• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Biden Presidency Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Trump didn't have anything to do with sending money to Ukraine....that was appropriated by Congress....


Oh, wait, he did delay that by 7 months to try and use that as a bargaining chip.

Earlier than that, he delayed other sales and shipments.
Click to expand...


While it may have been inappropriate to discuss investigations against the former Vice-President (ten percent for the Big Guy) at that level (normally that would be a FBI request to the relevant authorities), at least the US was willing to sell weapon systems to the Ukrainians, something that President Obama, for all his tough talk, flatly refused to even discuss.

Again, we're expected to believe that the president that fought against the Russians, however ineffectually you believe he was, was some sort of Russian Secret Agent Man, while the presidents that folded like a cheap suit against Russian aggression were some sort of hard line Cold Warriors.

It's amazing how much of the Party line devolves into "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
 
theprestige said:
Begging the question, which has already been extensively debated elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Begging what question? Putin actively tried to get Trump elected. Twice. This is not debatable. It happened.

Putin clearly wanted Trump in the White House instead of Biden.

Anyway, to answer your actual question about specifics:

Bomb Russian forward supply depots, artillery parks, and rallying points. Is well within US/NATO capability, doesn't require committing ground troops in Ukraine, and would make a real difference. It's hard to sustain an offensive when your supplies and reinforcements keep getting disrupted, and your fire support is consistently suppressed.
Click to expand...

Cool. Now all you have to do is attribute any of this to Trump.
 
cmikes said:
So why didn't he? Putin invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014 to President Obama's angry talk of "red lines" and "consequences" while not actually doing anything.

Then Trump came into office and shipped weapons to the Ukrainian government, bombed Russian troops in Syria, and sold missile defense systems to Poland, all while urging NATO countries to spend more in their own defense. And not just militarily, Trump also hit Putin economically by fighting against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and increasing America's energy independence.

Now President Biden is in office, and the Ukrainian invasion is back on the menu. It's obvious that after the disastrous withdraw in Afghanistan, Putin believes that the US is not going to be able to do anything to effectively stop him.

The whole "Trump is a Russian agent" falls apart just by simple logic. Or was Ronald Reagan a Soviet agent? Or maybe Joe McCarthy? Was President Obama an agent of the Republican party?

The Hillary campaign had much closer ties to Russian agents in just setting up the whole Trump-Russia hoax than Trump ever actually had to Russia.
Click to expand...

And yet Putin twice interfered in U.S. elections in an effort to get elected the guy who was such threat to him. Totally makes sense.
 
Last edited:
cmikes said:
While it may have been inappropriate to discuss investigations against the former Vice-President (ten percent for the Big Guy) at that level (normally that would be a FBI request to the relevant authorities), at least the US was willing to sell weapon systems to the Ukrainians, something that President Obama, for all his tough talk, flatly refused to even discuss.

Again, we're expected to believe that the president that fought against the Russians, however ineffectually you believe he was, was some sort of Russian Secret Agent Man, while the presidents that folded like a cheap suit against Russian aggression were some sort of hard line Cold Warriors.

It's amazing how much of the Party line devolves into "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Click to expand...

That Putin wanted Trump in the White House is indisputable. So either your eyes are lying or you are.
 
Aridas said:
:rolleyes: Helsinki. Putin KNEW Trump is both weak and wants to suck up to him, regardless.
Click to expand...

And yet, he's taken chunks of Ukraine when Obama and Biden are president, but not when Trump was.

This is attributed to "bad luck". It isn't.
 
Ziggurat said:
And yet, he's taken chunks of Ukraine when Obama and Biden are president, but not when Trump was.

This is attributed to "bad luck". It isn't.
Click to expand...

Terrorist attacks, economic crashes, and out-of-control pandemics under
Republican presidents = Totally not their fault.

Foreign nations attacking other foreign nations under Democrat presidents = Absolutely their fault.
 
Ziggurat said:
And yet, he's taken chunks of Ukraine when Obama and Biden are president, but not when Trump was.

This is attributed to "bad luck". It isn't.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I, at least, didn't attribute it to "bad luck," at least when it comes to the current situation... unless that "bad luck" is that Biden came after Trump, who actively weakened the US' ability to be a deterrent. Sure, though, feel free to keep trying to gaslight us about the guy who's actively supporting Russia's attack on Ukraine. Not like we can stop you.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
And yet, he's taken chunks of Ukraine when Obama and Biden are president, but not when Trump was.

This is attributed to "bad luck". It isn't.
Click to expand...

It can't be attributed to anything US related because that is incredibly speculative.


ETA: Also, an egotistical view that it is not coincidence that it is dependent on who the president of America is. It could be true, but given the absence of evidence, it seems very self centered....like the world must evolve around the US.
 
Last edited:
cmikes said:
While it may have been inappropriate to discuss investigations against the former Vice-President (ten percent for the Big Guy) at that level (normally that would be a FBI request to the relevant authorities), at least the US was willing to sell weapon systems to the Ukrainians, something that President Obama, for all his tough talk, flatly refused to even discuss.
Click to expand...

LOL! Um...no. From Politico:
The Obama administration refused to provide lethal weapons in 2014. The decision came as Russian forces invaded the eastern territory of Crimea in 2014 after Ukraine ousted its pro-Russia president. But the United States under Obama did provide extensive military and security aid but not lethal weapons.
Click to expand...
Between 2014 and 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine.

Under Obama, the federal government started the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which sent other kinds of U.S. military equipment to the country. From 2016 to 2019, Congress appropriated $850 million.
Click to expand...

In the last year of the Obama administration, Congress authorized lethal aid, but it didn’t include the Javelins.

The 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law in November 2015, called for "lethal assistance such as anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition."
Click to expand...

NBC:

In particular, said (ex-CIA Director John) Brennan, now an NBC News analyst, the military was opposed to providing Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Ukrainians during the Obama administration "because of fear that the Russians would get access to Javelin's sensitive technology," he said.

"The Russians had deep penetrations of Ukrainian intelligence, security, and military forces in the aftermath" of that country's 2014 revolution that overthrew a pro-Russian government he said, "and it took time to rid those forces of Russian moles, agents, and spies. That was the purpose of my visit to Kiev less than eight weeks after the Revolution of Dignity."
Click to expand...

cmikes said:
Again, we're expected to believe that the president that fought against the Russians, however ineffectually you believe he was, was some sort of Russian Secret Agent Man, while the presidents that folded like a cheap suit against Russian aggression were some sort of hard line Cold Warriors.

It's amazing how much of the Party line devolves into "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Click to expand...

I suggest you wean yourself off the Kool-Aid. Try water instead.
 
Stacyhs said:
LOL! Um...no. From Politico:

Between 2014 and 2016, the United States committed more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine.





NBC:





I suggest you wean yourself off the Kool-Aid. Try water instead.
Click to expand...

Add that to the point that the Trump Administration, on the other hand, allowed some to be bought, but not to be used. If those penetrations weren't eliminated, that sure sounds a lot like an attempt give Russia a hand in getting said military technology.
 
Putin would have invaded in Trump's second term if Trump won. He was waiting for Trump to further divide NATO to make it easier. He's moving now because Biden is working to strengthen NATO and Putin wanted to strike before NATO gets too strong.
 
cmikes said:
So why didn't he? Putin invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014 to President Obama's angry talk of "red lines" and "consequences" while not actually doing anything.

Then Trump came into office and shipped weapons to the Ukrainian government, bombed Russian troops in Syria, and sold missile defense systems to Poland, all while urging NATO countries to spend more in their own defense. And not just militarily, Trump also hit Putin economically by fighting against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and increasing America's energy independence.
Click to expand...

1. The US never bombed Russian troops in Syria; they bombed suspected chemical weapon production sites sponsored by Russia with no military casualties.

2. Lethal weapons were sold to Ukraine under Obama:
During the Obama administration, direct commercial sales of small shipments of lethal arms to Ukraine were reviewed, approved, and licensed on a case-by-case basis by the Department of State in consultation with the Department of Defense. The US government authorized nearly $27 million of commercial defense articles and services to Ukraine in 2016 and about $68 million in 2015, portions of which are classified as lethal weaponry.
Click to expand...
It is through this process that US-made lethal weapons arrived near Ukraine’s frontlines. According to a recent Digital Forensic Research Lab investigation, the Texas-based company AirTronic shipped 100 PSRL-1 (Precision Shoulder-Fired Rocket Launcher) systems to the Ukrainian state-run Spetstechnoexport in April 2017.

These direct commercial sales coupled with the US provision of advanced non-lethal weaponry, particularly counter-battery radar systems, were already in motion during the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
1. The US never bombed Russian troops in Syria; they bombed suspected chemical weapon production sites sponsored by Russia with no military casualties.
Click to expand...

That isn't the incident being referred to. This is:

https://www.newsweek.com/total-f-russian-mercenaries-syria-lament-us-strike-killed-dozens-818073

It wasn't "Russian troops" in the sense that they weren't Russian military personnel, it was Russian mercenaries working for the Syrians. But we did bomb Russians in Syria.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think you misunderstand. It's squeamishness I'm worried about.

I agree that a few casualties would be acceptable. My concern is that others wouldn't feel the same, and this limited war would turn into something much larger because the public isn't willing to accept US casualties without a punitive escalation of the conflict. Before you know it we're in another idiotic "regime change" campaign in Russia.
Click to expand...
The public seemed just fine with Trump's limited use of military strikes, without demanding an all-in approach to Syria, ISIS, and Iran.

Hell, the public was even on board with Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan. They just weren't happy about Biden making a dog's breakfast of it.

Ideally a series of US targeted attacks would cool Russia's heels and get them back on their side of the fence and engaging in lawful diplomacy again. Somehow I find myself doubting the US having the discipline to stay within the limitations of that objective once we took casualties directly.
Click to expand...
We seemed to have no trouble staying within the limitations of the objective during that exchange of blows with Iran a few years back.

When you say "doubting the US having the discipline to stay within the limitations of the objective", what exactly are you referring to?

Do you mean you don't think Biden can stick to such a plan? Do you mean you don't think the Joint Chiefs will restrict their operations to Biden's plan? You don't think the mainstream media will be able to contain themselves, and will drown out the bully pulpit with calls for total war against Russia?
 
theprestige said:
The public seemed just fine with Trump's limited use of military strikes, without demanding an all-in approach to Syria, ISIS, and Iran.

Hell, the public was even on board with Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan. They just weren't happy about Biden making a dog's breakfast of it.


We seemed to have no trouble staying within the limitations of the objective during that exchange of blows with Iran a few years back.

When you say "doubting the US having the discipline to stay within the limitations of the objective", what exactly are you referring to?

Do you mean you don't think Biden can stick to such a plan? Do you mean you don't think the Joint Chiefs will restrict their operations to Biden's plan? You don't think the mainstream media will be able to contain themselves, and will drown out the bully pulpit with calls for total war against Russia?
Click to expand...

No Americans got killed in the exchange with Iran.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan is a good example. Americans like the idea of military operations in theory, but freak out when confronted with even a tiny number of casualties. The small number of troops killed during the withdrawal sent the public into a tizzy.

Maybe I'm totally off base, but I suspect a bombing exchange with Russia would result in casualties that would result in political and public pressure for the US to engage in escalating retaliation that could easily lead to a broader war.
 
johnny karate said:
And yet Putin twice interfered in U.S. elections in an effort to get elected the guy who was such threat to him. Totally makes sense.
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't make sense, which is the point. If Trump was the Russian Secret Agent Man of Democratic fevered imaginations, why was a Russian agent working with the Clinton campaign via Christopher Steele to spread anti-Trump disinformation? Or why were Russian agents paying for and organizing anti-Trump marches and rallies with Michael Moore and other D-list celebrities?

Disruption of the US elections was the point, not that any particular candidate won.

And if Putin could be guaranteed that the US wouldn't interfere via his Secret Agent Man, why would he wait to take the rest of the Ukraine?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom