The "******** you" was already more or less implied when you started spying on our leaders, miss Nuland.
Almost makes you pine for the days of Rumsfelds "Old Europe" and McCain liking France to an "aging movie actress in the 1940s who's still trying to dine out on her looks, but doesn't have the face for it." What? At least those Chickenhawks infused some tenderness into their irreverence.
the attitude toward the EU is neither new nor a big deal. honey, we love you too. the language used, even beyond the F-bomb, would have been shocking if it had been in anything other than a private conversation to a colleague, as it is it's only disappointing: is this how young ladies are taught to speak at choate and brown these days? my, my, the world really is going to the dogs. no, the real issue is the response. it would be hilarious if the context... no, no f*** context, it is hilarious: and what about america's role? this is after all the ukraine, not canada. 1) i suggest that ms. psaki pick up some books about russian statecraft. or at least wiki it. 2) let's consider the thread this is in. now tell me which is blackest: pot or kettle? and what about our private conversations mr. carney? any news about them? this is supposed to be reassuring? add it all up and it's hard to know what to be the most bothered about: the hypocrisy of it all or the keystone kops flavor of it all.
OK, I have only followed this at a distance, but if per Ms. Nuland's view the EU has been soft in its support of Ukraine's pro-democracy movements, because the EU is caving to Russia, then was she wrong in saying what she said?
Yes, because her analysis is wrong. It is easy to consider the EUs approach to be too hesitating from far away Washington. But from an EU perspective Ukraine is just around the corner. EU isnt caving to Russia, EU just follows a different foreign policy: a soft power strategy. As to be seen during the Arab spring. What also plays into it that she doesnt have a fukcing clue what the EU is actually doing there. And determent is better than any direct attack in this case. Let's say -at this point of time- a gun on the table is better than firing it.
No she wasn't. After all, she is clueless ... but honest. ;-))) Anyway, as "revenge", the f*ck... EU should finally grant asylum to Edward Snowden. Btw: It's sooooo damn funny to see STASI Obama's staff tasting their own medicine (when it comes to spying).
Obama was the progressive choice in 2012. Mitt would be all up in your Mormon longjohns if he was prez. And we'd have nuked the infidels in Iran by this time last year.
I think the EU is far more concerned with Russian gas supplies. we all remember what happened the last time the Russians closed the tap.
oh, and this is nonsense as well: and specially the French under Hollande have been involved in every foreign war they could. had to make up for all his poor rating at home. or at least try, incompetent as he is.
Attacking Iran has never been on the cards. US has a reputation of only picking fights either late - WWI, WWII - where all the sides involved are already exasperated or against broke back, desolate nations - 'Nam, 'Stam, Iraq, Sudan, etc. In a covert US -Iran war simulation in '06 US had 25,000 casualties by the end of the first day. Bush, backed off and the rest is history.
You're wrong, Im afraid. Maybe a few eastern/south eastern member states. But they're not calling the shots. Not in the EU as a whole. NTF even during the cold war the Russians delivered what they had promised. They're businessmen after all, too. You seem to have problems to define what the EU is. France is not the EU. Talking about nonsense: Norway, Canada, Qatar are now member states of the EU? Did the EU intervene in Tunesia, Egypt or Syria? Or better asked: how did they act so far, concerning military missions? There are not French officials negotiating in Kiev, they are officials from Brussels. For further information Id advise you to start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Foreign_and_Security_Policy
ah, I see, the eastern/south eastern EU states can be forgotten about in the cosy "soft power policy". how convenient. jees, you not possibly be that dense. did you really think I think Norway, Canada and Qatar are in the EU just because they appear in a c/v wiki paragraph? and did the US intervene in Tunisia, Egypt or Syria? when it came to Libya many EU countries were in the middle of it. there simply wasn't a common EU foreign and security policy, and certainly not soft. and there still isn't. the big countries within the EU are still pursuing their own foreign policy, with the French and British more militaristic, and Germany very much less so. in fact Germany is probably the only country you can call a soft power country which has the weight to actually achieve something. and it has become very useful as a negotiator. fact is, none of this adds up to a coherent EU foreign and security policy.
Considering their financial and military share in EU institutions, yes, I think it is reasonable to say Croatia, Rumania or Bulgaria are less important than the de facto hegemon Germany or a nuclear power like France. They are defining the CFSP. If you like that or not doesnt matter. Nice try. You're quote. Your fault. That was a NATO/UN mission. Not an EU mission. France and the UK particpated as NATO members with an UN resolution. See above but let's take the case Syria: which country above all was ready to go in there with troops? The US. Who was still calling for sanctions even after the biological attacks on civilians got public? The EU. See? That's a soft power. Case Ukraine: who is already discussing sanctions for the Janukowitch regime while the other is still trying to play the negotiator role? That's Nuland said "******** the EU". ;-) Dude, where did you get that from that a foreign policy needs to be coherent or consistent? That's where you are wrong. A characteristic of EUs foreign policy is incoherency. But just because it is incoherent doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Political science 2nd year: EU integration. With different interest but the need to negotiate a common foreign and security policy EUs foreign policy results in incoherency and a policy of the lowest common denominator. Thats what makes EU -for structural reasons- acting hesitantly and soft. Above all diplomacy is key. EU even dissociates itself here from the US. Now please go troll somewhere else.
An interesting perspective about a free press and the significance of Snowden and the NSA... http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ished-46th-in-a-press-freedom-contest/283798/ The United States Just Finished 46th in a Press-Freedom Contest At least the birthplace of the First Amendment managed to come in one spot ahead of Haiti. Every year, Reporters Without Borders ranks 180 countries in order of how well they safeguard press freedom. This year, the United States suffered a precipitous drop. The latest Press Freedom Index ranked the U.S. 46th. That puts us around the same place as UC Santa Barbara in the U.S. News and World Report college rankings. If we were on the PGA tour we'd be Jonas Blixt of Sweden. If we were on American Idol we'd have been sent home already. Countries that scored better include Romania, South Africa, Ghana, Cyprus, and Botswana. And 40 others. Put simply, it's an embarrassing result for the country that conceived the First Amendment almost 240 years ago. These rankings are always a bit arbitrary, but we're not anywhere close to the top tier these days. Why?
I can't see the rankings, do I have to download them? Mexico better not be ranked ahead of us, in Veracruz reporters are getting killed left and right.
Mexico comes in 152nd. That's behind Russia, Philipines, Singapore, and the "Democratic" "Republic" of Congo, and ahead of Iraq, Turkey, Gambia, Swaziland, Belarus and Pakistan.
It's on the 'read More' link on that page. Also here... http://rsf.org/index2014/en-index2014.php# Toward the bottom of the page in the scrolling area. There's a map here... http://rsf.org/index2014/data/carte2014_en.png