Allowing? Exactly how could he prevented it? The executive possesses no magical powers that can alter the whims of wannabe tyrants. Physically removing them is a terrible solution. What can be done is respond by getting the EU onboard with applying sanctions despite the sanctions being against the EU's financial interests. It is currently disputed territory. The UN voted 100 to 11 that Crimea is a part of the Ukraine. Only Afghanistan, Cuba, Kyrgyzstan, and Nicaragua recognize Crimea as part of Russia as far as I am aware. Please explain how the EU accommodating Syrian refugees is Obama's plan. This is the "ignorance" part I was talking about. Putin is obviously displeased with Obama over Crimea as anyone can plainly see. He has taken every opportunity to undermine his Administration as a result, Syria being no different. Russia's interests in Iran and their oilfields is almost a century old, so this relationship is nothing new. Putin has no incentive to work with the current Administration and I fail to see why we're interested in his well-being while he continues to shit on the international community in Crimea. I could give a shit less what Israel thinks because they could give a shit less what America thinks. Israel is hardly an ally. They take and give nothing in return. Our continued support of them in this one-sided relationship is the source of our issues in the Middle East. I'd just as soon let them stand on their own. I'm not sure why you put quotes around this. I haven't seen anyone say this. You can't lead those that refuse to follow, even when doing so is against their own interests. Clinton's opponents resorted to impeaching him for perjury over a subject that should not have even been discussed. LBJ's actions with the Civil Rights Act split his own party in two. Clinton and LBJ both failed at doing so, just like Obama. Leading people is a two-step proposition. One person leads, but the other mist agree to follow.
That's a poor comparison. Climate change is a matter of science and people simply choosing to ignore it. One side has actual data and the other side has lobbyists with financial obligations and incentives to spread disinformation. The Israel/Palestine issue is a centuries-old issue of tribal conflict.
Thats not true. Both have lobbyists and both spread disinformation. Specifically on the outcome side of things. The prediction models are used with man made data and frequently wrong. The other side, which is valid, is you have guys flying around on jets preaching to us about climate change and CO2. .......... Not sure how you or anyone can really blame the so called "deniers". Its not that they deny its hotter or colder as compared to previous data. Its that its not as bad as these people are claiming.
Ok then, you can think that though actual data suggest different. In 2015 NASA published data that showed 5% more ice in parts of the Antarctic than in 1979. Citing that warmer air has increased snow fall in some parts. Antarctic/Articshelves are the biggest contributor to sea levels rise btw not sea ice. Their models said the Antarctic would continue to shrink. Not increase. So like I have said for some time; my issue is with their man made models. They don't jive.
There is right or facts and there wrong no facts regarding so called climate change. Why did the last great ice age begin and why did it end?
Just a little "inconvenient truth" about your precious NOAA https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/noaa-global-temperatures-are-fake-data/
Put that shit in this shitty thread. http://tigerfan.com/threads/climate-change-is-about-control.132463/unread
Poor spelling "aggrevates" me and I'm sure that's not the only thing you'd like to put up my ass you homo.
