The Transfer of a Russian ICBM to North Korea?

Did you not read anything after that? I confused that ICBM with the kinzhal that Ukraine shot down last month with the Patriot missile system.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ukraine-and-the-kinzhal-dont-believe-the-hypersonic-hype/

 

Ya'll need to stop whining about which President decided to arm Ukraine. It wouldn't matter which party is President, Ukraine was going to be armed regardless.

Seems to me that the Democrats want war more than the Republicans, which is strange to me being Democrats used to be the peace and love group. Even their sheep want war which shows just how good media can manipulate the masses.

Regardless, neither party could have stopped sending weapons. That was going to happen regardless which party or president in in power.

 

What makes you say that?

 

People arguing here about which president armed Ukraine and crap. Our government was going to arm Ukraine regardless whomever is president. Cannot blame either president for every single fault sheep can dream of.

 

Two points:
1) You have very wrongly confused me, with another poster. There is no way in hell, that I had a thread, suggesting that there was the slightest chance I would vote for Trump. I defy you, to show that I had ever posted, anything even vaguely similar to that. Please try to look that up, if only for a correcting of your own confusion, on that score.

2) All that said, you are equally wrong, in your main point, that you think I will not give Trump credit, when he deserves it. As I have said in this discussion, I was not aware of Trump being involved in getting this aid. I will have to read the article you linked (but yours is the first of 21 alerts that I have, so I'm not doing that this second, prior to replying). I would just note that Trump had very serious disagreements with his own State Department and Pentagon, so that they thought it was a good idea, does not prove that Trump had been onboard with it. Does that not make sense? As I said, I will read your link, for clarification, since you did not take a snip, that would prove the matter. As a side note: instead of this long, protracted exchange, that you have dragged us through-- all of which, is off-topic, in my thread-- why could you have not searched for and produced that link, at the beginning? That is precisely what I had meant, when I'd said that you don't seem to put in much effort to avoid misunderstandings in our communication, and leave most of the work of clearing up those confusions, to me. I appreciate your cooperation, in this area-- so your producing of an actual link is a good (albeit late) start. Thank you.

In conclusion, I have given Trump credit for the things for which he deserves credit; I just do not see him as deserving as much credit as you apparently do. When he was first elected, I was not one of those who was sure that he would be awful. I had a "wait and see," open-minded attitude. Even as late as 2020, I had thought that his attempt to stop air travel from the far East was a good idea, when Covid first broke. I was not one of those on the Left who called this racist, and said that it would be an ineffective tool. Unfortunately, Trump did not really adhere to his own idea, as he allowed merchandise shipments to continue to come through. Also, he did not initially institute travel precautions with those coming from Europe, and, not yet known to our CDC, Coronavirus had already spread to Europe and was entering the U.S., from that direction. I gave Trump credit, though, when he'd answered Gov. Cuomo's call for assistance, by sending the Navy ship to New York. And, like you will find from about anyone on the Left, I give credit to Trump for his Operation Warp Speed, to hasten the development of a Covid vaccine, though this one accomplishment which liberals are uniform in acknowledging Trump, is something he rarely touts, because of how much less popular that is, with his own, Republican base.

So there, I have just proven that you are all wet, in your pronouncements, that I refuse to give Trump his deserved credit. It is you, who is obviously the one having difficulty accepting, that others do not find as many of Trump's actions worthy of credit, as do you.

 

The North Koreans are fighting the U.S. to the last Russian.

 

Yeah, I got that totally wrong. It is this thread, in which both of us participated:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ndecided-voters-who-should-i-vote-for.577079/

I believe that this thread is where you and I first interacted, and I believe that I had more back and forths with you than anyone else in that thread, and I guess that must have somehow convinced that it was your thread!

Which would mean that his own Pentagon and State Department would have defied him. Is that your claim?

I DID take a snip! Here is what I posted:

 

Which "sheep?"

 

I actually had no idea that the Patriot missile system was designed to take down missiles! I thought that it was for taking down planes! Perhaps ALL SAM systems can do both.

 

Is it seriously your contention that the person who is occupying the Oval Office in no way influences what is passed through Congress, even when both chambers of Congress are controlled by the party of the President? I'm confident that you are nowhere near stupid enough to believe that. In order for a President to take credit for something which Congress has passed, it does not require them to specifically "ask Congress" for that thing. The Commander in Chief sets the tone of government. You know this.

Is it actually your position, that "they were on an even level?" Your position is not that Trump was softer on Russia than Obama?

Yes, Trump, was tasked, by Congress, to deliver it, and he did not complain. Two years later, yes, he wanted future Ukraine funding to be conditional. But he was not against it on principle. And THAT is what matters here.

 

Any person who takes hard right or left stances spewing what CNN or FOXnews tells them to repeat are sheep. Basically, most posters on this forum, lol.

Sheep tend to blame opposing leaders for their own parties mistakes. Problem is, our problems are government mistakes where both parties are complicit.

 

@DEFinning it seems that you now understand.

 

I don't think I have received all your alerts. But now I have looked at your article, and it didn't say that much. But I will address that, in these answers to a subsequent post of yours, which I'd not read until just now.

You are combining a couple of things, into your one question. I have, all along, been saying that this was not Trump's idea, and your article confirmed that:

<Snip>
Trump had been considering the plan for some time after the State Department and the Pentagon signed off earlier this year. President Barack Obama also considered sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, but left office without doing so.
<End Snip>

So it was from the Pentagon/State Department where came the impetus of this idea, and where it was originally vetted. Then, they recommended it to Trump. Notice, he did not jump at the idea, but took a while, considering it. I do not say that, to fault him-- a President should consider such things carefully. I am only pointing it out to, again, emphasize that this was something that was brought to Trump, as opposed to something that had come from him.

The second point, is that Trump did approve of the aid, before Congress took up the issue. I had not known this. However, your article seems to lack the specific details about how this Pentagon/State Department recommendation made its way to Congress; or even if this was the reason that Congress had taken up the issue. For example, a Congressman/Senator could very well have already proposed this idea, on a concurrent but independent track, from the Executive Branch. This is important because, while Trump took time deciding, I have little confidence that the factors he was weighing in his mind, were only concerned with what was in the best interest of our country (which is what should have been the case). Obviously, I can no more prove what Trump had been thinking about, than can you. We seemingly have made very different appraisals of Trump's character, and priorities.

Thirdly, however, Trump did ultimately decide, for whatever reasons, to approve the aid. My belief was that he had only signed the law, because he had been sure that Congress was going to pass this with a veto proof majority, and he did not want to look weak, by being overridden, especially on a bill to stand up to Putin. Your article does not remove the possibility that this played a part in Trump's decision. Nevertheless, as I have no proof that it did, I will give Trump the credit for approving the idea. However, I completely disagree with this other contention of yours, that this initial approval, is the only thing that really matters:

Your underlined statement is false. Trump halted current, not "future" funding for Ukraine. Hence, it was not "2 years," after that funding had been approved; that is what had led to problems, in fact: that the aid package was only good for 1 year and, because of the delay by Trump, there was a risk of Ukraine not having it all delivered on time, and so losing out on some of it. And because of Trump's "perfect" phone call with Zalenskyy, I do not buy the excuse, that the reason for the delay-- which, as I've told you before, was not something that Trump even had the discretion to do, despite his acting as if he did-- was out of a concern for the equipment not getting to its proper destination. Therefore, I consider THIS, to be the most significant fact-- not that Trump had originally authorized it.

Again, you are presenting something as a simpler, black and white proposition, than it actually is. First off, if you think that since I am (now) a Democrat, I must be over the moon for Obama, you are very mistaken. So this line you are championing, of "better than Obama," is a very low bar, which does not mean much. Also, the passing of time, could include Russian ongoing actions-- in Syria, Armenia, Georgia, Crimea, its restive Republic of Chechnya, the treatment of Russian protestors and opposition parties & leaders in Russia (like Navalny), and so on-- which made Putin's intents clearer to all, at the time of Trump's deciding to OK the sort of aid, which Obama demurred from approving, at an earlier point. Since, though, I do not judge it to be an important enough thing for me to sink the time into investigating (though I'm pretty confident that Russia had not been on what could be considered its "best behavior," in between the two Presidents' decisions), if it makes you happy, I will agree that Trump was "tougher on Russia than Obama."

However, I will follow that, immediately, by saying that Biden is much tougher on Moscow, than a future President Trump would be. For this, I need do no research, to make the case: Biden has clearly stated that any decisions regarding truces or treaties, are completely up to Ukraine, and has pledged our support, as long as Ukraine decides to fight. Ukraine, for its part, has made it clear that they do not trust Russia, to make any truce with Putin-- and one can hardly blame them-- as well as that it is unacceptable to them to exchange any of their territory (including Crimea, which the U.N. still recognizes as belonging to Ukraine) for supposed peace with Russia. Sharply contrasting with this unequivocal, unwavering support, being voiced by Pres. Biden, Trump is talking about ending the conflict, with some deal, brokered by him. Zalenskyy has asked Trump to say publicly, what the outline of this peace plan might look like, which Trump, if you couldn't guess, has not done. Obviously, though, Trump is not saying that he will get Putin to give up all Ukrainian territory. We don't have that kind of influence over Putin. We do, however, hold it over Ukraine, if we threaten to withdraw our military aid. I am sure, that this would be a bargaining chip, in Trump's negotiated peace settlement. If you do not realize something as obvious as this, I can't help you. If you do recognize it, then you can't credibly deny that Biden is tougher toward Russia, than would be Trump, who has, from the beginning, had a conciliatory attitude toward Putin, of not getting involved in his affairs. So, I have proven you wrong, that I would never give Trump any credit; I did so twice, in just this post. The question now, is will you give Biden the credit that he is due? I am betting, the answer is "no."

Trump would treat Ukraine, much the way he already stabbed our Kurdish allies in the fight against ISIS, in the back, by leaving them hanging in the wind, & not opposing Turkey's attack on them.

Fool me once-- shame on you. Fool me twice...uh, uh...won't get fooled again!"