Biden says war with Russia must end before NATO can consider membership for Ukraine

[scottiejohn]

25 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

President Lincoln: “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time

Not quite right!  What he said was;

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time"!

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

Two wrongs has never made a right.

When it was alleged that Russia used them the Biden administration said that Putin was a war criminal for using them, (See vid below first 30 seconds) Now Biden wants to participate in their use. 

  "He did it first" never worked with my mom when I was a kid and I am sure did not work with yours. , And it certainly does not work now, 

 

You want to use childish platitudes?  Ok, Russia started it!

 

We're not discussing child rearing, we're discussing accepted rules of war.  Ukraine is already fighting with one arm tied behind its back; Russia can attack Ukraine from Russia but Ukraine is prevented from striking legitimate military targets in Russia.  Now you want to tilt the field further in Russia's favor.

 

If sufficient cluster munitions arrive in time it may result in a collapse in Russian defensive lines and serious negotiations to end the war.  After that we will see which causes more civilian casualties; US cluster munitions or the cluster munitions, mines, and unexploded ordnance left behind by Russia.  Care to take bets on which will prove to be more deadly to civilians?

[Chomper Higgot]

15 hours ago, JonnyF said:

This reminds me of banks lending money to everyone except the people who really need the loan.

 

Or insurance companies refusing coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

 

"Sure you can join Nato, but not until you have no need for them". Gee Thanks Joe.

Nothing to do with JoeBiden.

 

”

4. States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.”

https://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/enl-9502.htm

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

You want to use childish platitudes?  Ok, Russia started it!

 

We're not discussing child rearing, we're discussing accepted rules of war.  Ukraine is already fighting with one arm tied behind its back; Russia can attack Ukraine from Russia but Ukraine is prevented from striking legitimate military targets in Russia.  Now you want to tilt the field further in Russia's favor.

 

If sufficient cluster munitions arrive in time it may result in a collapse in Russian defensive lines and serious negotiations to end the war.  After that we will see which causes more civilian casualties; US cluster munitions or the cluster munitions, mines, and unexploded ordnance left behind by Russia.  Care to take bets on which will prove to be more deadly to civilians?

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, why the wait? 

[billd766]

On 7/10/2023 at 8:05 PM, RichardColeman said:

Deluded , doddery old fool - Russia is NEVER going to agree any sort of peace without full avoidance of reparations to the Ukraine. To do that would mean agreeing the war was illegal and make mongering Putin would look weak. 

Putin may not be around to say anything.

[heybruce]

19 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, why the wait? 

Do you seriously expect an update on nine years of world events, or are you just trolling?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Do you seriously expect an update on nine years of world events, or are you just trolling?

Thanks, I don't think I need much of an update, unless you have an idea of how our inventory of weaponry is holding up and how the restocking is going now that were funding both the first and third largest military budgets in the world. 

 

I think the appeasement in 2014 combined with our victory in Afghanistan emboldened Putin and now it costing thousands of lives. 

 

What do you think? Perhaps Trump is colluding with Putin take over the world?

 

[Jingthing]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Thanks, I don't think I need much of an update, unless you have an idea of how our inventory of weaponry is holding up and how the restocking is going now that were funding both the first and third largest military budgets in the world. 

 

I think the appeasement in 2014 combined with our victory in Afghanistan emboldened Putin and now it costing thousands of lives. 

 

What do you think? Perhaps Trump is colluding with Putin take over the world?

 

I agree that Obama's weak response is a big reason Putin felt he could go full throttle this time. I have no problem criticizing democrats when they make mistakes.

[sirineou]

On 7/10/2023 at 12:58 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Do we?

 

Or are you ramping up your hyperbole?

Good questions. 

Since you are into questions I have one more.

Why do you think the possibility for world War three does not exist? and such mention is hyperbole?

 

 

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Good questions. 

Since you are into questions I have one more.

Why do you think the possibility for world War three does not exist? and such mention is hyperbole?

 

 

Because almost half of Russia's nukes are old?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Thanks, I don't think I need much of an update, unless you have an idea of how our inventory of weaponry is holding up and how the restocking is going now that were funding both the first and third largest military budgets in the world. 

 

I think the appeasement in 2014 combined with our victory in Afghanistan emboldened Putin and now it costing thousands of lives. 

 

What do you think? Perhaps Trump is colluding with Putin take over the world?

 

Considering the state of Ukraine's government and military in 2014 the options for responding to Putin's invasion were limited at that time. 

 

However I agree that making Putin pay for his crimes is necessary, as he's demonstrated that he's a ruthless opportunist.  That's why it's important to continue to support Ukraine.

 

I think Trump would sell out the US and any other country in exchange for a profitable sweetheart deal with Putin.

[sirineou]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Because almost half of Russia's nukes are old?

This is at best a very  cursory explanation of a subject that would take thousands of pages to adequately explained.  But I hope you apreciate my attempt. 

   Countries in Europe are very close and heavily populated   Never mind the half that are not old, Any nuclear weapon detonation in Europe would be disasters not only in human capital, but also economically. But the concept of World War" as the name implies involves more than one country. 

