From your link:

The U.S. can reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 if it enacts proposed rules to cut pollution from power plants and curbs methane leaks, the U.S. State Department said in a report today.

In order for the nation to meet the goal laid out by President Barack Obama for cutting reductions relative to 2005 levels, the country will need to follow through with proposals to curb carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, spur use of high-efficiency light bulbs, and policies to boost solar and wind deployment, said the draft report, which will be submitted to the United Nations.

In other words has not happened, and Greenhouse gases in 2005 are right under half of 2010, HERE is a graph.  Notice the curve is damn near vertical, which means by 2020 they are going to be at levels around 10x current levels.

Kilotonnes of CO2 for the world in 2010, 33,615,389  for the US 5,433,057 or 16.1%.  Even though we hold 4.43% of the world's population.   That is nearly 4 times, aka 363%, even if we reduce by 17% that would be 4,509,437 kiltonnes or 13.4% in 2010 numbers.  Which is 3 times the average CO2 emissions per person.

He was trying his damnedest to stay out of this mess until ISIS began to attack one of our only allies in the region the Kurds.   Although the Kurds were not innocent in this conflict after taking Kirkuk.  The Kurds begged for our help once ISIS began to attack them, and Obama was in a bad spot.  Abandoning your allies and allowing ISIS to continue their momentum, or to get drawn in a complete clusterf*ck of a situation.

It's a matter of how drawn in we are.  Hopefully not much.  Obama sure blustered around and wagged the stick against Assad 2 years ago, and the end result was that the civilized world stressed the importance of not using WMDs and accepting Assads WMD stockpiles.  It wasn't pretty, but the end result wasn't bad.

One thing is for sure, the different factions of the Middle East are very good at manipulating us. Our politicians and the majority of American public seem always willing to bomb someone, anyone in the Middle East when we get drawn into choosing sides.

I understand Obama is going to take some heat for his Middle East policies.  But I think he has done better than most to try an untangle ourselves from the disaster that is the Middle East.  Maybe it's just that after Bush, everyone looks good.  But I still approve of Obama's handling of the ME.

• In 2013, the official poverty rate was 14.5 percent, down from 15.0 percent in 2012. This was the first decrease in the poverty rate since 2006.
  
• In 2013, there were 45.3 million people in poverty. For the third consecutive year, the number of people in poverty at the national level was not statistically different from the previous year's estimate.
  
• The 2013 poverty rate was 2.0 percentage points higher than in 2007, the year before the most recent recession.
  
• The poverty rate for children under 18 fell from 21.8 percent in 2012 to 19.9 percent in 2013.
  
• The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.6 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 9.5 percent. Neither of these poverty rates were statistically different from their 2012 estimates.
  
• Both the poverty rate and the number in poverty decreased for Hispanics in 2013.
  
• Despite the decline in the national poverty rate, the 2013 regional poverty rates were not statistically different from the 2012 rates.

1 in 10 retirees in poverty and 1 in 5 children should be criminal, certainly not the numbers one expects from a country who believes they can eradicate it globally.
----------------------------------

Russian land grab = Bad
US oil grab = Good

Or should have Putin stated that he believes they had WMD's ?  

Is there any valid reason for a country to invade another one that did not attack them ?

Since August 2005, the majority of Americans have viewed the invasion of Iraq as a mistake.  But that wasn't my point, my point was that we invaded a sovereign country and now we are chastising another country doing the same thing.

I would describe it as mildly the same in that they didn't shock and awe or create decks of cards of the bad guys to murder.  Nor did they spent a billion dollars and way too many soldiers lives only to face the redux.  Not with a new war, just dealing with the aftermath of a previous one.  So those number can only increase.

That is why poverty thresholds were developed.

Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year.[6] The largest of these expenses is typically the rent required to live in an apartment, so historically, economists have paid particular attention to the real estate market and housing prices as a strong poverty line affecter...

Measuring poverty by an absolute threshold has the advantage of applying the same standard across different locations and time periods: it makes comparisons easier. On the other hand, it suffers from the disadvantage that any absolute poverty threshold is to some extent arbitrary; the amount of wealth required for survival is not the same in all places and time periods. For example, a person living in far northern Scandinavia requires a source of heat during colder months, while a person living on a tropical island does not.