The heavyweight champion as a political tool, history repeats itself!

Dubble,

With all do respect I disagree.

He’s weak because he doesn't keep his word. He warned the leader of Syria not to use bio and chemical weapons or else. Then he did nothing. This sends a green light for other bad guys to do the same. Terrible.

He’s weak because he tried to make political points such as close Gitmo, yet it remains open.

Outside of drone attacks, he’s really not committing much to stop Isis either. This is a mistake.

He botched the handling of Egypt, then tells our lone ally in Israel to go back to 1967 boarders.

After this his administration is caught spying on the German Chancellor. No one in the world trusts the USA now. Then he says we need to stop spying on citizens. It’s BS. The USA is tracking 100’s of people. Business as usual goes on.

Then he allows Iran to move forward with having the ability to acquire nuclear weapons, when he had full power to stop them. Nuclear weapons with people who believe they are on a religious mission to stop others is a dangerous combination. One does not need to invade Iran to disable suspected nuclear bomb making plants. One only needs to do a demolition job on suspected areas

Did Obama inherit a mess ( Iraq ) from Bush? Sure, but his 6+ years on him.

END of political rant.

 

If Vitali wants to bring world attention to Putin's raping of the Ukraine there is something he can do. He can come out of retirement, and attempt to break George Foreman's record for the oldest man ever to win the heavyweight championship of the world. Then he can use the press to make symbolic gestures and on the air comments about his nation's suffering. If Wilder somehow wins the WBC title, I think this is plausible.

 

I don't agree with most of this.

The U.S. is bombing the hell out of ISIS targets. They are closing in on nearly 1,000 bombs dropped on the terrorist group targets in the past two months. Ransom money is tracked. Hacking is elevated. Practically none of it has been discussed. One of the targets hit this week is believed to include the leader of the group, himself. That's how they were able to target him. The problem with bombs is it takes a while to literally "piece" together who was killed.

Add to that the Obama administration just doesn't publicize what it's doing 99 percent of the time. They weren't the ones who broke the news that they hit a target that may have included the ISIS leader.

It seems like people feel you need to send a 1,000 troops marching in columns down the middle of a public street to demonstrate you are "doing something." But the leaders of the group you are targeting aren't going to be standing the square to lead the charge against you.

Much of what actually goes on at the highest levels of government has always been done in secrecy. Today, nearly all of it happens behind the scenes - that includes dealings with Iran and Syria.

It'll be interesting to read what actually happened behind the scenes in the decades to come.

But if a "talking head" on television isn't fully informed about what's going on - and that head isn't in total agreement with what happened - and the results of what has taken place aren't splashed all across the screens to be dissected and picked apart ... then they say Obama isn't doing anything and he's weak. It's tiresome and predictable.

That's all.

 

The western media are quite capable of whipping up and maintaining this hysterical anti-Putin, anti-Russia campaign without another over-hyped Klitschko comeback.

Also, judging by the way he looked in his last couple of fights, you'd really have to doubt Vitali Klitschko could be champion again in 2015.

 

ISIS is not marching in a line with 1000 men carrying their flag. They look like the natives, drive regular cars, and attack town to town. They are also well funded. As such ground troops are needed to defend the towns and cities as the air strikes aren't going to prevent or repel the smaller attacks. And once ISIS has a town, air strikes become dicey as you hit friendly targets.

And when I say ground troops I don't mean 250,000. More like 20,000 marines or special forces vs the estimated 10,000 or so Isis fighters.

If you can't see Obama saying one thing and doing another, you just aren't paying attention to what he's saying. When you talk tough and balk, you show weakness as a leader. That's what Obama has done.

 

The size, skills, smarts, and power remain even if the speed has diminished. I think if Vitlai spent 6 months in the gym, he still has enough to beat the WBC champion.

I also disagree. When Urkaine declared is independence, Vitlai was part of the orange movement and wore and orange band on his trunks.

 

It's almost irrelevant who the POTUS is. No point you two arguing over that.

Clearly ISIS are just a tool of the USA and their sordid oil Arab allies !
It's the same thing as ever, just a different day.
ISIS are a set-up, obviously. It's hardly been kept secret.

The real target is Syria and Iran. The Al-Qaeda or ISIS are just as patsy, a useful tool.
Again, same as it ever was. The policy remains the same. At least the neo-cons spelled it out for you all.

The big question is : Can Vitali save the world from all these evil forces ?

 

Maybe.

That was the "Orange revolution" in 2004.
Ukraine independence was back in 1991.

 

Who was the Jewish heavyweight champion?
The Black heavyweight champion was appropriated by the White establishment.When did Louis go on an NAACP rally?

 

There is a definite "George Washington vibe" going on there.

http://cdn1.bloguin.com/queensberry...s/sites/93/2014/02/vitali-klitschko-smoke.jpg

 

Which is why you track their financing, sabotage it, and blow up their leaders ... instead of sending 20,000 Marines in to battle house to house against anonymous people who don't wear uniforms and can melt into the population.

The former just isn't as obvious as the latter.

But the former is more effective.

 

The US government do not have the appetite for a boots on the ground offensive and neither I believe do the US public.
The US has achieved exactly what with it's last two infantry forays into foreign lands?

Air strikes are an acceptable alternative, an invasion would be a disaster.
Many of those fighting Assad are just as diametrically opposed to the West as they are to their goverment ,any alliance with them would be a temporary one.
The US armed the Afghans against the Russians , now those weapons are aimed at them.
Why repeat such mistakes?
Simplistic, gung ho, sabre rattling by jingoistic buffoons is fine as long as those running the country ignore them.


Mendoza talks about Reagan presiding ove the fall of the Berlin Wall ,he doesn't even know who was President then!
He talks about bombing Iran's nuclear programme , clearly unaware much of it is buried underground out of reach of all but a nuclear strike.
Obama has been a dissapointment in some respects but he has hardly had a united base behind him and his position has been further weakened in the last week.

 

Financed by the USA and friends of the USA.

 

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

 

Well, you've almost stumbled across an interesting truth there.
The USA needs enemies.
To maintain military expenditure at approx. 40% of the world total, you'd better be able to come up with some enemies !