Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
So you don't threaten, but you say if you did it we will get you? Right.
|
Yes, to an extent, you can say if the evidence points to Russian involvement in supplying the rebels further sanctions will be undertaken. there is nothing wrong with that, Obama has repeatedly threatened further sanctions, don't know why so many are getting their panties in a knot over this type of talk, it happens all the time.
As far as crisis control or mannerisms, you do all that was pointed out but in the end you say that those responsible will be brought to justice, or otherwise. Obama has used this over Benghazi, he has used it this situation already with regard to supplying heavy arms to the rebels etc. nothing new but would further go to show that the US is not weak.
Now, the problem with the UN is that everything goes through the security council with Russia and China having permanent seats and voting against all actions that may be against them or their allies. This makes the UN useless as the "world cops" and is why the US and it's allies have had to take on that role independent of the UN. It is sad, I think things would be better with full council votes on any action with majority rules but that will never happen.