14 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

NATO was weakened during Trump's term. At minimum Trump signaled that America's commitment to the alliance was reduced. 

Putin is not going to jump to invade while his enemy is doing the work for him. 

Biden reaffirmed America's commitment to the alliance. I would also wager that Biden would have been more open to NATO's expansion than Trump, which probably also played into Putin's calculus that it was better to strike now than wait. 

All of this is speculation, we're trying to predict the reasoning of a man who has shown himself to be more irrational than he's ever demonstrated. For all we know his health is flagging and he wanted to make sure he "solved the Ukraine problem" before his successor could bungle it.

Yeah no ish its "speculation"....another word for it is Bull ish.

Notice how I dont have to speculate because Trump was in office and Russia didnt invade Ukraine, even though they did both before and after Trump

 

Glad you admit its speculation.  Thats a start

3 minutes ago, mr_hunt said:

no.

you rarely do. 

Ok feel free to clarify.  Take all the time you need

3 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Yeah no ish its "speculation"....another word for it is Bull ish.

Notice how I dont have to speculate because Trump was in office and Russia didnt invade Ukraine, even though they did both before and after Trump

 

Glad you admit its speculation.  Thats a start

Ok feel free to clarify.  Take all the time you need

nah...if you can't read & comprehend what i posted, that's on you. i can't fix years of a west virgina edumacation with a few posts. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Yeah no ish its "speculation"....another word for it is Bull ish.

Notice how I dont have to speculate because Trump was in office and Russia didnt invade Ukraine, even though they did both before and after Trump

uhh, you're speculating as to the cause. you think Trump being "tough" was the reason Russia didn't invade.

that speculation is laughable.

 

Seems Putin really shoulda watched that Seinfeld episode where Newman and Kramer were playing Risk. Coulda saved himself a lotta trouble. 

👀

 

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

 

uhh, you're speculating as to the cause. you think Trump being "tough" was the reason Russia didn't invade.

that speculation is laughable.

Laughable is claiming that, even though Putin invaded Crimea during 0bama, and now Ukraine during Biden, but nothing during Trump, somehow Trump would have been worse.  

1 minute ago, The_Omega said:

Laughable is claiming that, even though Putin invaded Crimea during 0bama, and now Ukraine during Biden, but nothing during Trump, somehow Trump would have been worse.  

in what world did Trump show a strong willingness to deploy US military forces abroad? the guy spent four years trying to withdrawal the US from the world. 

Putin was not afraid of Trump deploying the US military to Ukraine if he invaded. that speculation is laughable on its face.

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

in what world did Trump show a strong willingness to deploy US military forces abroad?

Soleimani. Besides that, not much.  Yet he still conveyed strength that kept our "enemies" in check.  We've seen just the opposite since then.

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

So let me get this straight...

A QB goes after  the backup cornerback who's in scores a touchdown

Same QB doesnt go any where near the starting CB when he's in the game

But as soon as the backup comes back in the QB goes right back after him and is probably gonna score another touchdown. 

 

 

No. You obviously wait an entire quarter to go after the "backup". Duh.

7 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

So let me get this straight...

A QB goes after  the backup cornerback who's comes in the game scores a touchdown

Same QB doesnt go any where near the starting CB when he's in the game

But as soon as the backup comes back in the QB goes right back after him and is probably gonna score another touchdown. 

 

 

Wait, are we saying Trump is Jalen Ramsey now? 

8 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Soleimani. Besides that, not much.  Yet he still conveyed strength that kept our "enemies" in check.  We've seen just the opposite since then.

So the guy who specifically stated he wanted to bail on NATO, who spent four years trying to get out of Afghanistan, who left the Kurds high and dry, who believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies, who campaigned in 2016 on keeping the US out of foreign wars, who at least tried to reduce our military deployments abroad (mixed record here), was conveying strength how exactly?

By talking tough?

He signaled throughout his presidency a reluctance to be engaged in alliances like NATO, and he pressured the EU to build up its own militaries so that our overseas troop numbers would be reduced. In a vacuum these are not necessarily terrible things, but they are impossible to reconcile with some notion that he "projected strength" that caused Putin to wait until Trump was out of office to invade Ukraine.

It simply strains credulity.

If Putin had invaded Ukraine 2 years ago Trump would have done nothing. He would have said the US has no commitment to put troops on the ground or even give aid to Ukraine, and wouldn't allow the US to be drawn into a foreign war. That is the take consistent with his rhetoric and actions for four years as president.

And you guys probably would have been on board with that, citing "foreign entanglements" and all kinds of isolationist rhetoric. 

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

You can call it what you want. You can say anything you want about Orangeman.

You can say Putin didnt attack cause Donnie gave the best blowies

But the fact is, Putin Waited for Chester Chitto to leave office before going back into Ukraine

Yeah, that's what I'm going with. I guess that falls in line with doing something BOLD though.

Can we get back to posting info on the war and keep the Trump vs Biden crap in other threads?  

TIA

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

So the guy who specifically stated he wanted to bail on NATO, who spent four years trying to get out of Afghanistan, who left the Kurds high and dry, who believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies, who campaigned in 2016 on keeping the US out of foreign wars, who at least tried to reduce our military deployments abroad (mixed record here), was conveying strength how exactly?

By talking tough?

He signaled throughout his presidency a reluctance to be engaged in alliances like NATO, and he pressured the EU to build up its own militaries so that our overseas troop numbers would be reduced. In a vacuum these are not necessarily terrible things, but they are impossible to reconcile with some notion that he "projected strength" that caused Putin to wait until Trump was out of office to invade Ukraine.

It simply strains credulity.

If Putin had invaded Ukraine 2 years ago Trump would have done nothing. He would have said the US has no commitment to put troops on the ground or even give aid to Ukraine, and wouldn't allow the US to be drawn into a foreign war. That is the take consistent with his rhetoric and actions for four years as president.

And you guys probably would have been on board with that, citing "foreign entanglements" and all kinds of isolationist rhetoric. 

He did have that "fire and fury" line once.

4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Oh, the irony...

There is no irony. 

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

But the fact is, Putin Waited for Chester Chitto to leave office before going back into Ukraine

in related news, water is wet. 

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Asthma

and yes we are all at risk thats the point, if you actually believe putin would deploy a nuke. 

I know he would if we do. 

As long as we don't, we can hope he won't. 

But if he does, well, bro, we'll see what's on the other side. 

2 minutes ago, wyote said:

I know he would if we do. 

As long as we don't, we can hope he won't. 

But if he does, well, bro, we'll see what's on the other side. 

Hope in one hand and crap in the other…

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Hope in one hand and crap in the other…

I'll wait to see what happens. But if you're that sure, how are you preparing for it? Why aren't you heading for some bunker in northern Canada? 

 

Macron spoke to Putin again today

 

14 hours ago, wyote said:

Nope. 

Unless Russia uses nukes, NATO has to stay out. 

If Russia uses nukes, we have to use nukes too, so it might be the end of humanity, but hey, you got to do what you got to do. Better for all of us to die than to live in fear of some tyrant with nukes.  

 

14 hours ago, wyote said:

"This crap" means all of our lives? 

Ukraine isn't worth it. Russia can't afford a drawn-out occupation anyway. NATO and the West are winning without firing a shot. Putin is delegitimizing himself in the eyes of his own people. 

We might still get to nuke each other but if not you'll have to cope with living perhaps even a long life.  

 

14 hours ago, wyote said:

The US and I don't actually care about free people. That's all BS. We're in it for the $$$$, bro. Like all war, this is about men using violence to take things from other men, and all the ideology -- freedom, religion, whatever -- is just a veneer of justification. 

There won't be a tree of liberty or anything else if we nuke each other. Someone somewhere might survive, but you and I won't. 

 

14 hours ago, wyote said:

If I or my family were at risk, I'd fight, but we're not, and I'm not pretending to be the baddest ass this side of a Marvel superhero. 

I own shares of defense corporations. Rather than dying for other men's profits, I aim to profit from other men's deaths.

 

10 hours ago, wyote said:

We'll only be free as long as we're willing and able to kill men who would enslave us.

  

4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Oh, the irony...

 

11 minutes ago, wyote said:

There is no irony. 

 

Come again?

44 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

👀

Taiwan blames negligence for massive power outage; power being restored