Thinking “hapless” guys get elected U.S. president marks you as clueless. Tacking on the negro bit doesn’t improve my impression to say the least.
I’ll admit to literally laughing out loud at the assertion that “American negroes” have no problem with the use if the term “negro” to refer to Barack Obama because of a clip from the movie Pulp Fiction.
Who fought a civil war and who lost it?
opesdol_opesdolovich, you are free to insult any politician you wish, including President Obama. Your deliberate use of the word “Negro” (it’s capitalized, by the way), and your ludicrous defense of that use–a “defense” that you well know is ludicrous–appears to be nothing more than an attempt to get a rise out of other posters. That is trolling and you will stop. Drop the discussion of “Negro” and refrain from any further effort to simply get a rise out of other posters.
EVERYONE else will also drop the discussion of “Negro.”
[ /Moderating ]
With all due respect, is this a serious question?
If so, all I can say is that if you have to ask this then even by American standards you know next to nothing about Iraq or the Middle East in general and I have to say I’m quite surprised at how sure of yourself you are on threads regarding the subject.
That said, I’ll assume you’re being honest and I’ll attempt to help you.
I’ll recommend three books for you that I think you’ll enjoy and that will help expand your knowledge of the region.
David McDowall’s A Modern History of the Kurds is a great place to start.
Also, I’d recommend The Republic of Fear by Kanan Makiya(AKA Samir Al-Khalil) for an idea as to what Saddam’s Iraq was like.
And, of course, if you’re looking for a quick and dirty overview of the whole enchilada I’d recommend David Fromkin, though more as a building block than as a final answer. http://www.amazon.com/Peace-End-All-Ottoman-Creation/dp/0805088091/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1404018984&sr=8-1&keywords=David+Fromkin
It was a serious question to XT in the context of an ongoing discussion:
So with all due respect IBN, I’ll wait for XT to explain who fought and who lost. If you wish to tell who lost real quick that’s fine too. go for it.
Getting elected president twice certainly means one is not hapless… at getting elected.
Getting repeatedly outplayed and bitchslapped by one’s opponents certainly means one is hapless… at being the president.
In my memory, I remember only one US president before the current one that was hapless–Jimmy Carter (and it took a lot of haplessness to be habitually outplayed by the old Leonid)
But, of course, as the former chess world champion Garry Kasparov correctly pointed out, Obama makes Carter look Churchillian.
Just off the top of my head, here’s the events of last year or so:
Snowden. Obama makes a scary face and sternly, very sternly warns Russia that there will be grave consequences if the whistleblower is not extradited.
Slap! Vladimir Vladimirovich slaps the idiot. Snowden is granted asylym.
Syria. Obama makes a scary face and sternly, very sternly warns Russia that that there will be grave consequences if Russia doesn’t stop supporting the legitimate Syrian government.
Slap! Slap! Vladimir Vladimirovich slaps the idiot. The US-backed terrorists continuously getting killed as we speak with Russia’s help.
Perverts. Obama makes a scary face and sternly, very sternly lectures Russia on the so-called gay rights.
Slap! Slap! Slap! Vladimir Vladimirovich slaps the idiot and correctly points out that there’re no laws in Russia that prohibit perverts from buttfucking each other to their heart’s content, if they so desire.
Olympics. Obama makes a scary face and says he’s worried. Very worried. He’s worried a lot about safety of the Games.
Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Vladimir Vladimirovich slaps the idiot and conducts the best Winter games in history. No terrorist acts took place (unlike, say, Atlanta 1996) and no athletes were housed in jails (unlike, say, Lake Placid, 1980)
Crimea. Obama makes a scary face and sternly, very sternly warns Russia that there will be grave consequences if Russia returns Crimea back to its motherly fold.
Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Vladimir Vladimirovich slaps the idiot. On the same day as Obama delivered his stern warning, Federal Assembly grants President Putin powers to use Armed Forces in Ukraine, if necessary. Crimea is returned to its rightful owner shortly thereafter.
Ukraine’s presidential elections. Obama makes a scary face and sternly, very sternly warns Russia that there will be grave consequences if Ukrainian presidential elections are not held.
Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Vladimir Vladimirovich slaps the idiot. The Ukranian presidential elections are not held in Crimea (understandably so, since it’s a Russian territory) and in Donetsk and Lugansk oblast’ (about 15% of so-called Ukranian territory)
Mistral. Obama makes a scary face and sternly, very sternly warns France not to sell 2 Mistral-class ships to Russia.
Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Slap! Vladimir Vladimirovich slaps the idiot and orders French to deliver the ships on time. And he doesn’t even have to make scary face or issue stern warnings. France guarantees the ship’s delivery to Russia. 400 Russian sailors arrive to take possession of vessels.
Now, you might’ve started noticing the pattern here. “The game is chess, it ain’t checkers”, and while Vladimir Vladimirovich is a political grandmaster of the highest caliber, the other guy is just a bumbling idiot. The matters are not helped by the fact that Russia’s Foreign Minister is Sergey Lavrov, a diplomat in Gromyko’s league, while his US opponent is…well…John Kerry.
It’s like two grandmasters playing chess against couple of average tic-tac-toe (forget the checkers) players. The outcome is consistently predictable.
Now, the future looks bright.
The current US administration still has 2 more years to go, and from what I understand will probably be succeeded by Hillary Clinton. Vladimir Vladimirovich will most likely get re-elected as President in 2018.
Now, I don’t get the impression that Vladimir Vladimirovich dislikes Obama personally. Sure, as we’ve seen, he slaps him around plenty, but not out of any personal animosity. With Hillary Clinton it’s a different story. Her, he seems to dislike personally. Keeping in mind that Lavrov was consistenly outplaying her back when she was US Foreign Minister, imagine what will happen when she goes up against The Master himself. The bitchslapping we currently witness will become a virtual deluge.
Yeah, it’s sorta like US is now incapable of producing its own space rockets, capable of carrying man to space, and having to rely on Russia’s charity. Ouch.
Please read my phrase “politically, financially and politically” as “politically, financially and economically”. It’s good to see, though, that my typing mistake didn’t distract you from getting the gist of my message.
I think I am just going to go ahead and not even try to get the gist of your message. That’s some serious tldr.
Apologies, I forgot just one more little teeny-weeny itty-bitty slap (who can keep track when Vlad the Magnificient delivers them fast and furious?)
I posted the details here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=727144
but the short version is simple. Very simple.
Obama makes a scary face and sternly, very sternly advises investors to short Russian stocks.
Three months later the Russian stocks are soaring (you’d lose about 15% of your investment in 3 months if you listened to Jimmy Carter’s pale imitation)
I do get the impression sometimes that Putin (and Lavrov) are bored with Obama and Europeans.
It’s like they yearn for someone who they can really clash with, but alas…
The dream match-up would be Putin/Gromyko vs Reagan/Shultz, not the one-sided beating we see now…
Just to pick one at random, what would have to occur for this to have resulted in a “win” for Obama? War with Russia?
I think the answer is obvious: “the grave consequences” would have to occur.
Now, let’s pick another one or two (at random, of course) and I’ll ask you the same question.
What do you think would have to occur for this to have resulted in a “win” for Obama? (Hint: it’s not war with Russia…it involves something along the lines of Russia not getting the ships in question)
Let’s pick another one. When the White House advised investors to short Russian stocks…
What do you think would have to occur for this to have resulted in a “win” for Obama?
(Hint: it’s not war with Russia…it involves something along the lines of Russian stocks going lower, instead of surging up)
Ok. Such as?
This is my point: Obama isn’t president of France. There’s literally nothing he can do (within the realm of sanity) but join other European nations in asking the French government to suspend the sale. Characterizing this as Putin outplaying Obama is nonsense, Obama was never party to this transaction.
And again here. Obama doesn’t control the stock market. A “win” would have been heavier sanctions on Russia, perhaps, because that’s something Obama has influence over, and such sanctions may have negatively affected stock prices.
Apparently for you, Putin’s greatness rests upon his ability to tweak the noses of the West. However, I notice you offered no refutation of my contention that his time and efforts would be far better spent making his country less of a shithole (“Superpower, my ass - first nine years of your Presidency, Russia’s population shrank. Nobody buys anything you export that isn’t a weapon, raw material, or computer virus”)
Just to drive the point home of what a freaking basketcase Russia is:
Russian life expectancy at birth? 124th out of 193 nations for 2013. (Only 64 years for men!)
