Poll: How soon after Ukraine is invaded do righties start siding with Putin?

[Homerboy]

Already are... watch Tucker.

 

[hal2kilo]

So, it may be a second before I get to post on ATPN again

Irish fishermen plan to disrupt Russian naval war games: 'Our presence is our protest'

Rachel Maddow reports on suspicious activities by the Russian Navy in waters off Ireland that have added to concerns about Russia's planned naval war

www.msnbc.com

Irish fucking fishermen.. lol.

Saw that on TRMS last night. You go you maniacs.

 

[HomerJS]

Saw that on TRMS last night. You go you maniacs.

Great way for Putin to have the entire world against him. Biden could come out of this looking pretty good.

 

[kt]

Well you seem to present yourself as one that knows all about what the US should and should not do militarily in this thread.

Do you or don't you?

Pick one.

I never said to be one and even said as much. But by your own definition, you're declaring yourself as one. So, please do continue.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Another reason to defend Ukraine. We struck a deal to help defend their borders in exchange for giving up their nukes...
The Budapest Memorandum and U.S. Obligations (brookings.edu)

I had always understood that the Ukraine had nukes but no way to fire them........
PolitiFact | Carson says U.S. protection promises led Ukraine to give up its nukes
Ukraine couldn’t launch a single missile

While Carson called Ukraine a nuclear-armed state, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, told PolitiFact that there’s a big difference between housing a bunch of warheads and being able to fire them.

 

[cytg111]

So Ukraine didnt have the codes.

I suppose its 100pct implausible that Ukraine could somehow someway repurpose those nuclear warheads one way or the other?

They were essentially paper weights. Duds.

Right?

 

[uclaLabrat]

The risk in the 90s was certainly greater than soviet satellites would sell their stockpile on the black market to Iran, Libya, Iraq, or other state sponsors of terrorism to augment their dwindling foreign currency reserves. The risk wasn't ever that Ukraine would launch them, it was that they would sell them or (worse) not be able to secure them and they'd be stolen.

Haven't you guys ever played COD? Damn.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The risk in the 90s was certainly greater than soviet satellites would sell their stockpile on the black market to Iran, Libya, Iraq, or other state sponsors of terrorism to augment their dwindling foreign currency reserves. The risk wasn't ever that Ukraine would launch them, it was that they would sell them or (worse) not be able to secure them and they'd be stolen.

Haven't you guys ever played COD? Damn.

COD???? IS THAT A FISHING GAME?

 

[HomerJS]

I had always understood that the Ukraine had nukes but no way to fire them........
PolitiFact | Carson says U.S. protection promises led Ukraine to give up its nukes
Ukraine couldn’t launch a single missile

While Carson called Ukraine a nuclear-armed state, Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, told PolitiFact that there’s a big difference between housing a bunch of warheads and being able to fire them.

That may have been true but you don't want all that weapons grade nuclear material making it's way to the black market.

 

[Lezunto]

I don't believe Joe Biden will come out of this looking very good.

Because I agree with a comment Homer JS made in early in this thread:

Anything that makes Democrats and Joe Biden look bad, many Republicans will publicly support.

 

[pcgeek11]

I never said to be one and even said as much. But by your own definition, you're declaring yourself as one. So, please do continue.

No, I have only voiced my own opinions.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

The right only wants the U.S. to not interfere with the Russian invasion because Biden and the left want to oppose the invasion. It's the only reason. Same reason why they oppose vaccines and masks....it's because the left wants those things and therefore they must be bad because there are only 2 teams: good and evil. Right and wrong. 100% perfect and 100% bad faith, stupid, wrong, intentionally evil.

It's the same reason the left is so vocally anti war when a Republican is president and then kind of forgets it's hatred of bombing little brown kids when a Democrat is president.

I wish there were more than 2 teams or that it was easier to pick parts of each team that you like. But now more than ever, politics is Team A vs Team B for lyfe! We all find examples of the most evil person in the other party and convince ourselves that this person represents everyone in that party. The most idiot communistic drum circle jobless druggie hippie represents the left according to republicans. And the most evil, racist, overweight, nazi flag waving, confederate paint job car, coal roller of Priuses, uneducated southern white redneck represents the right according to democrats. You're with us or against us.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

After WW2, the US decided we were tired of dealing with Europe's shit so we made NATO.

Yes, it countered the Soviets in their own backyards and served a purpose in that capacity, but with American servicemen and American Military tech. An understated reason for NATO's existence was for the United States to ensure that Europe was disarmed, occupied by US troops, and unable to to start yet another god damn world war that would suck America in. Ironically, The Warsaw Pact was in its own way the Soviet Union's way of "punishing" Europe for WW2 and creating a buffer zone between Europe/NATO and the USSR.

This bizarre slant toward re-militarizing Europe:

A) isn't going to work in the short term because Europe is nearly totally dependent on the US for its military needs (see French warplanes requiring US Navy staging points during airstrikes on Libya, which is 3 hours by plane from France) and they are basically incapable of defending themselves in any meaningful way given their current military posturing.

