Posted on 02/16/2024 11:45:35 AM PST by libh8er
“The question is how can you square that Biden is serous about saving the border integrity of Ukraine, while he not only permits the unfettered invasion of the US borders he actually encourages the invasion with his policies which are in direct opposition of the rules established by Congress for applying for asylum?”
I’ve answered that, kid. For one thing, they’re apples and oranges. One is an actual military invasion of a nation by a nuclear-armed aggressor bent on death and destruction and conquest; an invasion of a nation with whom we had ties (though not an ally in the legal sense); an invasion by an aggressor who has been overtly hostile towards us and our legal allies; an aggression that, if left unchecked, could result in serious risks. You may be one of those who say, “Not my country; not my problem.” Isolationism is folly in this day and age; and it can bite you when you are not prepared for the bite. Better to muzzle the jaws and avoid the bite entirely. We don’t live in a Pollyanna world; we live in a real world where conflicts and danger and threats are ever-present. The other is a policy decision by the president of the US made strictly for what he thinks is political gain. The Democrats crave power above all else; and they will do whatever they think will secure that power, the country be damned.
Yeah, I support Ukraine in its existential fight against a known and aggressive bully. That being said, if Congress cut off financial support for Ukraine, so be it. I see the pros and cons of providing aid and support to Ukraine; just as I see the pros and cons of supplying aid and support to any country.
We didn’t drive Russia into the arms of China. Russia and China have had on-again/off-again relations for generations. China is playing the long game, and will play off Russia against the West if it thinks it inures to its benefit. There are no friends in international relations; only interests.
Talk about Apples to Oranges comparisons. You are trying to equate Putin to Stalin and the USSR to Russia in its current configuration. Neither are even a realistic comparison at all.
Stalin never made any overtures to solidify good relations with the US. Mikhail Gorbachev & Boris Yeltsin actually first broached the topic in the 1990s when they asked Clinton if Russia could become a NATO member state, which of course was never even even given seriously consideration because his administration was not really savvy enough to understand what the pluses might be. Clinton later told them no.
Putin again asked when Russia might be offered NATO membership.
“Russia is part of European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised world. So it is hard for me to visualise NATO as an enemy,” said Putin, the country’s acting president in 2000, three weeks before the election, which made him president.
At the time, Putin’s words were interpreted as extending an olive branch to the West. Since then, Putin has been in power, rising to the occasion and becoming the sole decision-maker of the country.
The same year, according to the then-NATO chief George Robertson, Putin bluntly asked: “When are you going to invite us to join Nato?” Robertson advised the Russian president that he needs to “apply to join NATO” and not expect an invitation.
TRTWorld Magazine: Russia could have joined NATO. But why didn't they do it?
The article goes on to say:
“Because they thought that they had won the Cold War and could dictate all the terms as Russia was 'beaten'. They were high on the euphoria of a perceived victory rather than a massive opportunity for peace and security,” says Gregory Simons, an associate professor at the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University.
Remember how the Democrats ridiculed Reagan for his efforts to defeat the USSR in the Cold War & the fact that his spending on defense caused the Us national debt to break the trillion dollar make for the first time in her history?
NATO's expansion into eastern Europe was seen as an act of belligerence against Russia, and rightly so. Like an animal in a trap, it will attack anyone that comes close to it, even when the intent is to free them from the trap. But the threat was real, and like a leader should, he reacted in the best interest of the Russian citizens. He had said that red-lines as far as he was concerned was NATO expansion into Georgie or Ukraine, so it is not surprising that he eventually invaded Ukraine, especially when he saw the coup d'état that was carried out for the 2020 election to rid the presence of Donald John Trump who provided a real problem for the corrupt criminals who have capture this nation.
One is an actual military invasion of a nation by a nuclear-armed aggressor bent on death and destruction and conquest
You begin by making a true claim, but then you injected your personal opinion as the truth. Russia is indeed a nuclear-armed nation, but the remainder of your statement is your personal opinion, and that opinion is based entirely on the the actions of the USSR, and I can tell by your statements.
an invasion of a nation with whom we had ties (though not an ally in the legal sense); an invasion by an aggressor who has been overtly hostile towards us and our legal allies; an aggression that, if left unchecked, could result in serious risks.
Our ties with Ukraine were not ties at all. Ukraine was nothing more than a target to expand into the NATO organization arrayed against the USSR, but since the USSR had imploded it became necessary to make Russia as the equivalent of the USSR because we needed an enemy with which to justify the continued existence of NATO. When in reality the focus of NATO should have changed in accordance with the new realities. I won't go into what the realities of NATO actually were & still are, because that is a separate discussion that goes not really belong in this discussion.
