More people have died from Covid under the Biden administration than under the Trump administration. Biden made it sound like he had all the answers to “fix the situation”. Yes, what a great job he’s done…..🙄😵💫
You mean that time that his own CIA fabricated intel about Russian bounties that was later proven to not be credible? That time?
What would you do if parts of your own government’s CIA were actively working against your interests and your country’s interests? You make it sound like the CIA was some kind of unimpeachable entity - beyond reproach. We’ve come to find out that they were just an extension of the D party……
You obviously didn’t read the entire thread to understand the context around my reply
I can see why you're calling bullshit, since you spend all your time with your head up your ass.
gr8, going into Ukraine is a bad idea - no doubt. But where does the “red line” get drawn with Putin? What’s it going to take? He’s actively engaged in a military campaign to take out a democratically-elected government and to replace it with a puppet government controlled by him.
So then how is this administration weak with Putin when you're saying that essentially nothing will work, including going into Ukraine? I agree with your sentiments here, but I don't get the stance on calling this administration weak then. I mean what would the prior administration have done differently? I'm genuinely curious? Because there needs to be a united front here. Unfortunately, there are lots of ELECTED folks on the right who want to lay this right at the feet of Biden when I don't think it would matter who the president was right now (just my opinion, of course). So instead of presenting a united front, even if there is vehement disagreement internally, you've got the Tulsi Gabbards of the world who would rather blame the United States for what's going on vs, you know, Putin. I don't get it.
Ha ha. Yeh, maybe someplace like Norway or Iceland.
All great questions. All questions that Biden and Europe have to answer.
I think they look at him like a demented, old coot - which he is. He’s not leading this country.
If the former USSR states are members of NATO, article 5 is designed to stop him, one way or another.
There’s got to be a way to get his attention and his apprehension. I just don’t what it is.
NATO is like a toothless, gutless poodle. It doesn’t have the wherewithal and resolve to stop Putin (by itself) if he decides to invade NATO member countries.
I mean as much as I think we ALL would like to do the things you mentioned, isn't the risk of him just releasing a bunch of nukes that much higher if any of those things happen? He's a loon, so I don't think that would be a stretch for him at all.
So the choices are let him do whatever he wants or expect a full-scale war, potentially nuclear?
He would bend over and offer himself in Ukraines stead. Putin would go for it.
I fully agree with that statement. However there is an economic war brewing over energy, specifically oil and natural gas.
So the US loses 7% of its oil imports. Russia loses the ability to sell its oil to the North America and Europe. Who do you think pays a heavier price there?
You don’t. So the question is: how do you determine when force is absolutely necessary?
www.fox61.com
And Obama declined to be tougher on Russia like Trump was even though he was warned. And look, now we have WW3.Good job sidetracking. Is that why Trump disagrees with his own CIA?
Trump declines to side with US intelligence over Putin
US President Donald Trump, in a stunning rebuke of the US intelligence community, declined on Monday to endorse the US government’s assessment that Russia...
Trump declined to endorse the US government’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. Are you so naive as to believe that Russia was absolutely clean in the 2016 election? No meddling whatsoever?
www.cnn.com
www.fox61.com
And Obama declined to be tougher on Russia like Trump was even though he was warned. And look, now we have WW3.
Here I'll even use CNN:
Analysis: It's time to admit it: Mitt Romney was right about Russia
A decade ago, Mitt Romney went on CNN and made a statement that was widely perceived as a major mistake.
www.cnas.org
It appears you have little understanding of Europe's dependency on Russia for oil and natural gas. The US losing 7% of its oil imports from Russia is of little consequence. Look at this map, which does not include Nord Stream 1 & 2:
Well you don't know that, hope we don't find out.......and your uneducated opinion means squat. Nice to see you believe in a communist psycho more than our democratic friends in europe. Wow, just like trump and his republican lackeys.
You’re so FOS. You lob this crap at me about “overly simplistic cause and effect” and then say unequivocally that there have been no wars in Europe for 70 years because of NATO. The truth is without the USA there is no NATO. We contribute by far the most to the organization (22% for US, 15% for Germany, France 10% and most of Europe still doesn’t contribute the “mandatory” 2% of GDP) and have almost 60,000 service members in Europe including the UK.
No country is expected to "contribute" 2% of GDP to NATO. The NATO budget, of which the United States currently contributes about 16% (the same as Germany) is only about 2.5B Euro. The agreement you reference is one for all NATO members to spend 2% of their GDP on their own defense. This is different than a "contribution" to NATO. The agreement in question said that the countries should reach the 2% threshold by 2024. When Trump kept saying that WE were paying more because the NATO countries weren't "paying their fair share," he was lying. Many had not yet reached 2% of GDP as their defense budget, but we have yet to even reach the point when they were supposed to get there.
bullshit. He was right on. “Half the alliance — 16 of the 29 countries — don’t even spend 1.5 percent (of gross domestic product) let alone 2 percent that we all agreed on four years ago (at a NATO summit) in Wales,” Michael Fallon, who served as secretary of state for defense from 2014 to 2017, said Tuesday.
What I said doesn't contradict this. The agreement was to get to 2% by 2024. You can't say that a country hasn't met i's agreement if we're still 2 years from the deadline. Call it BS if you want, but I literally linked the NATO website.
You said he lied, he didn't lie. He had every right, and was spot on in calling out countries not reaching their obligation.
He lied when he said they weren't paying their fair share as if they owed money to NATO and that we were footing the bill for their delinquency. And, again, we've yet to reach the deadline for the obligation.
It wasn't supposed to be a light switch to 2 percent in 2024. Many countries were sitting on their bums. Rightly called out. Your TDS is obvious.
