JDHillFan Posted February 11 Posted February 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, Homelander said: While it's good that Trump secured Fogel's release, if this came at the cost of abandoning Ukraine and forcing Zelenskyy to cede territory to Russia, it was a poor deal - he should have negotiated for the release of all U.S. detainees in Russia: Stephen James Hubbard Robert Gilman Ksenia Karelina Gordon Black Dniel Joseph Schneider Joseph Tater Michael Travis Leake Robert Romanov Woodland Eugene Spector David Barnes You don’t know anything about it but it could be bad because of TRUMP. That’s some serious analysis. Good for you. Edited February 11 by JDHillFan
Homelander Posted February 11 Posted February 11 5 minutes ago, JDHillFan said: You don’t know anything about it but it could be bad because of TRUMP. That’s some serious analysis. Good for you. You would rather defend Trump than read the actual article.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted February 13 Author Posted February 13 No surprise, the dictator is happy the republic is to be sold down the river. The war will not end, Putin will refresh and resupply and go back at it in a short time Trump and Putin love affair means dictators win, republics lose 1
RkFast Posted February 13 Posted February 13 14 minutes ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: No surprise, the dictator is happy the republic is to be sold down the river. The war will not end, Putin will refresh and resupply and go back at it in a short time Trump and Putin love affair means dictators win, republics lose This is not 1939. This is not 1945. The idea that Russia will be completely defeated to the point where it would be impossible for them to "refresh and resupply" is a pipe dream thanks to Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. So...how do we reach a solution to the conflict in light of this?
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted February 13 Author Posted February 13 1 minute ago, RkFast said: This is not 1939. This is not 1945. The idea that Russia will be completely defeated to the point where it would be impossible for them to "refresh and resupply" is a pipe dream thanks to Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. So...how do we reach a solution to the conflict in light of this? Not by giving the aggressor what he wants and shutting out the victim. That’s not a solution
wnyguy Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 minute ago, RkFast said: This is not 1939. This is not 1945. The idea that Russia will be completely defeated to the point where it would be impossible for them to "refresh and resupply" is a pipe dream thanks to Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. So...how do we reach a solution to the conflict in light of this? Well whatever the solution might be, if Trump is involved it will be wrong, right Tibs?
dgrochester55 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Well whatever the solution might be, if Trump is involved it will be wrong, right Tibs? I think that it would physically kill him or some of the others here to ever admit that Trump did something right. That is what years of media conditioning does. It is very hard for people to learn to look at direct sources and form their own opinion. Most think that they have their own opinion, but when pressed have no more than "they are saying" I saw an article", "The news says" or at best, "muh research" which is googling for the top result that fits your narrative. When you have legacy media outlets lying and campaigning for one party for over a decade, this is the end result. Edited February 13 by dgrochester55 1
Coffeesforclosers Posted February 13 Posted February 13 9 minutes ago, RkFast said: This is not 1939. This is not 1945. The idea that Russia will be completely defeated to the point where it would be impossible for them to "refresh and resupply" is a pipe dream thanks to Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. So...how do we reach a solution to the conflict in light of this? Like how Nuclear Weapons saved the Soviet Union from defeat in 1991? How Nuclear Weapons saved China from defeat in Vietnam in 1979? How Nuclear Weapons saved the US from defeat in... What a hilarious argument.
RkFast Posted February 13 Posted February 13 10 minutes ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said: Not by giving the aggressor what he wants and shutting out the victim. That’s not a solution I agree with this. I think Trump already revealed too much. NATO membership SHOULD be off the table, IMHO. But thats your ace card..not the first one you lay down, which is what they did. Mistake.
RkFast Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Like how Nuclear Weapons saved the Soviet Union from defeat in 1991? How Nuclear Weapons saved China from defeat in Vietnam in 1979? How Nuclear Weapons saved the US from defeat in... What a hilarious argument. First of all, you cannot compare the Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq conflicts to the Ukrainian one, a conflict directly on the border of the RU with a country that up until 30 years ago was PART of the RU. Defeat for the USSR in those conflics or for the US in ours was NEVER going to result in the fall of the USSR or the US. Which...again...is what youre asking for now. Second, its the pro Ukrainian side that is stating that a Russian loss looks like the complete destruction of the RU and regime change. That is not going to happen. And yes...the fact that the RU is a nuclear power is part of the calculus as to why. Edited February 13 by RkFast
Coffeesforclosers Posted February 13 Posted February 13 5 minutes ago, RkFast said: I agree with this. I think Trump already revealed too much. NATO membership SHOULD be off the table, IMHO. But thats your ace card..not the first one you lay down, which is what they did. Mistake. Absolutely agreed. Trump has done nothing but signal agreement with Russia's maximalist demands. This is terrible negotiating. 1
Doc Posted February 13 Posted February 13 5 hours ago, RkFast said: I agree with this. I think Trump already revealed too much. NATO membership SHOULD be off the table, IMHO. But thats your ace card..not the first one you lay down, which is what they did. Mistake. No NATO membership was the starting point for Russia.
daz28 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Doc said: No NATO membership was the starting point for Russia. ...and our starting point should be we just cleaned up billions of dollars in our government, that we'd be happy to use to blow your army in Ukraine to smithereens. Instead, trump is offering concessions. What happened to the tough trump, that this would never have started under??? Edited February 13 by daz28
RkFast Posted February 13 Posted February 13 12 minutes ago, Doc said: No NATO membership was the starting point for Russia. Exactly...thats what they really want. So why offer this to them first?
Coffeesforclosers Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 5 hours ago, RkFast said: First of all, you cannot compare the Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Iraq conflicts to the Ukrainian one, a conflict directly on the border of the RU with a country that up until 30 years ago was PART of the RU. About as relevant as Mexico repudiating the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and claiming the Southwest 5 hours ago, RkFast said: Defeat for the USSR in those conflics or for the US in ours was NEVER going to result in the fall of the USSR or the US. Which...again...is what youre asking for now. Except when the USSR was defeated and fell, but carry on... 5 hours ago, RkFast said: Second, its the pro Ukrainian side that is stating that a Russian loss looks like the complete destruction of the RU and regime change. That is not going to happen. And yes...the fact that the RU is a nuclear power is part of the calculus as to why. Self destruction and regime change has happened after every single Russian defeat since 1917. 3 minutes ago, RkFast said: Exactly...thats what they really want. So why offer this to them first? It's been hilarious watching Pete Hesgeth also make preemptive concessions, then have to walk those back. The whole administration is signaling weakness, disinterest and decline. But it's Trump. He could change his mind next week. Especially if he sees video of all of Russia's state media talking heads laughing at his perceived cowardice and stupidity. Edited February 13 by Coffeesforclosers Stff
RkFast Posted February 13 Posted February 13 3 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Except when the USSR was defeated and fell, but carry on... Really? The USSR "fell" in a military confict in 1990? Wow, thats amazing.
Doc Posted February 13 Posted February 13 6 minutes ago, daz28 said: ...and our starting point should be we just cleaned up billions of dollars in our government, that we'd be happy to use to blow your army in Ukraine to smithereens. Instead, trump is offering concessions. What happened to the tough trump, that this would never have started under??? The US isn't going to escalate this war. We would like to see it over. But it really isn't our fight. 1 minute ago, RkFast said: Exactly...thats what they really want. So why offer this to them first? Because it was likely "you must first agree to no NATO membership or there are no further discussions."
daz28 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 24 minutes ago, Doc said: The US isn't going to escalate this war. We would like to see it over. But it really isn't our fight. Because it was likely "you must first agree to no NATO membership or there are no further discussions." It's not our fight 'now', but maybe it really is, especially considering our president stands on quiet strength. You can't have that stance and appeasement at the same time. It sounds like you think that if we let Russia roll Ukraine, the world would be at no less risk than if they hadn't. That's kind of absurd actually.
Doc Posted February 13 Posted February 13 18 minutes ago, daz28 said: It's not our fight 'now', but maybe it really is, especially considering our president stands on quiet strength. You can't have that stance and appeasement at the same time. It sounds like you think that if we let Russia roll Ukraine, the world would be at no less risk than if they hadn't. That's kind of absurd actually. The world would be at no more risk than it is now. Which is to say, none. Russia has proven it can barely handle a corrupt country with minimal NATO assistance like Ukraine. They have no chance against a NATO country.
daz28 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 1 minute ago, Doc said: The world would be at no more risk than it is now. Which is to say, none. Russia has proven it can barely handle a corrupt country with minimal NATO assistance like Ukraine. They have no chance against a NATO country. Just today Europe was stating that they would have no chance at all of keeping up with Russia in munitions. They seemed pretty concerned even if you're not.
Recommended Posts