Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[ewsieg]

So in reviewing my post, I realize i made a mistake, while at the same time realizing that you, Pfife, read Archie's posts, while ignoring mine.  That's hurtful.

I wasn't backing Archie's completely fucked up thoughts on Biden's comments leading to WWIII, I was merely contradicting my initial post which stated Biden's comments were scripted and backing his initial statement which stated Biden's admin was backtracking Biden's comments as well.

 

 

[Archie]

9 hours ago, mtutiger said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Empire_speech#Speech

"Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the State, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world .... So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil."

Ronald Reagan, 1983.

Somehow the world did not end after this speech. Nor will it after Biden's 

Comparing Biden to Ronald Reagan is ridiculous.  In the baseball world this would be like comparing ex Tiger outfielder Ty Collins to Mike Trout, Willie Mays or Al Kaline. 

Reagan was a very respected and feared POTUS around the world and goes down in history as one of the best.  Biden, on the other hand has already cemented himself firmly as the worst ever and is a laughing stock around the world.     You could dig Reagan up and prop him up in the oval office and that would be an improvement over Biden.

[mtutiger]

16 minutes ago, Archie said:

Comparing Biden to Ronald Reagan is ridiculous.  In the baseball world this would be like comparing ex Tiger outfielder Ty Collins to Mike Trout, Willie Mays or Al Kaline. 

Reagan was a very respected and feared POTUS around the world and goes down in history as one of the best.  Biden, on the other hand has already cemented himself firmly as the worst ever and is a laughing stock around the world.     You could dig Reagan up and prop him up in the oval office and that would be an improvement over Biden.

I have watched both speeches and they are quite similar in their boldness and willingness to call out the enemy. And frankly, your hysterical reaction after Biden's are similar to a lot of Reagan's Dem critics at the time (ie. That madman is gonna get us into a war).

Nonetheless, you seem committed to continuing to say that we are seen as a laughing stock, despite the fact that NATO is now more united than any time since at least 9/11.

I'm sorry, but in all of your posts, you just seem to start from a conclusion and work backwards, rather than taking in the facts and coming to a conclusion. There's not a single issue that happens where I do not know what your position will be the moment it happens. It's hard to take that seriously... maybe try coming to your own conclusions based on the facts and not just providing a boiler plate response to everything. Otherwise, it seems like it would be difficult to have a good faith discussion.

Edited March 27, 2022 by mtutiger

[romad1]

Posted despite thinking Anonymous are a bunch of self-serving mama's boys

[1776]

~WSJ article

When Russia unveiled previously secret details of its nuclear-weapons doctrine for the first time in 2020, it confirmed something U.S. war planners had long suspected: Moscow would be willing to use atomic arms to keep from losing a conventional war.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putininvaded Ukraine last month, he has repeatedly raised the specter of nuclear war, invoking his country’s atomic arsenal in an effort to deter the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from getting involved in the conflict.

But as Mr. Putin’s army has faced fierce resistance from Ukrainian forces strengthened by large infusions of Western weaponry, concerns have grown in Washington and allied capitals that Russia could consider using a so-called tactical nuclear weapon to gain the upper hand on the battlefield.

Such weapons, which generally have a less powerful warhead than a strategic nuclear weapon carried on an intercontinental ballistic missile, were part of Cold War military thinking though they never figured into the arms-control agreements of the past between the U.S. and Russia or the Soviet Union.

————————

For the record, personally, I fully believe Biden’s comments being debated above were a mistake. There was nothing to gain anywhere as a result. Actions speak louder than words and to date the administration and western allies have been spot on in their execution. 

[romad1]

Posted because I do support the work of Bellingcat.

[romad1]

This is a very good piece on the UK's defenders of Putin.  I think we all know that RT was part of the Putin defense network.

 

[pfife]

It's awesome how conservatives celebrate Putin as a strong stable genius while he's running his piehole about using nuclear weapons, then caca their underoos when Biden says Putin shouldn't be in power.  And then they act like they're way more patriotic than everyone else at the same time and also everyone else isn't.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

Comparing Biden to Ronald Reagan is ridiculous.  In the baseball world this would be like comparing ex Tiger outfielder Ty Collins to Mike Trout, Willie Mays or Al Kaline. 

Reagan was a very respected and feared POTUS around the world and goes down in history as one of the best.  Biden, on the other hand has already cemented himself firmly as the worst ever and is a laughing stock around the world.     You could dig Reagan up and prop him up in the oval office and that would be an improvement over Biden.

I think you are overrating Reagan.  He was no Willie Mays.  Maybe Mickey Stanley.  

[mtutiger]

22 minutes ago, 1776 said:

~WSJ article

When Russia unveiled previously secret details of its nuclear-weapons doctrine for the first time in 2020, it confirmed something U.S. war planners had long suspected: Moscow would be willing to use atomic arms to keep from losing a conventional war.

Since Russian President Vladimir Putininvaded Ukraine last month, he has repeatedly raised the specter of nuclear war, invoking his country’s atomic arsenal in an effort to deter the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization from getting involved in the conflict.

But as Mr. Putin’s army has faced fierce resistance from Ukrainian forces strengthened by large infusions of Western weaponry, concerns have grown in Washington and allied capitals that Russia could consider using a so-called tactical nuclear weapon to gain the upper hand on the battlefield.

Such weapons, which generally have a less powerful warhead than a strategic nuclear weapon carried on an intercontinental ballistic missile, were part of Cold War military thinking though they never figured into the arms-control agreements of the past between the U.S. and Russia or the Soviet Union.

————————

For the record, personally, I fully believe Biden’s comments being debated above were a mistake. There was nothing to gain anywhere as a result. Actions speak louder than words and to date the administration and western allies have been spot on in their execution. 

