Jump to content

Putin offers Biden public talks after U.S. president says he thinks he is a killer


webfact

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, LomSak27 said:

 

You quoted sputnik and that is what I requoted. Not Prince Vlad

 

As for honorable killers ... that means assassinations, poisonings and others are not honorable (?), interesting freudian slip. BTW I like the 'jumped out of window' ones myself.  

 

Yes, exactly what I wrote these honorable killers are because the people like you and I consider them honorable heads of state elected more or less like honest citizens, so they have acquired the honorary title whether you want it or not.

 

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2021 at 2:04 AM, blazes said:

Whereas it's ok if American presidents give the order to assassinate or attempt to assassinate foreign leaders (like Salvador Allende or Fidel Castro).

It's like Animal Farm:  Americans assassinate good.

Foreigners assassinate bad.

Got any examples from the last fifty years, preferably post-cold war? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2021 at 6:25 PM, talahtnut said:

Biden talks with Putin live broadcast, that would be really funny,

but the US administration could never allow that.

How often do world leaders have live broadcasts with the leaders of hostile countries?  Not scripted and controlled press conferences, but actual debates?  How often did Trump?

Edited by heybruce
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jingthing said:

It's kind of a meaningless metric. Wars aren't created equal. Some are necessary like World War 2 and some are mistakes like Iraq. 

 

Each of us will have their own opinion about the "necessity" of any war but the truth is that both Republican and Democrat presidents have been in office when the USA has become active in them. Democratic presidents were in charge at the start of both the Korean and Vietnamese campaigns.

 

The  main mistake in Iraq was that the the US + Allies did not follow through into Iraq in 1991 to stop Saddam then and there - there would have been less of a problem plus more acceptance right after Kuwait had been invaded. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, heybruce said:

How often do world leaders have live broadcasts with the leaders of hostile countries?  Not scripted and controlled press conferences, but actual debates?  How often did Trump?

 

How often do political leaders publicly call each other ""killers"? The truth is that most of them might do so and have a valid case.

 

But it is just not PC. is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Each of us will have their own opinion about the "necessity" of any war but the truth is that both Republican and Democrat presidents have been in office when the USA has become active in them. Democratic presidents were in charge at the start of both the Korean and Vietnamese campaigns.

 

The  main mistake in Iraq was that the the US + Allies did not follow through into Iraq in 1991 to stop Saddam then and there - there would have been less of a problem plus more acceptance right after Kuwait had been invaded. 

What makes you think winning the peace in Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than in 2003?  Other than the fact that Bush Sr was much smarter than Bush Jr?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Political leaders use that kind of language when they want to drive home a point ("axis of evil" by Bush) or when they speak without thinking (always by Trump).  Biden was driving home a point.

 

Well it looks like he hit his thumb with the hammer. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

What makes you think winning the peace in Iraq would have been easier in 1991 than in 2003?  Other than the fact that Bush Sr was much smarter than Bush Jr?

 

Everything was in place and ready to go. Iraqi forces were already in disarray. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Everything was in place and ready to go. Iraqi forces were already in disarray. 

You mean they weren't able to mount the kind of fierce and prolonged offense when they engaged with Americans in the 2nd Iraq war? Those of us who actually followed the events know that the Iraqi army was not going to be able to withstand an American invasion in that war. The probably always was what would happen after its defeat.  As General Powell remarked in dissuading George H.W. Bush from invading Iraq "If you break it, you own it." 

Edited by placeholder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Everything was in place and ready to go. Iraqi forces were already in disarray. 

Winning the war is the easy part.  I posted "winning the peace", which is the hard part, as has been demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Bush Sr understood this, as did the military under both Bush Presidencies (and now as well).  Unfortunately Bush Jr and his administration of chicken-hawks didn't understand this, and the result was and is an ongoing disaster.

 

Unfortunately a great many Americans also don't understand how hard it is to win the peace, regardless of how recently the difficulties have been demonstrated.  They keep expecting real wars to play out the way they do in movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, placeholder said:

You mean they weren't able to mount the kind of fierce and prolonged offense when they engaged with Americans in the 2nd Iraq war? Those of us who actually followed the events know that the Iraqi army was not going to be able to withstand an American invasion in that war. The probably always was what would happen after its defeat.  As General Powell remarked in dissuading George H.W. Bush from invading Iraq "If you break it, you own it." 

 

I mean what I said. The consequences post invasion are a different matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Winning the war is the easy part.  I posted "winning the peace", which is the hard part, as has been demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Bush Sr understood this, as did the military under both Bush Presidencies (and now as well).  Unfortunately Bush Jr and his administration of chicken-hawks didn't understand this, and the result was and is an ongoing disaster.

 

Unfortunately a great many Americans also don't understand how hard it is to win the peace, regardless of how recently the difficulties have been demonstrated.  They keep expecting real wars to play out the way they do in movies.

 

Not sure about easy but I see your point. But leaving Saddam free in Iraq for another 12 years did not remove the threat of a repeat invasion of Kuwait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Not sure about easy but I see your point. But leaving Saddam free in Iraq for another 12 years did not remove the threat of a repeat invasion of Kuwait.

The clear demonstration of how easy it was to destroy Saddam's military removed the threat of another invasion of Kuwait.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I mean what I said. The consequences post invasion are a different matter. 

 

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Not sure about easy but I see your point. But leaving Saddam free in Iraq for another 12 years did not remove the threat of a repeat invasion of Kuwait.

Actually, Iraq's armed forces had greatly deteriorated since the Kuwait War. So the danger posed by Iraq was minimal. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

News flash! It is moronic to call the leader of a Super Power "a killer." Begging the question, why is he being  hailed as a strong intelligent leader? The following site has info' that helps me understand the answer.

https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, rcuthbert said:

News flash! It is moronic to call the leader of a Super Power "a killer." Begging the question, why is he being  hailed as a strong intelligent leader? The following site has info' that helps me understand the answer.

https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/

Moronic to call a killer a killer?  Who cares what his position is.  He's a proven killer.  No denying that.

 

Congrats to Biden for calling him out.  Time for these poisonings and mysterious deaths while in jail to stop.  Russians deserve better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rcuthbert said:

News flash! It is moronic to call the leader of a Super Power "a killer." Begging the question, why is he being  hailed as a strong intelligent leader? The following site has info' that helps me understand the answer.

https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/

Were you equally concerned when Trump called the erratic despot of a nuclear state "little Rocketman"?

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rcuthbert said:

News flash! It is moronic to call the leader of a Super Power "a killer." Begging the question, why is he being  hailed as a strong intelligent leader? The following site has info' that helps me understand the answer.

https://kreativcopywriting.com/10-logical-fallacies-know-spot/

Biden calls him a killer because he has nothing better to say, typical his from the Clinton drone and machine gun helicopter supporters camp who's not so clever. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...