I already told you, in the other thread. “[W]e/the world would need to respond in some fashion that could easily escalate.”
That could include a conventional or nuclear response that could lead to “Armageddon.”
At least you don't seem confused on what Armageddon means
That royal use of "we", do you expect a vote to affirm our escalatory response?
Or is for the President to decide if he takes this country into WW3 by himself?
What worries me is "the White House" deciding to take us into WW3.
Why are you deflecting to this irrelevant point instead of addressing why you hold Democrats responsible for leading us to nuclear war?
If it's a bipartisan vote for WW3 I'll acknowledge it as such.
I consider the Iraq War bipartisan, since 58% of Democratic Senators and 39% of Democratic Reps voted for the 2003 AUMF.
We know you believe that Russia has the right to retake Ukraine without interference from the West. Just admit it.
Russia has no right whatsoever to invade Ukraine.
You'll never find anything from me stating otherwise.
There is a parade of morons who follow me in threads and demonstrate that they can't distinguish between explaining the motives of sides in a conflict and personally adopting any of those motives, or observing them as sufficient justifications.
I oppose aggression whether it is Russia attacking Ukraine, Saudi Arabia attacking Yemen, or the U.S. attacking Iraq.
If the US is to go to war over Ukraine I want the U.S. Congress to debate and approve it first.
Anything less begs failure.