FWIW, I stand by my initial comment that I'm not sure it was the right thing to say. I dont know that much is gained by it.

But I do think Biden's critics are making a mountain out of a molehill when they hysterically say that we are gonna end up committed to a war over those nine words. Get a grip. 

[1776]

Just now, mtutiger said:

FWIW, I stand by my initial comment that I'm not sure it was the right thing to say. I dont know that much is gained by it.

But I do think Biden's critics are making a mountain out of a molehill when they hysterically say that we are gonna end up committed to a war over those nine words. Get a grip. 

I’m not registered as a Biden critic. It’s more about what was said and the current situation than who said it. From a psychological standpoint, the words aren’t productive. 

[mtutiger]

15 minutes ago, 1776 said:

I’m not registered as a Biden critic. It’s more about what was said and the current situation than who said it. From a psychological standpoint, the words aren’t productive. 

I get it. I don’t know that it was the right choice of words.

Just wish members of the media (and certain members of the board) were capable of some perspective. Its not the biggest gaffe in history, it will not lead to WWIII, etc.

Edited March 27, 2022 by mtutiger

[romad1]

Just now had a chat with my 93yr old dad about Biden's speech.  My dad and I are both Nevertrump and he has his lifetime GOP credentials in good order as do I.   He loved the speech and thinks the WH should not be walking back the comments.  I think that's my dad being annoyed at the young staffers trying to protect the elderly Biden who they see through their optic as whatever it is that the young misjudge the elderly as being.

I told him that i thought it was what Nixon and Kissinger called the "Cowardice of the Eastern Establishment"

[mtutiger]

This kinda sums it up in terms of the media reponse...

My guess is that Biden, by virtue of pursuing a policy that north of 75% of Americans agree with (ie. providing weapons of Ukraine but not engaging) gives them very little to work with, so moments where he says something provocative (which may or may not be a mistake depending on one's perspective) present an opportunity to create drama

[romad1]

Maybe the Mama joke is what we really need to get the Russian's attention

 

[ewsieg]

23 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

My guess is that Biden, by virtue of pursuing a policy that north of 75% of Americans agree with (ie. providing weapons of Ukraine but not engaging) gives them very little to work with, so moments where he says something provocative (which may or may not be a mistake depending on one's perspective) present an opportunity to create drama

To be fair, we're not that far removed from a president that not only said things off of the cuff, but administrative policy would sometimes change based on his response.  It's been ingrained into the media's heads that 'words matter' and that's not a bad thing.  I do think it's different here as Biden has shown consistency with his policies, despite any off of the cuff remarks.

[romad1]

Awkward gaffe 

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

I get it. I don’t know that it was the right choice of words.

Just wish members of the media (and certain members of the board) were capable of some perspective. Its not the biggest gaffe in history, it will not lead to WWIII, etc.

it may or may not even be a gaffe. Why do we give one side credit for being strategic when they deliberately stir the pot, and then assume the other isn't capable of the same thought process? The Eastern intelligentsia and US MSM are not the players that will win (or lose) this conflict. Why should we suppose that is the audience Biden is concerned about? If Joe Biden has proven anything in his life, besides his ability to misspeak, is that he is also capable of playing a long game. So take your pick.

Edited March 27, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Archie]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

FWIW, I stand by my initial comment that I'm not sure it was the right thing to say. I dont know that much is gained by it.

But I do think Biden's critics are making a mountain out of a molehill when they hysterically say that we are gonna end up committed to a war over those nine words. Get a grip. 

If Putin is not thinking rationally which is a good possibility, it could easily escalate in war.   Kind along the lines of I'm going to get you before you get me approach.

[romad1]

 

[1984Echoes]

3 hours ago, mtutiger said:

This kinda sums it up in terms of the media reponse...

My guess is that Biden, by virtue of pursuing a policy that north of 75% of Americans agree with (ie. providing weapons of Ukraine but not engaging) gives them very little to work with, so moments where he says something provocative (which may or may not be a mistake depending on one's perspective) present an opportunity to create drama

This.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Maybe this is an ignorant question to ask, but would Xi allow Putin to use a tactical nuke and disrupt things in the global order that catastrophically? I ask about Xi because it seems fairly clear that China is Russia's biggest customer outside of Europe and the disruption that Putin using a tactical nuke would cause to world economics and energy markets, including China's, would almost certainly be colossal in size.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

If Putin is not thinking rationally which is a good possibility, it could easily escalate in war.   Kind along the lines of I'm going to get you before you get me approach.

Perhaps Putin is more rational than you think he is.

Doesn't mean he's trustworthy, but the correct response to a bully isn't to cower to him, its to stand up to him. You seem to be advocating for cowering.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Just now, mtutiger said:

Perhaps Putin is more rational than you think he is.

Doesn't mean he's trustworthy, but the correct response to a bully isn't to cower to him, its to stand up to him. You seem to be advocating for cowering.

Whatever happened to the whole conservative doctrine of "peace through strength"?

[mtutiger]

11 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Maybe this is an ignorant question to ask, but would Xi allow Putin to use a tactical nuke and disrupt things in the global order that catastrophically? I ask about Xi because it seems fairly clear that China is Russia's biggest customer outside of Europe and the disruption that Putin using a tactical nuke would cause to world economics and energy markets, including China's, would almost certainly be colossal in size.

Not really an answer to your question, but lost in these conversations about the relationship between Russia and China is that China still does a lot of business with Europeans. And for as powerful as Russia is projected, the combined GDP of EU countries dwarfs that of Russia (1/6th of the entire world's GDP).

There would be economic risk to China in the event of a tactical nuke, it stands to reason.