John Bolton Reveals why Putin didn't invade Russia during Trump.

It seems all Bolton wants to do is go to war that's all he's done for 30 years and he's pissed off that Trump wouldn't let him. Biden's all for it go kill all the people you want.

 

One and only one reason Putin didn't attack Ukraine while Trump was in office.

Back up. One and only one reason Putin felt it was safe to attack and annex Crimea under Obama.

In August 2012, Obama drew a line in the sand in a threat to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons.

In August 2013, Assad launched a chemical attack killing 1400 people. Obama did nothing.

In February and March 2014 Putin attacked and then annexed Crimea.

On April 7, 2017, Xi Jinping had finished dinner at Mar-a-Lago and was enjoying the best chocolate cake in the world. While Xi was chomping on his dessert, Trump gave the final OK to attack Shayrat Air Force Base in Syria. 59 Tomahawk missiles hit their target. Before Xi left that night, Trump let him know his decision and the reasoning behind it so he wouldn't be surprised the next day. Xi understood that mass murder couldn't be allowed to stand unpunished.

See, Assad crossed the red line Obama was to cowardly to punish.
On April 4, Assad launched a chemical weapons attack from Shayrat Air Force Base.

Do I need to explain why Putin felt an attack on Ukraine was safe after Biden surrendered to a bunch of yahoos out of the stone age?

 

It's tough to debate a simplistic mind. But, I will try.

First off, Bolton's politics isn't about killing people. I'm not a hawk, but political hawks are willing to go to war more willingly than passivists and those who are somewhere in between.

Wars are usually motivated, in America, by saving and protecting democracy. Whether or not a given war is necessary is a political point of view, not a desire to 'kill people for the sake of it', which is what you are implying.

Hit men are into 'killing people for the sake of it', and how you are framing it doesn't make the distinction between a political philosophy and a raw criminal act, and thus your failure to qualify your statement is testament to two things, about you:

1. Either you are egregiously parochial in your thinking,

2. or you know better and are disingenuous.

Either way, you have earned my kill file (i.e., the ignore function on this forum).

Congratulations.

Also, your statement is rich considering that Trump's incompetence on Covid, despite fast tracking a vaccine ( which any president would have done anyway ) resulted in a death trajectory far worse than it should have been.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ana...esponse-40-percent-us-deaths-avoidable-2021-2
Damning analysis of Trump's pandemic response suggested 40% of US COVID-19 deaths could have been avoided

 

That attack resulted in considerable criticism (source: wikipedia)

"This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to the death of more civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia." --Tulsi Gabbard ( new darling of the right)

Other lawmakers expressing criticism included Senators Michael Bennet (D–CO), Ben Cardin (D–MD), Ted Cruz (R–TX), Dick Durbin (D–IL), Ed Markey (D–MA), Jeff Merkley (D–OR), Elizabeth Warren (D–MA), and Representatives Joaquín Castro (D–TX) and Steny Hoyer (D–MD).[77][78]

A number of Republicans with libertarian leanings also criticized the strike. Senator Mike Lee (R–UT) said, "President Trump should make his case in front of the American people and allow their elected representatives to debate the benefits and risks of further Middle East intervention to our national security interests."[85] Senator Rand Paul (R–KY) tweeted, "While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked." Representatives Justin Amash (R–MI) said, "Airstrikes are an act of war. Atrocities in Syria cannot justify a departure from Constitution, which vests in Congress the power to commence war", and Thomas Massie (R–KY) called it a "big mistake".[86][77][78] Former congressman Ron Paul argued that because in Syria "things [had been] going along reasonably well for the conditions", there was "zero chance" that Assad had deliberately used chemical weapons, and called the attack a "false flag".[87]

The Russian President′s spokesperson said the U.S. strike was "an act of aggression against a sovereign country violating the norms of international law under a trumped-up pretext", which "substantially impair[ed]" Russia–United States relations.[112] The Russian Government also alleged that the strike was an attempt to distract the world from civilian casualties in Iraq (an apparent reference to U.S. airstrike in Mosul that killed more than 200).[113] The Russian foreign ministry denounced the strike as being based on false intelligence and against international law, suspended the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents that had been signed with the U.S., and called an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council.[114] Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov compared the strike to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[115] Russian prime minister Dimitry Medvedev said the attack had placed the U.S. on the cusp of warfare with Russia.[116][117] Russia has sent the frigate Admiral Grigorovich to the east Mediterranean in response,[118] and warned that the US strike could have "extremely serious" consequences.[119]

Whether or not the attack was a deterrent to Russia is a dubious claim, I can hardly believe Putin is deterred at all by such an isolated act by someone whom he is well aware is motivated more by appearances and flattery than strategic thinking. It also led to Russia building up it's forces in Syria, and suspension of the MoU, to be sure.

Putin was far more motivated by his hope for removal of sanctions, which, if removed, would have resulted in billions more for Putin.

 

Bolton the big hero now. He is a liar and a bad public servant but he is a hero!

 

No need to apologize for your handicap.

I'll help you. Lying scum lies. Lying scum that lies to kill people isn't trustworthy.



Bolton isn't trustworthy. Just because he says something you like doesn't make him trustworthy.

You bet on a crappy horse. Pick less scummy people in the future.

 

I didn't think universal approval was the issue posed in your OP. Assad's value to Putin was to block any potential pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Europe, so who cares what Russians think.

An act of aggression against a sovereign nation was Obama's invasion of Pakistan to get bin Laden. The same hypocrites who applauded that act of aggression criticized Trump.

Those same hypocrites knew that Iran's Suleimani orchestrated the attack on Benghazi, but allowed Obama to get away with blaming a movie trailer no one watched and incarcerating its author. All Obama wanted was to have his name in the history books for cutting a deal with Iran --- and nothing could stand in the way of Obama's self-interest --- including going after Iran for organizing an attack on our diplomatic outpost and murdering an ambassador and other Americans.

Suleimani earned his fate by threatening to attack another US diplomatic outpost --- and no one liked that either. But who cares?! The point is that weakness invites aggression. Willingness to defend accepted norms with a short burst of force avoids major conflicts. You do realize Democrats were responsible for every major conflict in the 20th century, don't you? There's a good reason for that.

 

So you are equating American's op to get Bin Laden as 'invading Pakistan'? Or are you referring to the Salala incident?

Given that Bin Laded was the poster boy for 9/11 and all hatred of America, the world has cut Obama some serious slack on that count. The Salala incident might qualify as a skirmish, but 'invasion'? Hardly.

Yes, we violated Pakistan's air space, but that doesn't equal an 'invasion'. To get Bin Laden, it was just. And no, there never will be a 'shoe on the other foot' equivalent, owing to the disparity of power between these nations.

Trump's attack did get broad support, and criticism.

When it comes to Trump, who has shown his desire for applause, approval, concern with crowd size, etc., more than anything else, one must hold anything he does as suspect.

No way in hell did Trump's 59 Tomahawks to Syria pose a deterrent to Russia, for anything.

 

It was just a coincidence that Putin invaded and annexed Crimea a few months after Obama showed weakness and didn't provoke Trump after he showed his willingness to make enemies of the US pay ,,, but jumped on the opportunity to invade Ukraine as soon as a weak, feckless President was installed. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

 

So why didn't Russia help Trump beat Biden, if they liked Trump so much. Did Russia want Biden to win and thus he did. Leftist reasoning goes wither it will.

 

I believe that Putin has made a serious misjudgement of Biden.

Even if that were true, and it isn't, (Putin's decision is the result of a long build up of desire, impatience, romantic notions of an empire lost and a desire to return to it, association of Biden with Clintons, who humiliated him, retribution, isolation from truth to power tellers, etc and it had to happen sooner or later) this idea that we should vote for a Putin sycophant like Trump is absurd as it is tragic. But leave it to many on the right to fail to grasp the complex dynamics, and see the world in simplistic black and white terms.

And, at the SOTU, iirc, even Obama was unable to get bipartisan ovations, as Biden did.

 

Oh, they tried, but failed this time because the public was onto them.

 

The two year Mueller investigation debunked that pretzel nonsense, which is proving to be even more nonsensical as time goes on. The entire matter was a left wing conspiracy. And I hope those behind it go to prison because they are an existential threat to our American Democratic Republic.

 

Vacuous allegations are not a counter argument.

Prove your claim.

 

Do you even know what the words "narcissist" and "gaslighthing" mean? A narcissist is "an extremely self-centered person who has an exaggerated sense of self-importance." I can't think of anyone who better fits that description better than Joe Biden, a man who has been running for president for 30 years. How can Trump be a narcissist and only have run for president twice within a 6-year period, and Biden, who has been running for president for the last 30 years, is not. Time and again, the voters have not just denied Biden the presidency but even the nomination, and yet he continued to run. If that is not an overinflated sense of self-importance, I don't know what is. I can't think of anything more narcissistic than that. I mean, all politicians, at the end of the day, are narcissistic. But Biden is at a whole other level, way beyond Trump's. Despite being denied the nomination over and over again, Biden has this narcissism, this delusion of grandeur, that he must be president, the will of the voters be damned. He couldn't not be president. He had to keep running. Biden is the biggest narcissist who has ever ran for the presidency. Ever. It's either that, or he just had to be president for selfish reasons, such as reasons of legacy, which is worse.

He was not beat by Joe Biden. He was beat by the establishment, "a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information." One of the ways of controlling the flow of information was to cover up the Biden scandals, such as the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter, in fact, censored the New York Post for running the story. The cover-up of those types of scandals fundamentally shaped the election. In short, the 2020 election, just on that, was completely rigged. And what is your response to that? This:

Not only do you accept that it was rigged; you appear to agree with it. And you foresee that the rigging will be "better organized with even more money."

Actually, this is a very apt analogy, as proving voter fraud is very, very difficult, so it would be like sticking your head in the mud to find a string. Thank you for the metaphorical alley-oop, although I doubt that was your intention.

Logically speaking, as I've said, there was more fraud in this election, due to the astronomical implementation of mail-in voting. Mail-in voting leads to more fraud; that is a fact. (1, 2, 3)

1. https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voting-mail-and-absentee-voting
2. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...tee-ballots-but-republicans-wont-stop-it.html
3. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/...il-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html

 

I absolutely agree with you. I'm not interested in what he has to say because he should have said it the moment he knew there was an integrity issue.

However, if Bolton was the **ONLY** person that departed Trump's camp that was telling tales outside of school, no doubt he should be ignored. The issue is there are many. many people that have worked with him up close day-after-day. Statistically, all of them can't be crazy, incompetent and have sour grapes.

 

It doesn't appear that you understand what narcissism means.

Trump was not re-elected because of his lack of leadership during the pandemic. All the rest of his little girl whining is his own denial because he can't process that everyone doesn't worship him. He would have known if he wasn't so insecure that he fired anybody that told him the truth.

It's also difficult to get authentic photos of Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Logically speaking, mail-in voting was increased because of a worldwide pandemic with no vaccines yet available.

If it was because of widespread election fraud, can you tell me why Trump appointed DeJoy to slow down mail in counties unlikely to vote "R" prior to the election and threaten to issue an Executive Order barring Biden from winning the election? Both of those actions are abuse of power and served no function other than to illegally retain a seat he did not want to lose.

 

I don't think you do.

This describes Trump:

"People with narcissistic personality disorder tend to exhibit grandiose attitudes, feel superior to others, need excessive praise and validation, and respond very poorly to even the slightest criticism. People with antisocial personality disorder lack empathy, disregard the feelings and needs of others, and use and exploit others to meet their needs.5 Malignant narcissists tend to display a mix of these traits and behaviors, which keep them from forming healthy relationships."​

https://www.choosingtherapy.com/malignant-narcissist/

Hohhhh-Kayyyyy...

 

Trump made nice with Putin while Russia continued occupying parts of the Ukraine and Georgia. He was as feckless as Bush and Obama.


Tough Guy Trump

That eagle is smarter than a lot of Trump supporters—it knows a wuss when it sees one.

 

When you lose a debate because your heroes invited invasions by our enemies and the guy you hate stared the same enemies down so they wouldn't dare invade ,,, by all means violate the rules of the forum to attack those who proved to know the landscape better than you. It's all you have.

 

My "heroes?" People I called "feckless?"

This guy...?

Your personal attack is noted.

Not you.