3 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Invade?  What did I miss??

When did China conduct a military invasion of Taiwan?

I know it sucks to be backed into a corner where you have to defend Biden so Ill go easy on you 

All you guys can do is deflect.  What a miserable f'ing failure

6 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

its called stroking an ego and apparently it worked

A very common tactic for stopping egomaniacs. You stroke the Putins and the Kim Jongs, because that is what tough guys do.

 

You people are a riot. Thanks for all the entertainment today.

 

If you could hear yourselves.

3 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

That was NATO and the G7 btw, not me

Nato/G7 doesnt want to use the swift sanction because theyre worried about a nuclear attack. 

 

WRONG

2 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Do you know who the Arab Spring started under?

Yes. It started counter to Arab dictators and corruption.

45 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Calling a nation invading another and killing who knows how many people so far a brilliant political move is pretty creepy

Cults usually are, as we have been witnessing.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Deflection from the miserable failure I voted for

I literally cant defend anything he does so I try to be the class clown hoping people laugh with me instead of at me

 

8 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

If the guy who isn't here anymore was still here, different things would have happened and they would have been better things. Discussion over. Run along.

Solid posting Slappy. Great points.

2 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

yes, because they truly believe that when Putin said "consequences you've never seen" 

 

That quote being thrown around was take out of context

1 minute ago, toolg said:

Ukraine's only hope against Russia is to turn it into a prolonged guerilla conflict. So yeah, we should help them with supplies and weapons. Or else who's next? The Baltics? Poland?

If Putin attacks a NATO member, it really is WW3. I don't think he's deranged. Or at least not deranged enough to do that.

You could argue this, however, which is concerning but somewhat logical. If you wanted to test the resolve of the West, this is the order of operations. 

1. Putin takes Ukraine to see how the west responds. The Budapest Memorandum that got Ukraine to surrender its nuclear weapons said that Russia, the US and the UK would "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," but it does not explicitly obligate us to defend Ukraine. So you could argue that we morally guaranteed it, but there is no explicit guarantee.

2. Assuming the west doesn't react, then China moves against Taiwan. Our commitments to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 are stronger than those from the Budapest Memorandum, but still not an explicit guarantee. It says "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities" and that the US will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." The act requires the United States to have a policy "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." But while we "maintain the capacity," it doesn't explicitly obligate us to act. Given the importance of Taiwan as a trading partner, it has always been interpreted as a guarantee, but it isn't rock solid.

3. If we allow China to take Taiwan without a military response, Putin pushes it all the way and attacks the Baltics. Article V of the NATO charter is unambiguous - "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." You could try and be cute to read "such action as it deems necessary" as a way out, but...no one has ever viewed it that way.

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

yes, because they truly believe that when Putin said "consequences you've never seen" 

 

oh no  

Just now, Mike31mt said:

 

What did he do, Mikhail? I'd love to know what Biden should or shouldn't have done to prevent this from happening? Please be specific.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

What did he do, Mikhail? I'd love to know what Biden should or shouldn't have done to prevent this from happening? Please be specific.

Not win the election. Duh.

Just now, vikas83 said:

If Putin attacks a NATO member, it really is WW3. I don't think he's deranged. Or at least not deranged enough to do that.

 

He isn't but I think there are enough high level rational people in Russia that Putin would disappear if he went crazy like that. There were rumors he had pushback against this adventure

Those Russian disinformation guys clearly deserve a raise.

 

Jesus, the stupid in here burns.

I'm surprised that Russian Reset we had a few years back hasn't improved our relations. I mean Obama did have more leeway after the election.

Just now, Bacarty2 said:

I dont think so.

I also dont think Nuclear attacks are "drop a bomb on NYC".  

So far what the pundits and the american government has predicted is coming true. We've just been reactive and not proactive. 

It was I saw the entire qoute

59 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

The stupid in this post hurts. I thought higher of you than this. 

 

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

What did he do, Mikhail? I'd love to know what Biden should or shouldn't have done to prevent this from happening? Please be specific.

He should have been on top of this months and months ago, and if he really gave a flying F there were several ways to approach this, through NATO (since that is the lefts favorite thing ever) or directly assisting Ukraine to prepare for this.   Or hell, even start countermeasures BEFORE the invasion that he knew, and announced to the world, was inevitable

 

Instead he was just like the drunk guy shouting at people on their way to work.  He consciously decided to do nothing and AGAIN will be trying to salvage this thing after the fact.   

EXACTLY like Afghanistan.  Its almost like a pattern where he is a day late and dollar short for every meaningful foreign policy endeavor.

7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Why does Xi only invade Hong Kong when Trump is in office? Must be because Obama and Biden have been much stronger than weak Trump.

(See, it's a ridiculous argument no matter what time you apply it to.)

The meteor that struck the Dinosaurs was totally TRex's fault.  That never would have happened under the watch of Brontosaurus and the Jurrasic administration. 😜

 

I don't understand how ppl think the POTUS is directly responsible for everything in the world that happens under his watch.  Dubya didn't make the housing crisis, he didn't cause 9/11 either.  Obama didn't create the Arab Spring or invasion of Crimea.  Trump didn't cause COVID either.  The Potus is not responsible for the success of Wall Street, the Potus does not cause hurricanes or earthquakes.  He doesn't stop forest fires either.  

 

What they are responsible for is the reaction almost every time.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

If Putin attacks a NATO member, it really is WW3. I don't think he's deranged. Or at least not deranged enough to do that.

You could argue this, however, which is concerning but somewhat logical. If you wanted to test the resolve of the West, this is the order of operations. 

1. Putin takes Ukraine to see how the west responds. The Budapest Memorandum that got Ukraine to surrender its nuclear weapons said that Russia, the US and the UK would "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," but it does not explicitly obligate us to defend Ukraine. So you could argue that we morally guaranteed it, but there is no explicit guarantee.

2. Assuming the west doesn't react, then China moves against Taiwan. Our commitments to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 are stronger than those from the Budapest Memorandum, but still not an explicit guarantee. It says "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities" and that the US will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." The act requires the United States to have a policy "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." But while we "maintain the capacity," it doesn't explicitly obligate us to act. Given the importance of Taiwan as a trading partner, it has always been interpreted as a guarantee, but it isn't rock solid.

3. If we allow China to take Taiwan without a military response, Putin pushes it all the way and attacks the Baltics. Article V of the NATO charter is unambiguous - "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." You could try and be cute to read "such action as it deems necessary" as a way out, but...no one has ever viewed it that way.

The question remains, how does China respond? I am not convinced Xi is ready to test the West yet. But if Putin gets cocky and decides to attack the Baltics, then NATO is bogged down defending them, does that give enough resolve to Xi to move against Taiwan? Putin has shown he will jump on the offensive several moves ahead. If this escalates,  I think 2 or 3 could go in either order.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Lol what a **** you are

1 minute ago, Bacarty2 said:

Ok, well every former and retired military speaking head on both major networks disagree and say yes, they think a tactical nuke is on the table if we really piss him off. 

But again, this website is incredible smart, much smarter than everyone and we have all the worlds issued solved 

Russia has a policy of no first use of nukes.

NATO has said they will resort to nukes if outgunned.

Just now, Bacarty2 said:

Ok, well every former and retired military speaking head on both major networks disagree and say yes, they think a tactical nuke is on the table if we really piss him off. 

But again, this website is incredible smart, much smarter than everyone and we have all the worlds issued solved 

Putin wants to put the old Soviet bloc countries back together, he doesn’t want to destroy them. He’s not using nukes absent a major invasion of Russia.

This too is a two way street.