Status
Not open for further replies.
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
… but NOT seeing the bromance seems ... I don't even know. Their love was real once.
Putin misses his little buddy.

Trump is aware that something is missing, but he can't quite get his head around what that might be. The rest of the GOP is waiting for him to rectify the problem.
1645885568833.png
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Putin misses his little buddy.

Trump is aware that something is missing, but he can't quite get his head around what that might be. The rest of the GOP is waiting for him to rectify the problem.
View attachment 54194
Just because. Can you name the specific actions that the previous administration undertook that helped Putin?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
In Churchill's days there were no nukes. You dont go into a war half cocked . The idea is to beat back Russia with the lowest cost of civilian casualties without promoting nucleur war. I too would love to see Putin assinated but its got to be done by a non government sanctioned operation. Having the CIA do it paints a target on every Western leader's head. The West made a grave tactical error by not allowing Ukraine partial admission into NATO.

Lets see how Putin reacts when he can no longer afford high class hookers (because of his personal assetts being frozen) having to resort to toothless vodka infused dime store hookers for his personal entertainment.
Uh, Churchill/WWII- yeah, nukes were in the mix and Germany had been working on them, too. England didn't have them but by association, they did- the difference is that by the time the US dropped them, the war was done in Europe.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Ukraine is showing what bravery and leadership looks like, same can't be said for NATO or the US
Are you equating bravery with Putin walking down the street with every gun aimed at him? That's normally called 'stupidity'.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
Kyiv held firm last night after very bloody fighting.

China seems to be putting distance between themselves and the Russians. This will have to followed with interest.

The Germans seem to be the biggest hold out to blocking Russia from Swift, as that is how they pay for their gas. Pressure is building on them.

There is growing dissent against this war in the Russian parliament. Voices are rising from the age old excuse, "they did not know what they were voting for!"

Interestingly the French have seized a Russian freighter in the English Channel. If that sea route has been closed to the Russians, that will be a new development.
Voices in Parliament are saying they didn't know? Pretty similar to "We have to sign it, so we can see what's in it (away from the fog of controversy) WRT the Porkulus Bill. One side tries to make it seem like a good idea, others follow and all have to deal with thee aftermath- it's on their heads.

IMO, China is waiting to see how this plays out and may not want to get the stink on themselves.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
This action might have been better served "before" the tanks rolled. Kind of like Sanctioning Nord 2 now and not last summer. I think most of the Ukrainians hunkered down in Kyiv right now would agree.

1645887463764.png
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Best map I have found on advance before assault on Kyiv last night. This morning a big push towards Berdyansk to secure the coast of the Sea of Azov and protect Crimea's right flank.. Heroic resistance being put up, bless them.

map Feb 25.jpg
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
I've seen talk about the "Republicans, Trump and conservative media" supporting Putin (mostly on these pages). Can you point to any actual examples of them doing so? Of course, their opposition (democrats, most of the media) will say so, but I mean direct quotes and such. Now, there has been plenty of well deserved ridicule for the current administration (I have supplied some of it myself) but criticizing HPiC Biden is not the same as supporting Vlad the Elder.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
It is time to ask, what would Churchill have done?
It's also worth looking at what groups in the USA opposed getting involved in foreign wars in the years before the US entered WW2 after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

A group, the America First Committee (AFC), formed in September 1940, stood for isolationism. Specifically it opposed US entry into WW2, which had been underway in Europe for a year. It opposed Franklin Roosevelt's efforts at arming or assisting Great Britain. Supported actively by Charles Lindbergh, AFC membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters, making the AFC one of the largest antiwar organizations in the history of the USA. I see parallels between the AFC and today's isolationist, anti-NATO GOP under Trump. It's worth noting that Trump deliberately chose the words "America First" as he campaigned for president in 2016.

At its peak, the AFC claimed 800,000 dues-paying members in 450 chapters, located mostly in a 300-mile radius of Chicago, and 135,000 members in 60 chapters throughout Illinois, its strongest state. Fundraising drives produced about $370,000 from some 25,000 contributors. Nearly half came from a few millionaires such as William H. Regnery, H. Smith Richardson of the Vick Chemical Company, General Robert E. Wood of Sears-Roebuck, publisher Joseph M. Patterson (New York Daily News) and his cousin, publisher Robert R. McCormick (Chicago Tribune). The two newspaper owners had a long record of opposing FDR, and continued that effort as the war loomed.
(Aside on McCormick: Half a year later, McCormick was directly involved in a serious breach of national security soon after the Battle of Midway in June 1942. His newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, published highly classified information about what US Navy intelligence knew of Japanese plans before the battle. It revealed that the US Navy had broken Japanese naval codes. It was, perhaps, the first example of what was described as the US government's inability to prosecute someone in a criminal court for revealing classified information, without having to introduce into evidence the very secrets it was trying to protect. See attached document.)

