Posted on 10/10/2022 7:07:40 AM PDT by FarCenter
Sorry but my comment showed the hypocrisy of the US condemning Russia for what it never hesitates to do. An obvious point that went clear over your head. Better luck next time.
“Not remotely.”
Yeah: Directly.
“Sorry but my comment showed the hypocrisy of the US condemning Russia for what it never hesitates to do.”
So what? We weren’t discussing the US.
Your argument is akin to someone accusing you of hitting a little kid; and your defense is, “Well, Bob down the street hit a girl!”
I’m glad you convinced yourself at least.
I didn’t have to.
“we” weren’t discussing anything. I was referencing the US.
Congratulations on a clever parsing of aggressive military acts by a party against another party.
By your parsing and of invasions alone, how did our invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan and continuing invasion in Syria do?
When one descends into the rhetorical weeds, we shall agree that Russia has invaded Ukraine, and that we invaded more nations than Russia.
Given today's statement by Tulsi Gabbard that the Biden administration and current "elitist cabal" in the Democrat Party are "warmongers," where does your political support for an American party lie?
“’we’ weren’t discussing anything. I was referencing the US.”
The THREAD, son; the THREAD. ‘We’ refers to those of us discussing the THREAD, which was captioned: “Ukraine: Russian Missile Rocks Kyiv, Other Cities.” The thread had nothing to do with the US.
But, because you could not participate in the discussion of the topic of the thread, in any logical manner, you resorted to the loser’s out: Switch the subjects of the thread. Introduce into the discussion, the time-honored fallback of losers, the “But, but, but...” fallacy, aka Tu Quoque.
Which is what you did, son.
“Congratulations on a clever parsing of aggressive military acts by a party against another party.”
Not parsing at all.
In 1998, under Clinton, we bombed the “aspirin factory” in Sudan. But we didn’t invade Sudan. Ditto with the abandoned “training camp” in Afghanistan.
Then, in December, 1998, Clinton launched a four-day bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein and Iraq for failing to comply with United Nations weapons inspectors. Again, there was no invasion.
So, you see, it is not parsing; and hardly “rhetorical weeds.” Though, you seem to be implying that the two — air attacks and invasion — are some kind of ying-and-yang duality, and thus inseparable from the whole.
“Given today’s statement by Tulsi Gabbard that the Biden administration and current ‘elitist cabal’ in the Democrat Party are ‘warmongers,’ where does your political support for an American party lie?”
First off, I see Gabbard as an opportunist, NOT a person with any deep convictions other than self-promotion. She says she is “leaving” the Democrat party, yet two years ago her candidate platform was chock full of Democrat dreams (which she has NOT disavowed): Gun bans (she had an F rating by the NRA, and a 100% favorable rating by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence); unlimited abortion; universal health care; pro-illegal immigration (she even said that the influx of illegal immigrants across our Southern border is the fault of the US, because of our history in Mexico and Latin America). If she continues in politics, as an independent, she will caucus with the Democrats.
No, little boy. Me and another Freeper had taken a quite related tangent. You don’t run this board little boi, as much as you would apparently like to.
You are correct. Cross border acts of war -- call them police action as we did in Viet Nam, kinetic action as did the Obama administration, and more are inseparable for that "whole" which is military action against another nation.
As to parsing, you write, "in December, 1998, Clinton launched a four-day bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein and Iraq for failing to comply with United Nations weapons inspectors. Again, there was no invasion." And yet later the US did indeed invade, so parsing the Clinton from the Bush acts was your method of discourse.. Both were acts of war, justified at that time, though the Iraq war isn't "won" and the Afghan war was demonstrably lost. Trillions funded by debt are gone. The debt lingers and grows.
You reflection on Gabbard did not answer the question posed, which was and remains "where does your political support for an American party lie?”
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-s-america-first-legacy-lives-among-these-hardcore-republicans-n1294932
Some Republicans are finding the massive and likely lost "aid" to Ukraine as too high a price for a hugely indebted nation. Other Republicans are on board with Democrats in sending money to Ukraine, so one can evidence a choice. Mine is to stop sending money into a black hole, given that this is "not my circus and not my clowns." Yours is what?
Nice try, son. The thread was about Ukraine and Russia. That’s what was being discussed. You tried to justify Russia’s actions by citing past actions of the United States. That is fallacious.
I pointed it out, and you got the vapors. Simple as that.
“As to parsing, you write, ‘in December, 1998, Clinton launched a four-day bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein and Iraq for failing to comply with United Nations weapons inspectors. Again, there was no invasion.’ And yet later the US did indeed invade...”
SOME FIVE YEARS LATER!
Clinton ordered the unilateral (USA only) bombing of Iraq in 1998 because he was being impeached, and sought to create a distraction.
The 2003 attack on, and invasion of Iraq was a multi-lateral action (several nations were involved; but primarily the US, the UK, Australia, and Poland). The air campaign was on March 19, 2003 and the ground invasion began the next day, on March 20, 2003.
This “Gulf War II” was initiated for several reasons: It was part of the Global War on Terror (GWT), as there was evidence that Iraq was sponsoring islamic terrorists; to locate and destroy any WMDs; to stop human rights violations; regime change; and because Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate the elder George Bush.
The two actions (1998 and 2003) are separate and distinct.
“Both were acts of war, justified at that time...”
At that time.
“...though the Iraq war isn’t ‘won’ and the Afghan war was demonstrably lost. Trillions funded by debt are gone. The debt lingers and grows.”
Irrelevant to the issue you and I are posting back-and-forth about, which is a bombing campaign vs an invasion.
“You reflection on Gabbard did not answer the question posed, which was and remains ‘where does your political support for an American party lie?’”
I didn’t answer it because it is ambiguous. By “American party” do you mean a recognized and organized political party in America, such as the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the Socialist Party, etc.? Or do you mean there is an organized and recognized political party in the United States known as the American Party?
In any event, I support the United States as a constitutional republic. THAT is where my allegiance rests. I will support the party that best supports that.
Now, you can answer the questions you have posed to me.
I await your reply.
Deeming portions of a discussion as irrelevant is interesting, you as arbiter. Bombing another nation is an act of war, as the cited "global war on terror" asserts as well. Al Qaeda did not invade the US, after all. So your point is one of debate convenience, not consistency.
But I will with you wholly agree to "support the United States as a constitutional republic." Because it is.
I suggest in the moment our republic has less significant political support -- in the current crop of Democrats, as represented by Biden and Obama and Schumer, as in and among most high-ranking Republicans, as represented by McConnell and the likes of Cheney and other RINOs -- compared to their public enthusiasm as they display for Ukraine and its government by paying their salaries. This is why Trump seems to annoy them all. It is all the more amusing that his offer to help broker a possible peace is met with such scorn in the political classes and media.
Which brings me back to my "irrelevant" point: “...though the Iraq war isn't ‘won’ and the Afghan war was demonstrably lost. Trillions funded by debt are gone. The debt lingers and grows.” That is not "irrelevant to the issue." Ultimately it is the issue. It is an issue on which our republic rises or falls. What rises in the moment is a massive debt. An existential debt.
NATO's proxy war with Russia is war, beyond the simple borders of Ukraine itself. Heeding Zelensky's call for NATO to bomb Russia would not be an invasion. Russia responding in kind would not bean invasion. But both sure as hell would be greater war. And very expensive indeed. Aerial bombing and invasion might be separate and distinct categories in language, but they both are warfare. And probably to be averted or avoided, as is possible.
“Bombing another nation is an act of war...”
No kidding. I never said it wasn’t.
And so, "Zelensky Calls for NATO to Launch Nuclear Weapons" is a call for NATO to enter the war. So do we read and reflect on the comments herein.
Source: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4099874/posts
“And so, ‘Zelensky Calls for NATO to Launch Nuclear Weapons’ is a call for NATO to enter the war. So do we read and reflect on the comments herein.”
I’ve read his comment wherein he made this suggestion, as it has been addressed on several websites and sources. First off, he said NATO should launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent Russia using nuclear weapons on Ukraine. Secondly, he did NOT say NATO should launch NUCLEAR WEAPONS to achieve that. I don’t know if he MEANT that NATO should use nukes in such a strike, as I can only go by what he actually said. But the fact remains he DID NOT say NATO should use nuclear weapons to pre-empt Russia from launching nukes against Ukraine.
You jumped to a conclusion, and assumed facts not in evidence.
But Zelensky’s comment most certainly IS a suggestion that NATO should enter the war.
Agreed. Moreover I suggest that NATO is already in the war, covertly. Things will not end well, however they end. In a real war, one side loses. It remains to be seen which it will be. There is no foregone conclusion.
“In a real war, one side loses.”
Sometimes both sides lose.
We agree again. I suspect that this holds true for the current conflict, as Europe's access to reliable and relatively inexpensive energy is lost, and our mounting debt continues its flood of red ink assisted by all the "aid" for war. The conflict is far wider than Russia and Ukraine at this point, as the petrodollar shows cracks, and the OPEC + decisions strip bare Biden's suppression of US energy independence supposedly in support of two wars, one against Russia and one against Climate Change. All to the detriment of the many, here and there. Indeed, sometimes both sides lose. Isn't interesting that, as always, there are those who profit wildly while the many lose?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.