Trump Zelensky today.....
- Thread starter dr.jb
- Start date
No Americans are dying, concisely explain how the hell you are war weary? We have sent them mostly old equipment we would decommission.
In WW2 we sent no troops to Joe Stalin, sent him a crap ton of equipment. Was that wrong?
To remind you, in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, Russia supplied our enemy. Yes, we didn't belong in 2 of those wars.
We will bear no burden, pay no price... .
Actually there have been several American "volunteers" killed but you are correct that there have been no Active Duty US Servicemen killed ((that we know of))...
Yes. But blaming us let's Putin off the hook. HE started this war. HE continues the war.
A lot is made that allowing illegal immigration encourages illegal immigration. That is why we must do whatever it takes to stop it. Why would it not hold that illegal annexation begets illegal annexation? Isn't it bad precedent to teach dictators, "take what you want"?
Our entire post WW2 system has been designed to create an international law. We built the UN, the world court, the world bank, IMF, WTO, etc. a whole lot of that was designed to stop world aggression. Is the world better served by the international community tapping out and returning to international darwinism?
Adding to above, we really want this to become the norm? I do not totally trust the numbers, but Human Rights Watch and the Wagner Group defector on forced deportations are to me enough to accept those are happening
War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia
Welesa compared this to Reagan with Poland. Were we wrong in opposing occupation of eastern Europe? Are we wrong trying to stop North Korea today, or China? Were we right in doing nothing in Rwanda?
Harry Hondo is right, Trump is not about America, he is a dictator who is not supporting our allies. Trump’s agenda is not what America is about and America under Trump cannot be trusted and he makes America look like idiotic cowards. His stupid tariffs will destroy our economy.
Harry hondo should get on the next plane out of the country and never come back. I have no idea if trump will succeed or bomb but I do know a few things
we aren’t talking about defund and bail projects
The next time the gov tries to lock us down we’ll think twice
The border is fixed
Kids aren’t getting gender reassignment surgeries
We’re looking at gov spending
And a whole lot of Americans don’t want us to be ubiquitous and police the world. They prefer a more isolationist approach and don’t approve of the military industrial complex. Rfk Jr was very vocal about same.
So this may end up great or a bust but the voters elected a candidate based on the america they want to see not you. The amount of counties that moved red is remarkable
Last edited:
Just to be clear, ever article out there is going off of what Trump has claimed as apprehensions at the boarder. Actual numbers haven't come out yet. I'm not denying that what he's saying aren't impressive, but we should wait and see what the numbers look like.
Single Day Border Apprehensions Hit 15-Year Low Under President Trump | Homeland Security
Secretary Noem announced on Saturday, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered only 200 aliens at the U.S. Southern border. That is the lowest number of apprehensions in a single day in over 15 years.
Single Day Border Apprehensions Hit 15-Year Low Under President Trump | Homeland Security
Secretary Noem announced on Saturday, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) encountered only 200 aliens at the U.S. Southern border. That is the lowest number of apprehensions in a single day in over 15 years.www.dhs.gov
Cool.
I'd rather wait on the actual numbers then a press release from our administration that continually over inflates or under inflates numbers in their favor.
I'm not blaming us.
But correctly placing the blame doesn't end the killing, does it?
The UN, world court, etc. don't stop wars, Marv.
I think you're making unwarranted abstractions from this, into a singular principle or value. But at the end of the day, there are a lot of competing values at stake in decisions like these, and we just have to do the best we can in weighing them.Adding to above, we really want this to become the norm? I do not totally trust the numbers, but Human Rights Watch and the Wagner Group defector on forced deportations are to me enough to accept those are happening
War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Welesa compared this to Reagan with Poland. Were we wrong in opposing occupation of eastern Europe? Are we wrong trying to stop North Korea today, or China? Were we right in doing nothing in Rwanda?
You're right that Vance was looking toward the reporters. I don't recall saying he didn't. However, Vance's remarks were more directed toward Zelenskyy. Who can blame Zelenskyy for then pointing out that Putin has not met his obligations in several previous agreements? Soon as that was done, the President should have ceased the public part of the event and adjourned to a private meeting. They could have done all that arguing behind closed doors and saved us from the embarrassment that happened publicly. Zelenskyy should have had an interpreter too. His less than fluent English contributed to the situation in a negative way.
By the way, I didn't see Zelenskyy ever say he wouldn't sign the agreement. Have you seen or heard it? I don't believe you said you did. He said before and after the meeting that he intended to sign so I have no reason to believe wasn't going to sign it if they didn't tell him to leave instead.
Last edited:
An underling should never make the story of a meeting between 2 world leaders about himself. That's all I know. Vance was totally in the wrong point blank no matter what Zelensky did or didn't do. Specifically in these circumstances his behavior was outrageous. And then to spew BS about not giving thanks like he is the Prince of Saudi Arabia.
I know I'd be pissed if any of my junior officers or subordinates did what Vance did. The meeting was between the two leaders and the rest should listen and not speak unless asked to by their leader. If they had stuck to standard protocol this embarrassment never would have happened. Not in public.
Zelenskyy said thank you to this country over and over and specifically thanked President Trump in the meeting. That was the part which basically standard protocol.
I don't know that that was done. To me that's an unsupported lefty conspiracy theory at this point.
In any televised event it would seem that here is nowadays a very strong desire to cover all "talking points" and to have copious amounts of sound bites to rile up the base. This requires some planning.
No proof, sure, but it does fit the facts.
It is not an abstraction. Why do the Ukrainian people not have a right to decide for themselves if they live under tyranny or attempt to fight it. You are attempting to choose for them.
France could have said, *sorry US, your war is killing people and the best way to stop that is for you to surrender".
The people of Ukraine have the right to decide.
It is an abstraction because you want to abstract a principle from this decision at this point in this war to every other war or conflict. In fact, you do exactly that in your second paragraph. I don't think you can do that, or at least I'm saying I don't think that's how nations and leaders of nations think about things. There are just too many variables in each conflict, war, etc.
I agree the people of Ukraine have the right to decide. I also think the people of the United States get to decide if they want their nation to send them weapons or support something that will lead to what many people consider senseless death and destruction.
Personally, I'm conflicted. But unlike you, I think the Trump/MAGA position now, at this stage of the war, isn't an unreasonable one and doesn't necessarily mean the US will or has to abandon every other conflict.
Marvin‘s argument notwithstanding, the basic contention of Americans who take issue with Trump‘s negotiation strategy is that he’s siding with the Russians. Virtually unilaterally by all appearances. The Russians have been our enemies since the end of World War II. In fact, our arch enemies. But even that notwithstanding, it doesn’t seem like strong negotiation on Trump‘s part because a stronger position is there to be had against Putin that not only supports Ukraine, but supports our interest and supports the interest of our allies in Europe.
In short, for some inexplicable reason, Trump is basically being Putin‘s lawyer in this negotiation. Can you explain that?
Edit: All that to say nothing of Trump’s making a mountain out of a molehill over this absurd little spat they had on TV. Even that is inexplicable because Ukraine is part of Europe and therefore at least by Extension our ally.
Does anyone have any clear understanding of who Trump sees as our allies? Do we have any allies from his point of view? Or is it all America all the time?
Last edited:
Here is a list of our treaties and treaty allies:
We are bound by those treaties. We have a partner nation relationship with most of the rest of the world. Most partner nations buy military weapons, services and training from the US. Some we provide grants or loans to do so. We do not have partner nation status with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, now Afghanistan, and a few others. Ukraine is a partner nation. If anyone is wondering, Iraq is still a partner nation.
Yes, our President is treating our partner nation more like an adversary than our actual adversary Russia. Potential adversaries are listed in our National Security Strategy.
Edit: I have no idea why that link shows up as "Technical Difficulties", but the link goes to the State Department's page about our treaties.
Someone please show me any specifics that Trump and Putin have agreed upon to end this war. The only thing I see is that Ukraine agree to give us 50% interests in minerals and rare earth and the US helps Ukraine in mining this. And much of this is in Russian occupied territory. Nothing says that the US is willing to give this up.
There are conflicting priorities, I get that. We can debate total casualties versus human rights. That is conflicting.
I don't hear a conflict to the "we cannot trust Putin" priority. Is it fair to believe Putin is untrustworthy? If so, what counter is there to that point?
That is the stumbling block. Telling the hungry lion you trust him to stay on his side as you sleep does not seem to be a plan. What I keep asking is how do we account for that. It is no abstraction, either we trust Putin or we develop some way to recreate, "trust but verify".
No one should trust Putin, but as we've discussed, every President since at GWB thinks they can. I'm not sure if Trump trusts anyone, but he does think he knows what Putin wants and might give up to get it.
Similar threads