The AFC advocated four basic principles:
  • The United States must build an impregnable defense for America.
  • No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.
  • American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
  • "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
A Sept. 1941 speech by Charles Lindbergh may have significantly raised tensions in the US. He identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, and American Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better. Others, such as GOP presidential candidate Wendell Willkie, criticized Lindbergh's speech as "the most un-American talk made in my time by any person of national reputation."

The AFC dissolved itself on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and three days after Germany and Italy declared war on the USA. Some of it's adherents stubbornly claimed for years that the US would never have had to go to war if their principles had been followed.

I believe the AFC was as wrong in 1941, as the isolationist wing of the GOP is wrong today about the USA's major involvement in NATO – the only thing Putin fears. However, the AFC had the good sense to quickly dissolve itself soon after Pearl Harbor. I've yet to see any effort by present GOP leadership to oppose Trump and his isolationists.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Samurai
So… you posted a clip that is surely an opinion piece with liberal media talking about “conservative” opinion media. I am confident everything they bring up is perfectly contextual and not in any way edited to bolster their point. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I like to post exactly what a person says (not interpreted through an msm mouthpiece) so let’s hear all this Putin cheering directly from Tucker:
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
So… you posted a clip that is surely an opinion piece with liberal media talking about “conservative” opinion media. I am confident everything they bring up is perfectly contextual and not in any way edited to bolster their point. :rolleyes:

Sometimes I like to post exactly what a person says (not interpreted through an msm mouthpiece) so let’s hear all this Putin cheering directly from Tucker:
So you didn't watch it then?
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Let's roll back the tape to 2003. Switch Saddam's name for Putin, Biden for Bush. It was patriotic then to criticize the President and his policies then I guess. I remember Saddam being evil too. I also remember Iraqi media playing clips of Democrat politicians and the useful idiots in the media on their TV that were against the invasion.
The US public would be better served if the investigative 'journalists' at MSNBC took the valuable air time attacking another network by focusing on the actions and the policies that got us to this point of a shooting war. They would not like the answer to that question so it will be ignored.
Here's just two questions I would like to see MSNBC ask. This happend a month ago! Jan of this year. "Please explain the decision to not support Ted Cruz's bill one month ago?" Why did Biden cancel Trumps 2019 sanctions against Nord 2 in May of 2021?

 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Let's roll back the tape to 2003. Switch Saddam's name for Putin, Biden for Bush. It was patriotic then to criticize the President and his policies then I guess. I remember Saddam being evil too. I also remember Iraqi media playing clips of Democrat politicians and the useful idiots in the media on their TV that were against the invasion.
The US public would be better served if the investigative 'journalists' at MSNBC took the valuable air time attacking another network by focusing on the actions and the policies that got us to this point of a shooting war. They would not like the answer to that question so it will be ignored.
Here's just two questions I would like to see MSNBC ask. This happend a month ago! Jan of this year. "Please explain the decision to not support Ted Cruz's bill one month ago?" Why did Biden cancel Trumps 2019 sanctions against Nord 2 in May of 2021?

Let's not and concentrate on the question he posed with the video provided. If you can't that's fine.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
It's also worth looking at what groups in the USA opposed getting involved in foreign wars in the years before US entered WW2 after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

A group, the America First Committee (AFC), formed in September 1940, stood for isolationism. Specifically it opposed US entry into WW2, which had been underway in Europe for a year. It opposed Franklin Roosevelt's efforts at arming or assisting the Great Britain. Supported actively by Charles Lindbergh, AFC membership peaked at 800,000 paying members in 450 chapters, making the AFC one of the largest antiwar organizations in the history of the United States. I see parallels between the AFC and today's isolationist, anti-NATO GOP under Trump. It's worth noting that Trump deliberately chose the words "America First" as he campaigned for president in 2016.

At its peak, the AFC claimed 800,000 dues-paying members in 450 chapters, located mostly in a 300-mile radius of Chicago, and 135,000 members in 60 chapters throughout Illinois, its strongest state. Fundraising drives produced about $370,000 from some 25,000 contributors. Nearly half came from a few millionaires such as William H. Regnery, H. Smith Richardson of the Vick Chemical Company, General Robert E. Wood of Sears-Roebuck, publisher Joseph M. Patterson (New York Daily News) and his cousin, publisher Robert R. McCormick (Chicago Tribune). The two newspaper owners had a long record of opposing FDR, and continued that effort as the war loomed.
(Aside on McCormick: Half a year later, McCormick was directly involved in a serious breach of national security soon after the Battle of Midway in June 1942. His newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, published highly classified information about what US Navy intelligence knew of Japanese plans before the battle. It revealed that the US Navy had broken Japanese naval codes. It was, perhaps, the first example of what was described as the US government's inability to prosecute someone in a criminal court for revealing classified information, without having to introduce into evidence the very secrets it was trying to protect. See attached document.)

The AFC advocated four basic principles:
  • The United States must build an impregnable defense for America.
  • No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America.
  • American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war.
  • "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
A Sept. 1941 speech by Charles Lindbergh may have significantly raised tensions in the US. He identified the forces pulling America into the war as the British, the Roosevelt administration, and American Jews. While he expressed sympathy for the plight of the Jews in Germany, he argued that America's entry into the war would serve them little better. Others, such as GOP presidential candidate Wendell Willkie, criticized Lindbergh's speech as "the most un-American talk made in my time by any person of national reputation."

The AFC dissolved itself on December 11, 1941, four days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and three days after Germany and Italy declared war on the USA. Some of it's adherents stubbornly claimed for years that the US would never have had to go to war if their principles had been followed.

I believe the AFC was as wrong in 1941, as the isolationist wing of the GOP today is wrong today about the USA's major involvement in NATO – the only thing Putin fears. However, the AFC had the good sense to quickly dissolve itself soon after Pearl Harbor. I've yet to see any effort by GOP leadership to oppose Trump and his isolationists.
Thinking that this is in any way similar to the beginning of WWII is foolish- for one, the list of Socialist Mayors in the US is long and some served past the end of the war. That movement was still going strong at that time and Bund Camps (Hitler Youth Camps) were spread around the US, helped due to the number of Nazi sympathizers. Ever read or heard about Henry Ford's views or the newspaper he published?


 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Let's not and concentrate on the question he posed with the video provided. If you can't that's fine.
Don't really care about Tucker or anyone else's view in the "media". If I must watch a News TV show, I will focus on a guest analyst who might have expert advice. Otherwise, I'm with Henley.....

"We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blond, Who comes on at five...She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye. It's interesting when people die, Give us dirty laundry''

Think about it. What's more important to the Ukrainians. The question he posed or Western policies that helped lead to Ukrainians being killed?

Again, what did you think of not supporting Cruz's bill last month? I'll wait while you check with the media......
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Well Fox is the mouthpiece for the Republican party. The Jan 6th texts reveal their communications with party members. Tucker has said Who cares if Ukraine is a democracy! He has the largest audience on TV etc. Just saying.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Are we really going to fall for the media's attempt to say that the Repubs are Pro Putin? Has not any thought at all that they are trying to distract the public?
A hat tip or respect to your enemy has always been a part of warfare by Western countries. And that happens in just about every war.
It happened all the time in WW1 and WW2. If you must google, than look up Patton & Montgomery comments on Rommel. Look up Grant vs Lee, on and on....Grant must have been pro Confederacy! On my lord.

If we want to apportion blame for what has happened in the Ukraine we should start with Putin. Then, as in any war, there are multiple things the West did wrong to with respect to the Ukraine starting in 1994 that led to this.
As well as hating Putin, the West should be ashamed of itself for what is going on in the streets of Kyiv.
Nowhere in the article does it state "the Repubs are Pro Putin". However, it is pretty clear that there are a lot of right-wing figures carrying water for Putin. And, there is a difference between tipping one's hat and endorsement of their cause.

But, to be fair, there has been a significant amount of criticism of the West coming from the left, as well. This article from a left-wing Canadian website starts off saying we must condemn the invasion, but rest of it is a diatribe blaming Canada for it.

It's funny how the left and right ends of the political spectrum often make fine bedfellows.

And, make no mistake, what's happening in Kyiv starts and ends with Putin. There is no justification for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top