Ukraine

namelessfly wrote:I would be dismayed if Obamawasstupid enough tosendacarrier battle group into that inland sea.

Impossible due to the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits":

"Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft."

In short, the Turks won't let a CVBG through the Bosphorus. Obama would be an arse if he tried it.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/us/turkey-restricts-us-access.htm

Some food for thought.

Mike.

Turkey does have it's treaty obligations but they have refused cooperation when they had no such obligation. The Black Sea is a theatre for DDGs and CGs, may be SSGNs, not CVNs. Just one more example of why the US should witdraw from NATO.

Michael Riddell wrote:

namelessfly wrote:I would be dismayed if Obamawasstupid enough tosendacarrier battle group into that inland sea.

Impossible due to the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits":

"Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft."

In short, the Turks won't let a CVBG through the Bosphorus. Obama would be an arse if he tried it.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/us/turkey-restricts-us-access.htm

Some food for thought.

Mike.

Now please explain to us how "withdrawing from NATO"
would affect sending warships into the Black Sea.

HTM

namelessfly wrote:Turkey does have it's treaty obligations but they have refused cooperation when they had no such obligation. The Black Sea is a theatre for DDGs and CGs, may be SSGNs, not CVNs. Just one more example of why the US should witdraw from NATO.



[quote="Michael Riddell
Impossible due to the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits":

"Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft."

In short, the Turks won't let a CVBG through the Bosphorus. Obama would be an arse if he tried it.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/us/turkey-restricts-us-access.htm

Some food for thought.

Mike.

Withdrawing from NATO does not enable the USN to access the Black Sea. However; Turkey's refusal to admit US Hospital ships to the Black Sea in 2008 and far more relevant Turkey's refusal to enable the deployment of the Third Infantry Division for the Iraq invasion because it wants to curtail US power relative to Russia are confirmation that US allies are unworthy of US protection.

I would refer you to this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:H06JN5-42:

I would highlight the quote from President Adams:

"The US is the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guardian of none but it's own."

This was sage advice. It is time for the US to resume the foreign policy of the founding fathers.

If Vladimir Putin's Russia wants to intervene in Ukraine, the US should not refight the Crimean war that killed 1/2 million to stop it. The US should not intervene even if Putin reenacts Stalin's terror famines of the 1930s that killed tens of millions of people.

You are the ones who support President Obama because he will weaken the US. So be it. Enjoy the consequences.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Now please explain to us how "withdrawing from NATO"
would affect sending warships into the Black Sea.

HTM

namelessfly wrote:Turkey does have it's treaty obligations but they have refused cooperation when they had no such obligation. The Black Sea is a theatre for DDGs and CGs, may be SSGNs, not CVNs. Just one more example of why the US should witdraw from NATO.



[quote="Michael Riddell
Impossible due to the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits":

"Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ships, but limits the definition of carriers to ships that are designed primarily for carrying and operating aircraft at sea and specifically excludes other ships that merely are able to operate aircraft."

In short, the Turks won't let a CVBG through the Bosphorus. Obama would be an arse if he tried it.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/us/turkey-restricts-us-access.htm

Some food for thought.

Mike.

This was sage advice. It is time for the US to resume the foreign policy of the founding fathers.

At the time of this quote the USA was a 3rd world country. As the single most powerful 1st world nation on the entire planet, I'm unsure if we CAN withdraw. Sure we could try, but I"m not sure it will be successful. However, we certainly should be a lot more careful and selective.

Europe can defend itself for example. It is no longer a collection of shattered economies and destroyed cities that it was post WWII. They don't want our military there and there really is no good reason why we should be there beyond a staging base or two necessary for middle east actions (which we should be more selective about but I don't see that we can escape entirely).

It depends on what your definition of "withdraw" is. Back in the time of Adams' quote the US was not a great power like Britain, France or Spain. However; the US had one of the largest maritime merchant fleets in the world. A reasonable analogy would be Manticore during or perhaps before the time of Edward Saganami. It was theoretically possible for the US to remain neutral with respect to European conflicts while remaining engaged economically and diplomatically. The US was conspicuously absent from the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussain war. The Spainish-American war was the seminal event that transformed the US into a "great power" that had to at least flirt with the various alliances. The US remained uninvolved in WW-1 primarily because of a recent, very large wave of German immigrants until Woodrow Wilson exploited the sinking of the Lusitania to get us involved.

The US could withdraw from it's alliances while remaining involved economically and diplomatically. As the two Iraq wars, 9-11 and "the war on terror" have demonstrated, the most compelling reason for the US to wage foreign wars is the US dependance on foreign oil. George W Bush does not get the proper respect for nurturing the Fraking technology that is rapidly expanding US oil production. Obama is trying to screw it up by opposing the Keystone pipeline and exploiting the BP Gulf oil spill as a pretext to shut down deep water drilling. However; US energy production is still expanding.

One can say that Europe can fend for itself, but the reality is that even with the EU they are too disunited without NATO led and massively reinforced by the US to lead them. Keep in mind that the NATO countries bitch and moan about the US spending about 4% of GDP on the military as being excessive while the spend only 1%. They can not afford to increase their military spending to compensate for a US absence because their spending on nationalized healthcare and other "entitlements" is so high. The situation will only get worse as their demographic implosion progresses. Russia is undergoing a demographic implosion but can better survive it because they have developed an export economy based on resource extraction plus weapons exports.

A very interesting situation is evolving between the US and Turkey. Turkey has been screwing the US to please Russia and also advance the dream of a resurgent Caliphate. Putin was about the only world leader except Netanyahu (and may be Governor Palin?) who was smart enough to oppose the Arab Spring. Egypt is now aligned with Russia rather than the US and the Israelis are smart enough to respond to feckless Obama by reconsidering their dependance on the US and flirt with Russia. Eventually, Russia will go after Turkey if it is not under US protection. It will not last long. Russia would then control access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. Given a US withdraw from NATO, would the US cede control of the Mediteranean to Russia? Probably. At this point, our European, former allies become Russia's bitch.

biochem wrote:

This was sage advice. It is time for the US to resume the foreign policy of the founding fathers.

At the time of this quote the USA was a 3rd world country. As the single most powerful 1st world nation on the entire planet, I'm unsure if we CAN withdraw. Sure we could try, but I"m not sure it will be successful. However, we certainly should be a lot more careful and selective.

Europe can defend itself for example. It is no longer a collection of shattered economies and destroyed cities that it was post WWII. They don't want our military there and there really is no good reason why we should be there beyond a staging base or two necessary for middle east actions (which we should be more selective about but I don't see that we can escape entirely).

Nameless, I clicked on that url;
it gave a mostly blank page,
except for "Congressional Record: Thomas" at the top.
Allow me to guess that "Thomas" is a congresscritter
whom you admire.

IfIRC, Turkey's announced reason for not allowing 3rdID.
to deploy from its territory, was that Turkey deemed the
attack on Saddam to be a Bad Idea, of dubious morality.
(Perhaps they also expected Shrub's administration
to screw it up, but I don't recall them saying so.)

Was that John Adams, or John Quincy?
I recall another quote from JQA, which accords with it:
"We must not wander the world,
searching for monsters to slay."
I note that both quotes can be used against intervention
in Ukraine, which I also oppose, and also could have
been used against our attack on Saddam.

Finally, No, my reason for supporting Obama, and all
Democrats, against all Republicans, is that I believe
that Republican policies, such as screwing up the
overthrow of Saddam, and screwing up the deposition of
the Taliban in Afghanistan,
are what really weaken the USA.
And yes, as a Pointy-Headed Liberal,
I really believe that.

HTM, PHL

PS I note that Russia now seems to be occupying Crimea,
in "support" of a six/tenth majority Russian population.
I say USA ought *not* to intervene with force.
Say "naughty naughty" and other nasty things,
and remember it for later & better chances.

Note: Crimea had never been part of Ukraine till 1956,
when Nikita Kruschev (sic), himself a Ukrainian,
gave it to them.
One source I read called it an "Autonomous Region" so
it has the same "right to choose its destiny" as South
Ossetia or Chechnia do. How's that for irony?
Note 2: Russia supports S O & opposes C.

HTM, PHL

namelessfly wrote:Withdrawing from NATO does not enable the USN to access the Black Sea. However; Turkey's refusal to admit US Hospital ships to the Black Sea in 2008 and far more relevant Turkey's refusal to enable the deployment of the Third Infantry Division for the Iraq invasion because it wants to curtail US power relative to Russia are confirmation that US allies are unworthy of US protection.

I would refer you to this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:H06JN5-42:

I would highlight the quote from President Adams:

"The US is the friend of liberty everywhere, but the guardian of none but it's own."

This was sage advice. It is time for the US to resume the foreign policy of the founding fathers.

If Vladimir Putin's Russia wants to intervene in Ukraine, the US should not refight the Crimean war that killed 1/2 million to stop it. The US should not intervene even if Putin reenacts Stalin's terror famines of the 1930s that killed tens of millions of people.

You are the ones who support President Obama because he will weaken the US. So be it. Enjoy the consequences.

namelessfly

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Now please explain to us how "withdrawing from NATO"
would affect sending warships into the Black Sea.

HTM

Once again confirming that pointy headed liberals are far to dedicated to their ideology to evaluate individual candidates and individual policies on their individual merits rather than on whom they can be identified with.

It was Turkey and Ted Kennedy who ensured that the insurgency would evolve in Iraq and Obama who snatched defeat from the jaws of Bush's hard-fought victory.

I now favor neo-isolationism because such partisan insanity makes any other policy insanely dangerous.

It is amazing at how ignorant and near sighted Republicans are:

http://conservatives4palin.com/2014/02/ ... rship.html

Sarah could see this coming from her house up in Alaska.

Fly's comment " Putin was about the only world leader except Netanyahu (and may be Governor Palin?) " puzzles me. Isn't Palin a retired ex state governor who has no official status? How can she be a "world leader"?