Jump to content

US-Russian Tensions Escalate Amid Ukraine Crisis


PN-G bamatex

Recommended Posts

No one won't stop Putin and he knows it. Russia knows Obama does not have the stomach for war and Kerry is a joke. It is a sad time in this country that we are no longer feared. If we don't stand up now we can forget it enemies like China, North Korea, and Iran will get even more bolder. That will spell disaster for this country. So I hope people in this country wake up and realize that this is bad for America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one won't stop Putin and he knows it. Russia knows Obama does not have the stomach for war and Kerry is a joke. It is a sad time in this country that we are no longer feared. If we don't stand up now we can forget it enemies like China, North Korea, and Iran will get even more bolder. That will spell disaster for this country. So I hope people in this country wake up and realize that this is bad for America.

Maybe this has been the plan since 2008!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia is the biggest threat the US has from a militaristic standpoint. It's not about having the "stomach" to go to war. It's about thinking about MILLIONS of lives that will be lost if we go to war with Russia and the potential of a Third World War. Russia is trying to provoke us and we are taking all the right steps right now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's always the presidents fault when some country gets aggressive with it's neighbor.   Remind me please which president was responsible for north Korea invading the South,  Iraq going into Kuwait, and  the Serbian conflict

Les see Serbia was a civil war, not Russia taking over.  North Korea has been stymied for 60+ years (wit loss of American lives) and we know how Desert Storm went, remarkably well.  Lets see it was two Democrats that led us into Vietnam and a Republican, under intense pressure at home who got us out.  I have a pretty good memory!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Les see Serbia was a civil war, not Russia taking over.  North Korea has been stymied for 60+ years (wit loss of American lives) and we know how Desert Storm went, remarkably well.  Lets see it was two Democrats that led us into Vietnam and a Republican, under intense pressure at home who got us out.  I have a pretty good memory!!

So, you sound like you want military action against Russia.  Is that it?    And,  I don't see how the war in Iraq went "remarkably well".    What did all that money and all those lives do for Americans?   Is the country now free from terrorism?  

 

But that is not the question.  Poster on here want to say that Russia is emboldened by presidential weakness.  No matter what our response, the same must have been true when Ike and Bush were in office.  Right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't some hostages get released when Reagan became President?

Yeah.  Here is the story:

 

 In an effort to win release of the hostages, Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, along with members of the National Security Council and the CIA, sold weapons to Iran. Iran, at the time engaged in a war with Iraq and considered a terrorist nation by the U.S., was believed to have influence with the hostage-takers. The Iranians were overcharged for the weapons, and North then funneled the extra proceeds from the arms sale to the contras in Nicaragua. The operation resulted in several direct violations of stated U.S. policy and congressional mandate.

Investigations during the Iran-contra affair revealed a "shadow government," operating without public knowledge or congressional approval, being run out of the White House. For months, Reagan refused to admit that arms were traded for hostages -- that he had, indeed, negotiated with terrorists. Meanwhile, congressional hearings were convened to investigate the illegal diversion of funds to the contras. The all-too-familiar question of "what did the president know, and when did he know it," summoned up the ghosts of Watergate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia is the biggest threat the US has from a militaristic standpoint. It's not about having the "stomach" to go to war. It's about thinking about MILLIONS of lives that will be lost if we go to war with Russia and the potential of a Third World War. Russia is trying to provoke us and we are taking all the right steps right now.

So what is the trade off that goes with this? Are we really averting war or postponing the inevitable, and if we are postponing the inevitable instead of 10 million lives lost the world suffers 1 billion would that be better? I mean if WWII which was 70 years ago cost the lives of  50-70 million; saying WWIII will only cost 10 million is not understanding the seriousness of playing the appeasement card to countries who want to start a war. Ever heard of  Neville Chamberlain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.  Here is the story:
 
 In an effort to win release of the hostages, Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, along with members of the National Security Council and the CIA, sold weapons to Iran. Iran, at the time engaged in a war with Iraq and considered a terrorist nation by the U.S., was believed to have influence with the hostage-takers. The Iranians were overcharged for the weapons, and North then funneled the extra proceeds from the arms sale to the contras in Nicaragua. The operation resulted in several direct violations of stated U.S. policy and congressional mandate.
Investigations during the Iran-contra affair revealed a "shadow government," operating without public knowledge or congressional approval, being run out of the White House. For months, Reagan refused to admit that arms were traded for hostages -- that he had, indeed, negotiated with terrorists. Meanwhile, congressional hearings were convened to investigate the illegal diversion of funds to the contras. The all-too-familiar question of "what did the president know, and when did he know it," summoned up the ghosts of Watergate.


Shadow Government? You mean like the IRS scandal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you sound like you want military action against Russia.  Is that it?    And,  I don't see how the war in Iraq went "remarkably well".    What did all that money and all those lives do for Americans?   Is the country now free from terrorism?  

 

But that is not the question.  Poster on here want to say that Russia is emboldened by presidential weakness.  No matter what our response, the same must have been true when Ike and Bush were in office.  Right? 

Let me help you past the revisionist history that promulgates our current society!!  It was American strength that brought down the Eastern Bloc wall!!  It is American weakness that now emboldens Putin to rebuild it.  If you want to try to make this a Republican/Democrat issue, you might want to check the quicksand you are standing on!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me help you past the revisionist history that promulgates our current society!!  It was American strength that brought down the Eastern Bloc wall!!  It is American weakness that now emboldens Putin to rebuild it.  If you want to try to make this a Republican/Democrat issue, you might want to check the quicksand you are standing on!!

Ameircan strength brought down the wall.  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Carter said he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists.  strange, huh?

 

No, it was because Carter toasted the Shah in the months leading up to the end of his regime, and the revolutionaries refused to let him get credit for getting the hostages back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
    • See why I don't trust my Hogs?
    • Come on dude, don’t take anything away from the kids on the field. If you want to talk uncharacteristic, we made what 3 or 4 errors in game one. Y’all had 2 EARNED runs.  Defense is normally our strong suit. Your ace didn’t strike out a single one of our kids. Like I said also, you did not out hit us in game 1. Hell you barley out hit us in game 2. We had all the uncharacteristic walks. Josh pitched a hell of a game is what made that game what it was.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...