The other attractive aspects of Ukraine was that it was also corrupt, and the ability for the powerful to enrich themselves even more was too tantalizing to pass up.
A legal ally? I think perhaps you meant to say a recognized ally, but even the recognized allies are subject to question more often than not, as many are bullied by our hegemony & the power we have with the dollar being the world's reserve currency. Many of them neither respect or appreciate the US.
Isolationism is folly in this day and age; and it can bite you when you are not prepared for the bite.
Like the rest of you Zelenskyy/Ukraine supporters, you want to paint us as isolationists if we are against US involvement in this conflict. The reality is we are tired of being involved after two extended wars that chewed up trillions of dollars that each of us have responsibility for a share of that debt. Now they are putting us on the hook for taking care of those who you say tarnish what your mother went through to become a legal citizen, and you have every right to be upset about that.
At the time, I actually supported both invasions, because I still saw this nation as the nation I was born into. They were unable to be as overt as they are now with their anti-American sentiments, even though they were not shy either. They just seemed to be such an insignificant faction, except for those in the Democrat Party.
But the truth is that this nation has more than just a few issues. It is riddled with attacks upon all the institutions that once made this nation stand apart from all other nations. These issues require that all patriots focus on our nation. It is not isolationism it is the realization that this nation is the lynchpin for freedom & rights, Ukraine is not. Thus taking resources and attention away from the real target here, the US, is only aiding and abetting the enemy, both within and external.
You seem total ambivalent about that reality. You seem to believe we can do both, but the more that is wasted upon other endeavors is only a hinderance to the important task at hand.
You claim to be a realist, but that claim is diametrically opposed by your support for Ukraine's importance in the world. A realist understands that the US is the real target, and has been for decades. The enemies exist on the outside, but it has always been the enemies from within have been the real threat for this nation. The enemies from within are working with the external enemies.
I wasn't questioning your deduction as you claimed in a different response, I am questioning as to your understanding that Biden is one of those enemies from within. That also holds true with most, if not all, Democrats. It also applies the RINOs who have consistently assisted the Democrats while ignoring their own base, but more importantly their country.
Your deductions are somewhat correct, but they are also woefully incomplete. You see part of the picture, but you miss the bigger picture because you focus on one aspect alone, and that aspect is invasion. You fail to look at the entire picture. Instead you are fixated upon one small portion of the picture.
If you did, then you would see that Biden actually mirrors many of Putin traits, especially when it comes to dealing with the opposition.
Putin's opposition was actively engaged in subversive activity. That is not in support of Putin, that is just a fact.
Alexei Navalny Leaked Video asking MI6 Officer James William Thomas Ford for $10-20 Million
The tactics used on Jan. 6th protestors are to paint them as subversives. As a result they have been allowed to languish in jail (and the D. C. jail is not unlike any gulag) and they are being sentenced to outlandish sentences not fitting the crimes most of them have committed. There is compelling evidence to suggest that much of the violence was fomented by government assets. The attacks on Trump are hyped up BS that is tantamount to election interference.
I've never seen you show any concern about this, however, I might have missed those comments by you in fairness, because it's not like I follow you around to comment on things you might say.
The fact that you are taking care of your wife, is the only reason I actually have respect for you, for I applaud your devotion to her even more than your service to this nation.
“Talk about Apples to Oranges comparisons. You are trying to equate Putin to Stalin and the USSR to Russia in its current configuration. Neither are even a realistic comparison at all.”
Good grief, kid; you and fallacies are joined at the hip. Show me where I have equated Putin to Stalin. Don’t make the claim and then scurry off into a corner: Support your claim, kid.
You are all over the place, kid. You segue from Stalin to NATO to the dollar being a reserve currency to January 6 to God-knows-what without even pausing to take a breath. You have elevated the strawman and have taken the non-sequitur to new heights.
You are way too emotional, kid. Take a chill pill before you grab the widow-maker or stroke out.
Well old fart, I too have the ability to come to conclusions also.
Your statement says more than you are willing to admit:
One is an actual military invasion of a nation by a nuclear-armed aggressor bent on death and destruction and conquest
That more aptly describes the USSR especially under Joseph Stalin's iron-fisted rule. Putin is certainly not an angel, but that statement does not aptly describe Putin accurately at all. It could also be used describe George W. Bush as well with his invasion of Iraq. But a military invasion by an armed cannot be dismissed as easily as an unarmed invasion by millions of military aged men, when the one dismissing it is not really as smart as he wants to claim he is, or perhaps because he is an old fart & his ability to actually think has diminished to the point of no longer being reliable.
I decided that you can't be referring to W, so it must be Stalin.
BTW, I understand the tactic you are using you have not fooled me one bit. You are one dishonest person.
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.