So assume that an attack on Russia by NATO ,not only happens but is successful . What do you think China's reaction would be towards having an American lead NATO in Russia and at their borders? Remember Russia is second only to Saudi Arabia by only 1% in supplying oil to China. And if the US controls the oil in Russia and maybe in Saudi Arabia where does the leave China? How do you think China would react to at worst Nato forces at their Northern border , and Japan , South Korea,and Australia NATO partners. And at best a Russia under western influence? 

What part did oil and area hegemony play in Japan's attack of the US? 

Now replace Japan with China, and I hope you see why there is a very good possibility of WW3 as it relates to the situation in Ukraine.

  IMO the US is the aggressor in this conflict,  understandably tightening the noose around China.  You don't really think the US really cares about Ukraine or believe the story to contain Russian Imperialism?  Russia can not pacify Ukraine, it is laughable that the US fears Russia having imperial  ambitions towards Europe. If Russia wanted to occupy Ukraine it would certainly had  not gone in with less that 200,000 troops.  Russia went in to prevent NATO expansion in Ukraine. Why Ukraine and not the others? Because Ukraine would open a second front to be  defended , dividing Russian defence assets. 

This is what I think will happen.

Russia will maintain the eastern Ukrainian territories  as a buffer against the west. being in conflict with Ukraine for longer than you and me will be alive. Ukraine will not  join NATO because to do so would bring NATO into the conflict.  And the poor Ukranians will pay the price. 

In addition this situation was a monumental economic blunder for the US , because the freezing and confiscation of Russian assets, has brought forward the dangers of non aligned countries trading in dollars. And thus the creation of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to create an alternative world trading currency. And don't discount the attempt, those BRICS countries comprise 41.44 percent of the world's population. 

A bit long winded but if you have made it to the end of this post , I hope I made the point the situation is not as simple as Russia's half nuclear weapons being old. 

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, sirineou said:

This is at best a very  cursory explanation of a subject that would take thousands of pages to adequately explained.  But I hope you apreciate my attempt. 

   Countries in Europe are very close and heavily populated   Never mind the half that are not old, Any nuclear weapon detonation in Europe would be disasters not only in human capital, but also economically. But the concept of World War" as the name implies involves more than one country. 

So assume that an attack on Russia by NATO ,not only happens but is successful . What do you think China's reaction would be towards having an American lead NATO in Russia and at their borders? Remember Russia is second only to Saudi Arabia by only 1% in supplying oil to China. And if the US controls the oil in Russia and maybe in Saudi Arabia where does the leave China? How do you think China would react to at worst Nato forces at their Northern border , and Japan , South Korea,and Australia NATO partners. And at best a Russia under western influence? 

What part did oil and area hegemony play in Japan's attack of the US? 

Now replace Japan with China, and I hope you see why there is a very good possibility of WW3 as it relates to the situation in Ukraine.

  IMO the US is the aggressor in this conflict,  understandably tightening the noose around China.  You don't really think the US really cares about Ukraine or believe the story to contain Russian Imperialism?  Russia can not pacify Ukraine, it is laughable that the US fears Russia having imperial  ambitions towards Europe. If Russia wanted to occupy Ukraine it would certainly had  not gone in with less that 200,000 troops.  Russia went in to prevent NATO expansion in Ukraine. Why Ukraine and not the others? Because Ukraine would open a second front to be  defended , dividing Russian defence assets. 

This is what I think will happen.

Russia will maintain the eastern Ukrainian territories  as a buffer against the west. being in conflict with Ukraine for longer than you and me will be alive. Ukraine will not  join NATO because to do so would bring NATO into the conflict.  And the poor Ukranians will pay the price. 

In addition this situation was a monumental economic blunder for the US , because the freezing and confiscation of Russian assets, has brought forward the dangers of non aligned countries trading in dollars. And thus the creation of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) to create an alternative world trading currency. And don't discount the attempt, those BRICS countries comprise 41.44 percent of the world's population. 

A bit long winded but if you have made it to the end of this post , I hope I made the point the situation is not as simple as Russia's half nuclear weapons being old. 

It's amazing the number of people who won't accept the obvious fact that the country that invaded Ukraine and started the war is the aggressor.

 

Regarding the risks of nuclear war, don't overthink it.  A few above ground nuclear explosions would damage global communications so much as to shut down the world economy, resulting on global anarchy.  It's pointless to speculate beyond that.

[sirineou]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It's amazing the number of people who won't accept the obvious fact that the country that invaded Ukraine and started the war is the aggressor.

Or an alternat narrative , if the facts point in that direction. 

 

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Regarding the risks of nuclear war, don't overthink it.  A few above ground nuclear explosions would damage global communications so much as to shut down the world economy, resulting on global anarchy.  It's pointless to speculate beyond that.

Doesn't that line with with my assertion that even if half of Russia's nuclear weapons are old, the remaining half is adequate foe causing substantial damage? 

[heybruce]

23 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Or an alternat narrative , if the facts point in that direction. 

 

Doesn't that line with with my assertion that even if half of Russia's nuclear weapons are old, the remaining half is adequate foe causing substantial damage? 

"Or an alternat narrative , if the facts point in that direction. "

 

The fact is that Russia invaded Ukraine.  That makes Russia the aggressor.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I agree that Obama's weak response is a big reason Putin felt he could go full throttle this time. I have no problem criticizing democrats when they make mistakes.

I like this. Please continue.