    18 Mar 2014, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    "The Crimea is made up of ethnic Russians that now feel alienated. They were a part of Russia for 250 years so it's no wonder they want to go back."

     

    Actually, no. It's Russian dominated only because the Russian-led USSR depopulated Crimea of its rightful inhabitants through genocide and forced deportation:

     

    http://bit.ly/1p9AUZf

     

    Sadly, I'm sure practically everyone who reads this thread is ignorant of this history.

     

    Crimea rightfully belongs to the Tatar Khanate (Qırım Yurtu) not Russia. It was stolen by the Czarists and then depopulated by the Communists. The Russians are 19th and 20th century invaders who don't belong there in the first place.

     

    http://bit.ly/NsJF4p
    19 Mar 2014, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4024) | Send Message
     
    MLP,
    Don't mess with history.
    193,865 Crimean Tatars were deported by Stalin in 1944 on allegation of having collaborated with the nazis. Wrong or right (I rather think that allegation was wrong), the deportation was an awful act.
    At the time the entire Crimean population counted 1.8 million people, so the Tatars formed a minority then too of hardly 11%, not a majority as you seem to think.
    http://bit.ly/1fZ3goA

     

    However, let's look at the pre-1944 period.
    Around 1890 the Tatars made 35% of the population, slightly more than the Russians:
    http://bit.ly/1fZ3goA
    What made that %'s change then ? No wars, no deportations, as you seem to suggest. Only the fact that lots of Russians started peacefully immigrating into Crimea.
    Can you blame the Russians for having immigrated ?
    http://bit.ly/1dgcvvU
    Can you blame the Europeans for having immigrated into America ?
    19 Mar 2014, 03:43 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    "depopulated _____ of its rightful inhabitants through genocide and forced deportation".

     

    Sounds like the US, too.

     

    If you knew anything about Russian history, you would know that controlling Crimea has been an obsession for hundreds of years, culminating in Catherine the Great's establishment of the Black Sea Fleet right around the time of the American Revolution.

     

    So, sounds like they have as much "right" to Crimea as most Americans have to their current homestead.
    19 Mar 2014, 07:51 AM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    "Only the fact that lots of Russians started peacefully immigrating into Crimea.
    Can you blame the Russians for having immigrated ?"

     

    "immigrated" isn't exactly what they did. They forcefully annexed it and colonized it.
    19 Mar 2014, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    "So, sounds like they have as much "right" to Crimea as most Americans have to their current homestead."

     

    quod erat demonstrandum
    19 Mar 2014, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    So if you agree they are similar situations, which of the following are you prescribing?

     

    The Russians get to keep Crimea, or

     

    Every American needs to track down the Native American tribe who was forcefully removed from the land their house now stands, and give it back to said tribe?
    19 Mar 2014, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • MLP Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (954) | Send Message
     
    "Every American needs to track down the Native American tribe who was forcefully removed from the land their house now stands, and give it back to said tribe?"

     

    No I'm saying the U.S. should not annex the Navaho reservation because a bunch of Hopi and caucasians moved there.
    19 Mar 2014, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • Tricky
    , contributor
    Comments (1588) | Send Message
     
    The problem with your analogy is that Russians have been in Ukraine since the first millenium. There have been Russians in Crimea since Peter the Great, and it has been formally part of Russia for most of the period since Catherine the Great around 1774.

     

    So the Russians have been there in pretty good numbers before Americans starting wiping out the Native Americans.
    19 Mar 2014, 03:57 PM Reply Like
  • filipo
    , contributor
    Comments (4024) | Send Message
     
    MLP,
    Call it what you want, but yet, they're there.
    You gonna oust them after 200 years ?
    19 Mar 2014, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • al roman
    , contributor
    Comments (9742) | Send Message
     
    If one is primarily invested in United States i assume they would be very patriotic.
    And would at least hope for equitable outcomes in any matter affecting viability and quality of life,President Bush was my president now Barrack Obama is,the people spoke.
    19 Mar 2014, 05:35 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs