It destroys negotiations though.
The UN condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine today
- Thread starter Bill4411
- Start date
You have called yourself a conservative of some sort multiple times, genius.
So does saying Ukraine is a no go for NATO before talks have even begun and Zelensky is a dictator.
Didn’t we already condemn it by supplying arms and dollars to Ukraine? That vote means Jack shit in the big picture….unless you want to slow down negotiations
Trump calls Putin 'genius' and 'savvy' for Ukraine invasion
The former president's praise for Putin comes at a perilous geopolitical moment in Europe.
www.politico.com
Remember when he said this.
Believe people when they show who they are.
And of course this is the answer and all those feigning incredulity in this thread know that.
Dishonest to the core.
Not saying it’s right. As others have said, I would’ve preferred abstention. But if we can really get a peace deal “within weeks” as some in the Trump admin. have claimed this seems a rather small concession in the scheme of things.
Trump extends a middle finger to our longtime European allies, and sidles up to pieces of shit like Putin and Kim Jong Un. Reagan must be rolling over in his grave.
"A Sad Day for the US at the UN"
"A Sad Day for the US at the UN"
Check out this short video. Macron calls out Trump's lie that Europe "loaned" the money to Ukraine, Trump listens with clownish facial expressions and gestures, and Trump then repeats the lie.
Also, Macron - - who obviously has a pair of balls - - doesn't hesitate to call Putin the aggressor. Trump, meanwhile, is afraid to call Putin a dictator.
Also, Macron - - who obviously has a pair of balls - - doesn't hesitate to call Putin the aggressor. Trump, meanwhile, is afraid to call Putin a dictator.
A question, what does Russia give up for this concession on our part? For generations I heard how America gets taken advantage of in negotiations and now I've heard how Trump is changing that. So, we gave up a concession, what did we get back? Or were we just taken advantage of? If this vote was important to Russia, shouldn't we have delayed it to see if there is a peace, or demanded a concession from them?
Now that I've reminded people how the argument would have been if any Democrat were president I can say it is no big deal. We can always bring up a new resolution later. That's what I would say if it were a D, and I say it with an R.
Sometimes Russia is thinking like North Korea. We want to negotiate, they want us to give them something to negotiate. Then we have to give them something to decide where to negotiate, then we have to give them something to be able to talk in negotiations.
It’s hard to know until we see the final deal. There seems to be an idea that U.K. And French forces could provide temporary or long term security in Ukraine. Western forces in Ukraine would’ve been unthinkable just weeks ago.
We aren’t conceding anything. The U. N. resolution is a total waste of time. It’s a nothingburger. That’s why we should have abstained. By voting no, we give the resolution a kind of legitimacy it doesn’t have.
Our aid to Ukraine to date has not been conditioned on receipt of minerals. If Trump and Zelensky agree to continuing US military assistance/security in exchange for mineral resources, that's a different story.
Not really. Trump already spoke to Putin, the more powerful of the 2 sides. He may have learned what it's going to take for Putin to end the war - no NATO, no UN vote, or whatever. Trump may be doing these things showing good faith to Putin. Or Trump may just be his puppet bitch. IDK. I'm going to reserve judgment until it plays out.
A subsequent Russian invasion would be f*cking with our money if a mineral deal goes through.
This goes back to the near perfect Trump as a mob boss analogy. This is nothing more than a protection racket.
Like when Tony and the boys took over the sporting goods store.
America got prime land in Moscow for Trump to build a shiny Trump Tower after his time in the White House is done.
You guys really make mountains out of mole hills. Zelenskyy was last elected in 2019. They’ve suspended elections in war time. Fine that’s their call. But it’s not ideal and is dictator-like.
As far as a worthless UN resolution, I couldn’t care less if voting No helps bring peace. Maybe it does maybe it doesn’t. But you guys should check the mainstream media - even they’re not fainting on their couches like you guys all are.
My guy Saagar says it best.
Look, do I like our name in red along those other nations? No. But is this UN resolution completely worthless? Yes. Again, reinforce your fainting couch. It’s getting a lot of usage.
Ukraine's constitution specifically says that elections cannot be held while the country is in martial law, which has been extended by Ukraine's parliament (not Zelenskyy). So what's the issue?
Also, this isn't the first time time a country has postponed elections get during a war
WW1 - UK and Canada postponed elections
WW2 - New Zealand postponed elections
1973 - Israel postponed elections during Yom Kippur War
But because Trump wants to throw Zelenskyy under the bus, postponing elections is suddenly a major issue.
You guys are just showing ignorance of history and how common it is to postpone elections during conflicts.
shocking that you would think it is a "nothingburger".
Guessing Biden wouldn't get such a loyal defense.
Last edited:
I mean, their own constitution says that during wartime, elections are to be suspended, but who cares about those these days?
Much easier to just call him a dictator (who has said he'd step down to join Nato - very dictatorish if you ask me).
There is no issue - there are only fainting couches. None of this matters if peace is restored in Eurasia. End of story. I look forward to your implosion and fainting if that happens.
I am well aware it’s their constitution not the man. But he’s unelected at this point. Would I call him a dictator? No. Is martial law still necessary outside the East? Probably not and it opens the door for criticism.
But we’ll see what happens when a real and legitimate peace proposal emerges and how well the unelected president negotiates in good faith for his people and their security.
In the meantime:
Glad you wouldn't call him a dictator, but Putin's loyal orange dog did just that. He also negotiated without Zelenskyy being present.I am well aware it’s their constitution not the man. But he’s unelected at this point. Would I call him a dictator? No. Is martial law still necessary outside the East? Probably not and it opens the door for criticism.
But we’ll see what happens when a real and legitimate peace proposal emerges and how well the unelected president negotiates in good faith for his people and their security.
In the meantime:
You're questioning whether or not Zelenskky will negotiate in good faith. We have already seen Putin's loyal dog doesn't.
says the person that obviously can't refute the post so resorts to insults.
The war is for all intents and purposes over. UN General Assembly resolutions are as important as a fortune cookie message.
Not what I’m talking about Grover. Talking about some in this thread valuing UN resolutions over the prospect of a tangible peace deal.
It's what the person you responded to was talking about Grover. Maybe you should follow the thread better.
You really are Hickory. I’d recognize this inanity anywhere. Welcome back.
Yep, what the United Nations says, or does, isn't of much consequence in our country with U.N. approval ratings being lower here than in most countries.
When it was formed the U.S. Senate approved of its formation by a 89-2 vote. Given a similar vote today, it probably would barely pass.
Hopes for the U.N. and world peace were high right after the end of WWll. Since then we have had the Cold War, the wars against terrorism, and on going tensions with China, Iran, and North Korea. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia finds us divided on just who to blame.
The rest of the world must look at us and wonder what we will do next. Our rivals have to be pleased.
Similar threads
