Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

So you don't think that Russia has any intention of invading the Ukraine? 

Nope, what’s stopping them from invading? Definitely not potato head.

Posted

I mean they already invaded 6 years ago, this would simply be an escalation. Why some of you are so dismissive of the possibility is beyond me.

Posted (edited)

I really hope we do not get involved...Of course, I also understand that our military industrial complex can never seem to help themselves...So, I’m predicting we will be at war in short time- and not for the reasons the CIA controlled msm is saying...

 

Edited by JaCrispy
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Lol, you don’t understand the difference between trying to stop a war and trying to start one? 

 

 

 

The difference is I don't trust the man when he is talking about war.  I think my position is grounded in history and reality.  Maybe you weren't paying attention or too young to remember the last time and all the devastation caused by him being wrong.  I hope he's not wrong this time but I have no reason to think otherwise.  The best predictor of the future is how people performed in the past.

 

I know we are told he is playing high level 4 dimensional chess with Pooty Poot.  Part of what scares me.

 

You still didn't answer my question. What do you want, war with Russia?

Edited by reddogblitz
Posted
12 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

The difference is I don't trust the man when he is talking about war.  I think my position is grounded in history and reality.  Maybe you weren't paying attention or too young to remember the last time and all the devastation caused by him being wrong.  I hope he's not wrong this time but I have no reason to think otherwise.  The best predictor of the future is how people performed in the past.

 

I know we are told he is playing high level 4 dimensional chess with Pooty Poot.  Part of what scares me.

 

You still didn't answer my question. What do you want, war with Russia?

It’s totally different. Actually, it’s the opposite of what the Conservatives led us into in 2003 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It’s totally different. Actually, it’s the opposite of what the Conservatives led us into in 2003 

 

You continue to pound this specious argument, while seemingly totally ignorant or dismissive of what happened for ten years prior to that.

 

Either way, there is absolutely no way the US gets into a shooting war with Russia over this.

 

In the zero probability of that, Biden is the worst possible option as a leader.

Posted
52 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It’s totally different. Actually, it’s the opposite of what the Conservatives led us into in 2003 

 

So now President Biden is a conservative?  You need to study up on your history.  President Biden was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a major proponent of the drive to war in Iraq. He ran the hearings. He decided who could testify and who couldn't.  He voted for it and talked other Donkey team members to vote for it.  Wouldn't have passed otherwise.

 

This episode of Democracy Now and film referenced gives a good review for you of then Senator Biden's role.  Please watch and we can discuss it more if you wish.

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/5/joe_biden_s_history_of_selling

Posted
33 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

So now President Biden is a conservative?  You need to study up on your history.  President Biden was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a major proponent of the drive to war in Iraq. He ran the hearings. He decided who could testify and who couldn't.  He voted for it and talked other Donkey team members to vote for it.  Wouldn't have passed otherwise.

 

This episode of Democracy Now and film referenced gives a good review for you of then Senator Biden's role.  Please watch and we can discuss it more if you wish.

 

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/3/5/joe_biden_s_history_of_selling

Biden didn’t led the charge to war in Iraq.

 

The Conservative President did 

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

You continue to pound this specious argument, while seemingly totally ignorant or dismissive of what happened for ten years prior to that.

 

Either way, there is absolutely no way the US gets into a shooting war with Russia over this.

 

In the zero probability of that, Biden is the worst possible option as a leader.

What argument are you saying is specious? 

 

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

What argument are you saying is specious? 

 

 

That the US was being "driven" into war in 2003.

You state this over and over and over.

The claim is like stating that the Roosevelt administration was driving us into war on Dec 8 1941.

 

In short, you ignorantly avoid mentioning the attempts at preventing war for the ten years or so after the Saddam regime signed the cease fire agreement,

Completely ignore the many, many UN resolutions violated or ignored.

Completely ignore the many warnings in the preceding years.

 

It's like you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of what preceded 2003, when the clock was running out and the options were getting limited to deal with this.

 

You also ignore the unanimity of the intel findings in the US and other countries services, and joint  Congressional approval of the actions that followed. 

 

Splained enough?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

That the US was being "driven" into war in 2003.

You state this over and over and over.

The claim is like stating that the Roosevelt administration was driving us into war on Dec 8 1941.

 

In short, you ignorantly avoid mentioning the attempts at preventing war for the ten years or so after the Saddam regime signed the cease fire agreement,

Completely ignore the many, many UN resolutions violated or ignored.

Completely ignore the many warnings in the preceding years.

 

It's like you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of what preceded 2003, when the clock was running out and the options were getting limited to deal with this.

 

You also ignore the unanimity of the intel findings in the US and other countries services, and joint  Congressional approval of the actions that followed. 

 

Splained enough?

Tibs can't admit Biden was one of the leaders of the Senate to drive us into that war, why do you think anything else you mention matters? I recommend just talking to wall since it will be more logical that Tibs.

Posted
3 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

That the US was being "driven" into war in 2003.

You state this over and over and over.

The claim is like stating that the Roosevelt administration was driving us into war on Dec 8 1941.

 

In short, you ignorantly avoid mentioning the attempts at preventing war for the ten years or so after the Saddam regime signed the cease fire agreement,

Completely ignore the many, many UN resolutions violated or ignored.

Completely ignore the many warnings in the preceding years.

 

It's like you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of what preceded 2003, when the clock was running out and the options were getting limited to deal with this.

 

You also ignore the unanimity of the intel findings in the US and other countries services, and joint  Congressional approval of the actions that followed. 

 

Splained enough?


But Bush lied…people died!! 
 

in 3….2…..1

 

 

Posted
10 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

The war that only the Biden Administration is predicting ?

 

Avoiding that should be pretty easy.

 

 


What an idiot. 

Posted

Hope he is wrong. Boris Johnson predicts a human rights nightmare. 

Quote

 

Evidence suggests Russia is planning "the biggest war in Europe since 1945", Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said. 

He told the BBC's Sophie Raworth in an interview: "All the signs are that the plan has already in some senses begun."

Intelligence suggests Russia intends to launch an invasion that will encircle Ukrainian capital Kyiv, Mr Johnson said.

"People need to understand the sheer cost in human life that could entail," he said.

The prime minister was speaking from Munich, where world leaders are meeting for an annual security conference. 

Ukraine: How big is the Russian military build-up?

UK vows to step up support for Ukraine 

Ukraine invasion would shock the world - PM

The latest estimates by the US government suggests that between 169,000 and 190,000 Russian troops are stationed along Ukraine's border, both in Russia and neighbouring Belarus - but this figure also includes rebels in eastern Ukraine.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60448162

11 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

That the US was being "driven" into war in 2003.

You state this over and over and over.

The claim is like stating that the Roosevelt administration was driving us into war on Dec 8 1941.

 

In short, you ignorantly avoid mentioning the attempts at preventing war for the ten years or so after the Saddam regime signed the cease fire agreement,

Completely ignore the many, many UN resolutions violated or ignored.

Completely ignore the many warnings in the preceding years.

 

It's like you have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of what preceded 2003, when the clock was running out and the options were getting limited to deal with this.

 

You also ignore the unanimity of the intel findings in the US and other countries services, and joint  Congressional approval of the actions that followed. 

 

Splained enough?

The Bush Administration led us to war, it launched a public relations campaign, a political campaign and ultimately a military campaign to gin up the war. They mislead the country into the war using the emotional appeal of 9-11 to convince Americans Saddam was part of that attack. Your rewriting of history is just silly 

10 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

Don’t need to. I thought your point, anyway, was that our invading a country in 2003 is the same as us trying to stop a war now. That’s stupid. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Hope he is wrong. Boris Johnson predicts a human rights nightmare. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60448162

The Bush Administration led us to war, it launched a public relations campaign, a political campaign and ultimately a military campaign to gin up the war. They mislead the country into the war using the emotional appeal of 9-11 to convince Americans Saddam was part of that attack. Your rewriting of history is just silly 

Don’t need to. I thought your point, anyway, was that our invading a country in 2003 is the same as us trying to stop a war now. That’s stupid. 

 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Pointing out the historical record is hardly "rewriting history."

You repeatedly fail to acknowledge that history.

Nothing happened between the Feb 1991 ceasefire and 2003?

There were no ceasefire violations?

Operation Southern Watch encountered no offensive activities?

There were no UN resolutions?

 

There were no intel briefings from US intel sources to Congressional Intel Committees ultimately resulting  in overwhelming support?

There's sure a lot of evidence of this "invented" history.

Of course the Bush Administration reached a point where they thought a forced removal of the Saddam regime was necessary.

Of course they interpreted the wmd evidence in the most threatening way.

I wasn't in support of an invasion, but I absolutely know that the year round babysitting of this guy at tremendous cost was not going to be a permanent solution.

The cure may have been worse, but the military operation was stunningly successful and what happened after is the cause of a whole lot of bad people getting involved in a totally failed nation.

Posted
2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Pointing out the historical record is hardly "rewriting history."

You repeatedly fail to acknowledge that history.

Nothing happened between the Feb 1991 ceasefire and 2003?

There were no ceasefire violations?

Operation Southern Watch encountered no offensive activities?

There were no UN resolutions?

 

There were no intel briefings from US intel sources to Congressional Intel Committees ultimately resulting  in overwhelming support?

There's sure a lot of evidence of this "invented" history.

Of course the Bush Administration reached a point where they thought a forced removal of the Saddam regime was necessary.

Of course they interpreted the wmd evidence in the most threatening way.

I wasn't in support of an invasion, but I absolutely know that the year round babysitting of this guy at tremendous cost was not going to be a permanent solution.

The cure may have been worse, but the military operation was stunningly successful and what happened after is the cause of a whole lot of bad people getting involved in a totally failed nation.

I get it was a VERY messed up situation beforehand. 

 

I agree with most most of what you say here, and taking out Saddam was hardly the worst thing to do, but Bush pushed for and rallied the country to war. And he used 9-11 as a pretext. That’s all I’m say. It was a war of choice. I wish it had worked out better. Everyone should have. 

 

As to the aftermath, that was obvious, it was completely predictable

 

The original point you objected to still stands though, the WH is being used today to stop a war, in 2003 it was used to start one. 

×
×
  • Create New...