Russian population growth? 199th out of 233 territories for 2013. (Growth rate is actually negative, -0.02/yr.)
Russian exports? Almost 58% in 2013 was mineral fuels, including oil. (The next three largest categories? Iron & steel [3.8%], gems & precious metals [2.7%], fertiilzers [1.7%].)
Russian corruption? Tied for 127th out of 177 nations in CPI for 2013. (Who else finished 127th? Mali, Pakistan, Lebanon, to name a few.)
I’m sorry, but your views on how diplomacy works are extremely naive, if not to say laughable.
Not that I claim any special insight, but it’s commonly understood that when two sides negotiate, it’s very rare to “just ask”.
Maybe at first you do “just ask”, but then, if you don’t get what you want, you try to compromise with the other side. Or threaten it. Or cajole it. Or implore it. Or offer it quid pro quo. Or beg it on your knees. Or offer them something else they might be interested in. You have to be an imbecile to “just ask”.
Let’s give credit where credit is due: the US president is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but not an imbecile (hapless–yes, imbecile-no) and he did try to get his way with France via blackmail option (nothing wrong with that, by the way).
What the US tried to do here is to link the sale of Mistrals with the fine US financial authorities are imposing on French BNP Paribas bank.
In simple terms, it went like this: "Hey, you don’t sell Mistrals to Russia, we lower the $9 billion fine on BNP Paribas ".
France thought long and hard (about 15 seconds, it appears) and given a choice between angry, determined and tough President Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, made their choice loud and clear. 400 Russian sailors are in France as we speak, getting ready to take the delivery of the first ship.
In fact, French were so impressed by Obama’s negotiating prowess and blackmail attempts, the head of Bank of France started making noises about abandoning the US dollar in international transactions.
Right you are, he never was… until he decided that he was and butted in… And got his nose broken for his troubles (more on the nose below). It’d be better for him to stay out of it completely, of course, at least he’d avoid getting embarassed (yet again) by Vlad the Magnificient.
I’m sorry, you’re contradicting yourself. First you say “Obama doesn’t control the stock market” and then you say there’re actions he can take to drive the stocks lower?
Which one is it?
Let me ask you a few questions.
If Obama doesn’t control the stock market, what possessed his officials to advise investors to short the Russian stocks?
If Obama does control the stock market, why is the Russian stock market going into the exact opposite direction of that which US Administration predicted it would go?
Here’s a nice and funny evisceration performed by Business Insider on yet another failure of US President’s Administration.
The only way you could earn money by shorting anything in this fiasco, is if you went short on Jay Carney…the poor schmuck lost his job shortly after giving his brilliant financial advice.
Don’t get me wrong, I like your defeatist attitude and whiny tone (“but Obama’s not the president of France, what can he do, other, than, perhaps, unsuccesfully blackmail the French?” “But Obama can’t influence the stock market, what can he do, other than, perhaps, talking about how he’ll drive the Russian stocks lower?” )
The more Americans adopt your attitude, the easier it’ll be for them to accept the harsh reality.
There’s actually a quote (apocryphical, most likely, I’ve never seen an original source for it ) attributed to Vladimir Vladimirovich:
“Dealing with Obama is like playing chess with a monkey. It knocks all the pieces over, flings shit all over the board, then thumps its chest, and declares itself a winner”
So you know what…you’re right.
Let’s declare Obama’s humiliation over Mistrals a defeat for Vladimir Putin and a stunning victory for the US President.
While we’re at it, let’s also pretend that Russian stocks crashed, completely justifying the US Administration “short call”.
Reality should be spurned.
Well, how about grave consequences, such as making sure that Russia doesn’t get the Mistrals delivered? Or how about making the Russian stocks go lower?
Would you say this is something Obama is capable of delivering?
You haven’t been paying attention. Putin doesn’t “tweak” the noses of the West. He breaks their noses.
Once again, you haven’t been paying attention. I did refute it (albeit, very broadly).
But I’ll be happy to go along with a couple of your cherry-picked examples.
According to World Bank data, at the time Putin became prime minister (1999), life expectancy at birth in Russia was 66 years.
As of 2013, life expectancy at birth in Russia is 70 years.
A 6% increase in 14 years. Not a spectacular achievement, but very respectable nevertheless.
According to World Bank data, at the time Putin became prime minister (1999), annual population growth in Russia was -0.3%
As of 2013, annual population growth in Russia is 0.2%
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW
Not a spectacular achievement, but very respectable nevertheless for a problem that’s so hard to tackle.
So, even by your own standards, Vladimir Vladimirovich has been doing a pretty good job.
Now, allow me to do some cherry-picking of my own, in areas which are more important than population growth.
According to World Bank data, at the time Putin became prime minister (1999), Russia’s nominal GDP was 195,907
As of 2013, Russia’s nominal GDP is 2,118,006 (numbers are in millions of USD)
This is more than a 1000% increase, that catapulted Russia in the top-10 list of world economies. Not a lot of countries could claim the growth rate so spectacular in the past 14 years. At the same time period, China claimed stunning, but lesser GDP growth of around 800%.
According to World Bank data, at the time Putin became prime minister (1999), Russia’s per capita GDP was $1,331
As of 2013, Russia’s per capita GDP is $14,612
This is also more than a 1000% increase in the space of 14 years.
And according to this link
Russia’s debt to GDP ratio was 11% in 2012, while, for example, the same number for US was stunning 106% (almost 10 times higher)
So, the numbers (both yours and mine) speak for themselves. Under the wise guidance of Vlad The Magnificient, Russians live longer, richer and happier (and almost daily dose of seeing the chess grandmaster toying with the monkey is always a cause for a good dose of laughter…and laughter prolongs the life expectancy! )
[QUOTE=opesdol_opesdolovich]
Russia’s debt to GDP ratio was 11% in 2012, while, for example, the same number for US was stunning 106% (almost 10 times higher)
[/QUOTE]
And yet, in every comparison (save the work-life balance, where Russians work harder and get less leisure than in the US) Russia comes out worse than the US…MUCH worse in fact.
And under the ‘hapless negro’ the US economy has boomed. How’s things under Vlad the Impailer? Better than a decade ago, to be sure, but still less good than, oh, say Poland (the Russians still beat the Polish on that critical work-life balance score though :p).
Spin all you like. Crow about the great victory of snagging the Crimea from the Ukraine in the face of the US. Smirk at Obama. Russia will still be a shit hole afterward, no matter how much lipstick you try and put on it…still a pig. And Vlad is still a despotic asshole with delusions of grandeur…or, hell, adequacy.
(edited for tl;dr-ness)
I know it’s probably just your schtick, but even so, it’s sounding a little bit too North Korean. Knock it down a few bunch of notches to more of a staid Russian-style propaganda spiel if you want it to sound a bit better.
The source on the Paribas claim is Putin himself.
Control and influence are two different things. Control of the stock market would be the ability to determine prices. Of course the President can take actions which influence the stock market, but not in any sort of direct or targeted way. He could announce his intention to seek heavy regulations on power plants, for example, and in so doing energy stocks would likely fall…but then again they might not, depending on how the market reacted to the news.
Mockery, I assume, or at least ill-feeling toward Russia, which, as you recall, was disgracing itself in Ukraine at the time.
See above, he doesn’t.
Right, the “harsh reality”. Care to list all the times Russia prevented the U.S. from buying ships (well, building them), or from anything else it wanted to do? It couldn’t stop the U.S. from invading Iraq, or supporting Syrian rebels. Is this evidence of Putin’s weakness, or do you apply different standards here? I mean, the sum of your examples are “Russia wanted to do something, and it was able to do them”. That’s the U.S. every day, sir.
“Making sure” would mean what, sinking them in the harbor? And I don’t know how Obama would possibly cause Russian stocks to decline in value…in theory he could increase their value by using taxpayer money to illegally buy them up or something, but that’s just as absurd.
It is now reported that a passeger jet with 280 passengers and 15 crew, in transit over Ukraine have been shot down. By a ground-to-air missile.
So far its been quoted on the Ukraine side, that at least one SA-11 or SA-17 was fired from the Russian side of the border.
Declan
Seperatists are apparently very busy deleting earlier social media posts in which they were announcing a) to have long range AA Missiles and b) downing a large plane minutes before the crash became public.
For what it is worth … Google translate: