That had pretty much nothing to do about what we were talking about. But before I put you on ignore......
Biden authorizes Ukraine to use long-range US weapons in Russia
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
That had pretty much nothing to do about what we were talking about. But before I put you on ignore......
LOL - Russia was continually fighting in Ukraine during the trump years. There was no need to make a major attack because Putin was slowly getting what he wanted. Hero worship is a terrible thing.
"Experts say Trump’s actions weakened Ukraine, divided NATO, emboldened Putin and helped get us to where we are today. And even with Trump no longer in office, his impact lives on in the form of Putin-friendly commentary in conservative media and from some Republican lawmakers.
“One of the key reasons Putin probably felt comfortable launching the invasion of Ukraine was the extent to which the West has been weakened and destabilized, and democracy undermined, and political divisions sown, in the five years since he attacked our election in 2016,” said Garrett Graff, a historian and journalist with expertise in national security and Cold War issues."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/26/politics/trump-putin-ukraine/index.html
Funny how it wasn't that long ago that Ukraine was perceived to be one of the most corrupt places on earth,.. but now is supposed to be accepted as the new fountain of European freedom and democracy... Russia is bad and Ukraine is a money pit,.. both can be true,
Yes those are the liberal talking points to which no one with a brain is buying.
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
Russian propaganda is upset. " Putin:If a mass enemy missile or UAV is launched towards Russia or these weapons enter Russian territory, we will use NUCLEAR weapons.-Elite News"
iowa.forums.rivals.com
And I figured that if you made an allegation of a crime you would understand what it means.
So I guess when nazi Germany took over Czechoslovakia and Poland that was all FDR's fault? Simply because he was president at the time, right?
Let's wait and see what Trump does to help Ukraine.... or Russia
Last edited:
Zero sum argument out of you if you don't understand how money could or would be laundered in multiple billion dollar transactions where nobody can account for actual inventory.
Incompetence in managing/tracking money is not the same thing as mixing illegal gains with the finances of a legitimate business. Pray tell what illegal funds the United States government is washing in the legitimate government of Ukraine, in the legitimate businesses of the MIC.
The funds become illegal when they go from US tax payers to the pocket of someone scrubbed in a transaction of arms via the United states Government and attending parties.
What or who is "someone scrubbed in a transaction of arms via the United states Government and attending parties"? Raytheon? Ukraine? You are doing mental gymnastics here. It's not money laundering. You might find it irresponsible or improvident, or you might find the MIC is grossly profiting from the war, or you might contend that once money makes to Ukraine there is not proper transparency, accounting, or tracking. But that is not money laundering.
And Trump isn't allowed to head up a charity since he and his family stole from their last one. Hard to believe he's allowed to run the country.
No that was Chamberlain’s fault. He was PM in charge of negotiating peace. I can’t blame him entirely though as I understand his and the U.S.’ position as entering another major war just a decade and a half later was to be avoided if at all possible.
I'm somewhat curious why you even bother with Whiskey? I get that at times he can be led to amusement or a meltdown, but it seems like you're trying to have a rationale back and forth with a reasonable person. Has there been any indication at all that he'll be receptive (even capable of comprehending?) to what you post?
I guess I am not that dialed into his personality. That, and I am always willing to learn something. With that being said, him labeling my post as a "zero sum argument" - implying there are relevant shades of gray - is lazy and irritating.
"Someone" has previously been broadly defined as "these politicians who make 175k a year and Die worth 250 million" .
If your hold up is, it isn't illegal money being washed so it isn't mo ey laundering, it's just theft or fraud, ok, kinda, but that depends on the point of the transaction being illegal when the US tax payers are being told their dollar is buying x and the buyer, the united states government, knowingly is buying Y for access to cash. So the purchase, and then resell, would be the launder.
But hey, if you are good with "it isn't money laundering it's just theft", potato/potato.
What he wanted was a treaty signed by the US saying we wouldn't expand NATO into Ukraine.
Less of matter of 'feeling comfortable', than being uncomfortable with the ticking clock on NATO membership for Ukraine.
This whole war, the invasion of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk never happen in the neocons hadn't pushed Ukraine membership over the objections of Germany and France in 2008.
There was still a good chance nothing happened when the Ukrainian people elected Yanukovych on the platform of improving relations with Russia and the EU in 2010.
Ukraine's presidential election, the fifth since the country regained its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, was democratic and "organized in a transparent manner," the OSCE said today in an e-mailed statement.
"Yesterday's vote was an impressive display of democratic elections," said João Soares, the president of the OSCE's Parliamentary Assembly and Special Coordinator for OSCE short- term observers. "For everyone in Ukraine, this election was a victory. It is now time for the country's political leaders to listen to the people's verdict and make sure that the transition of power is peaceful and constructive."
...
In 2010, during the premiership of Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status, while continuing its co-operation with NATO.
Neocons in the Obama administration sided with a violent mob to overthrow this elected government, which led directly to the Russian invasion of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk.
The neocons have the war they've always wanted.
If you think the US wouldn't respond similarly if the Chinese helped overthrow the Mexican elected government so they could setup bases on our border, you'll never understand how this war came to be.
Russian troops attacked US troops in Syria while Trump was president. Quit pretending they were scared of him.
Thanks for explaining, that's a good attitude, and a good general rule of thumb. To me, at some point it becomes wasted effort, patience exerted with absolutely nothing that approaches an 'aha!' moment or even a recognition of a shared reality/understanding.
Let us presuppose, for the sake of argument, that said congressman was not already wealthy prior to taking office. Is it your contention that said congressman voted to fund the Ukraine war, but only in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars to boomerang back into his pockets, and that this happened? Or, is it your contention that said Congressman diverted (i.e., stole) war funding and put it into his pockets? Or had the war funding funneled into an illegitimate shell corporation directly or indirectly owned by the congressman? Or, is this simply about soliciting/accepting campaign donations in exchange for votes? Do you have a specific example?
Let's work in reverse, no, I am not attempting to disguise this against any one actor over another.
There are a multitude of examples of these people FAR exceeding the net worth of their similar earning peer group, like not close.
"Ukraine" was the opportunity, the void Afghanistan left, it isn't about voting for one place or another it's about the opportunity Ukraine/Russia presented. War is profitable *to these people.
Of a person doing what? Are you asking me for an example of a political figure who has made 6 figures and is currently worth 100x ( est) what that salary would have actually obtained for them?
Here is a super obvious one:
So it is your contention that her only legitimate income and wealth accretion is from her salary as a congresswoman?Of a person doing what? Are you asking me for an example of a political figure who has made 6 figures and is currently worth 100x ( est) what that salary would have actually obtained for them?
Here is a super obvious one:
