Jump to content

Was Russia warned before airstrikes?


Big girl

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, REBgp said:

Great story, and good move alerting the Russians at the base.  It wasn't the Russians who dropped the gas.  We'd rather not start a war with Russia while b-slapping Syria.

Yesterday you guys were bragging,saying that Trump showed Putin that he wasnt afraid....Now, he had to warn Russia? Which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Yesterday you guys were bragging,saying that Trump showed Putin that he wasnt afraid....Now, he had to warn Russia? Which one is it?

There's a big difference between being afraid and using common sense.  For example, if JJ Watt and Joe Pesci were together, and Joe provoked me, I'd tie into Joe.  Why in the cornbread hell would I jump on JJ Watt, even if I was also 6'5" 295 lbs?  

Our beef wasn't with Russia, it was with Syria (based on the info available at the time).  Had the Soldiers been from Germany, they'd been warned.  Based on Obama's "line in the sand" comment, and subsequent inaction, the international community has the idea that America won't react.  The attack on the Syrian Airfield was proof positive we will.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Big girl said:

Yesterday you guys were bragging,saying that Trump showed Putin that he wasnt afraid....Now, he had to warn Russia? Which one is it?

How do you know how it was phrased? Maybe if it was a tapped call, you might know. Trump probably said, "We are going to bomb some Syrian airfields. Now, get your arse out of the way."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 7, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Big girl said:

This is the hidden content, please

The headline in the Time article is misleading, and bordering on Fake News.  If you read the article, the Russian troops at the Air Base were notified.  Since the headline says Russia was notified, the readers, like you, assume that Trump called his old golfing buddy, Putin, and told him.  That's the kind of little tricks the left media plays to mislead folks like you. You really need to pay more attention.  You also ought to rethink your position on Breitbart.  As you can see, it is more reliable that Time magazine.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, REBgp said:

The headline in the Time article is misleading, and bordering on Fake News.  If you read the article, the Russian troops at the Air Base were notified.  Since the headline says Russia was notified, the readers, like you, assume that Trump called his old golfing buddy, Putin, and told him.  That's the kind of little tricks the left media plays to mislead folks like you. You really need to pay more attention.  You also ought to rethink your position on Breitbart.  As you can see, it is more reliable that Time magazine.  

I never said Trump called Putin. I said Russians were warned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Big girl said:

I never said Trump called Putin. I said Russians were warned.

Sorry, but your topic header said, was Russia warned, and the headlines on the Time's said, Trump Admin warned Russia.  That's misleading by the Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia, how can one say Russia without including Putin, was warned an hour before the tomohawk missile attack, and Russia did NOTHING. They knew they couldn't stop it and Trump is being applauded around the world for the attack. Assad counters with another air attack, albeit without chemicals, as an in-your-face to Trump. It wasn't that Assad attacked, it was his use of WMDs which were supposed to have been surrendered under Obama's watch. Trump is honoring his line in the sand. Too bad others ahead of him didn't have the balls to stand up.

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

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • 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!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...