B) Think really long and hard about having people who have basically been at war in some form or another over the last 2000+ years, the guys that conquered the entire world and started 2 world wars within 25 years of each other forming a unified EU military force.

 

[Jaskalas]

Europe is not united, and in that division they are easy pickings.
So in theory Russia gets to trim the fat.
How much it will hurt, depends somewhat on Ukraine, but also on the world's response.

To advert the looming bloodshed, we must convince Russia that the consequences WILL hurt. That it will result in an escalating posture with NATO military build up directed towards the new threat invading Europe. That the economic consequences could be dire. Then, if Russia calls our bluff - we must make good on our threats.

 

[pcgeek11]

Europe is not united, and in that division they are easy pickings.
So in theory Russia gets to trim the fat.
How much it will hurt, depends somewhat on Ukraine, but also on the world's response.

To advert the looming bloodshed, we must convince Russia that the consequences WILL hurt. That it will result in an escalating posture with NATO military build up directed towards the new threat invading Europe. That the economic consequences could be dire. Then, if Russia calls our bluff - we must make good on our threats.

Europe need to buddy the hell up and get united at least on this or they will continue to be Putins bitch.

 

[HomerJS]

Heard part of the problem is Germany is dragging it's feet on helping Ukraine. They offered 5000 helmets. Merkel jettisoned nuclear power back in 2010 and were slow on implementing renewables. Half their power depends on Russian natural gas.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Heard part of the problem is Germany is dragging it's feet on helping Ukraine. They offered 5000 helmets. Merkel jettisoned nuclear power back in 2010 and were slow on implementing renewables. Half their power depends on Russian natural gas.

- Ditching nuclear power in the wake of Fukishima was such a BS reactionary maneuver from all sorts of governments across the world. It's going to take a long time to recover from that one.

We're only just now starting to have Nuke Power get reintroduced into public energy discussions around base load power generation and what not.

Its one of the most bizarre dissonant elements of traditionally "leftist" policy: We want clean renewable power and we champion human dignity/freedoms, but not nuclear power, so instead we'll remain dependent on non-renewable dirty fuel that is almost exclusively supplied by dictatorial regimes that brutally suppress the freedoms and speech of their citizens.

For the sake of "bothsides" the hawkish right should be championing renewables and non-fossil fuels to deprive the enemies of the west a steady source of income and a bunch of leverage and power they hold over us.

Real headscratcher.

 

[hal2kilo]

The right only wants the U.S. to not interfere with the Russian invasion because Biden and the left want to oppose the invasion. It's the only reason. Same reason why they oppose vaccines and masks....it's because the left wants those things and therefore they must be bad because there are only 2 teams: good and evil. Right and wrong. 100% perfect and 100% bad faith, stupid, wrong, intentionally evil.

It's the same reason the left is so vocally anti war when a Republican is president and then kind of forgets it's hatred of bombing little brown kids when a Democrat is president.

I wish there were more than 2 teams or that it was easier to pick parts of each team that you like. But now more than ever, politics is Team A vs Team B for lyfe! We all find examples of the most evil person in the other party and convince ourselves that this person represents everyone in that party. The most idiot communistic drum circle jobless druggie hippie represents the left according to republicans. And the most evil, racist, overweight, nazi flag waving, confederate paint job car, coal roller of Priuses, uneducated southern white redneck represents the right according to democrats. You're with us or against us.

=Bothsides.

 

[JEDIYoda]

- Ditching nuclear power in the wake of Fukishima was such a BS reactionary maneuver from all sorts of governments across the world. It's going to take a long time to recover from that one.

We're only just now starting to have Nuke Power get reintroduced into public energy discussions around base load power generation and what not.

Its one of the most bizarre dissonant elements of traditionally "leftist" policy: We want clean renewable power and we champion human dignity/freedoms, but not nuclear power, so instead we'll remain dependent on non-renewable dirty fuel that is almost exclusively supplied by dictatorial regimes that brutally suppress the freedoms and speech of their citizens.

For the sake of "bothsides" the hawkish right should be championing renewables and non-fossil fuels to deprive the enemies of the west a steady source of income and a bunch of leverage and power they hold over us.

Real headscratcher.

Your not very broght are you?? Who said the "left" didn`t want nuclear power???

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Your not very broght are you?? Who said the "left" didn`t want nuclear power???

- Never said I'm smart and am wholly willing to accept that I'm a fucking moron.

So, let me post some articles from people that are smarter than me:

The left's nuclear problem

America's liberal leaders are torn between fighting climate change and resisting nuclear power.

www.axios.com

- American environmental groups oppose nuclear power.

Americans love clean energy. Do they care if it includes nuclear?

A new poll gets deep into voter preferences on climate policy.

www.vox.com

- Democrats are the largest "Anti-Nuke" group. Maybe not "leftists" but the party that they tend to vote with appears to be anti nuke.

 

[kt]

No, I have only voiced my own opinions.

Unless you're the POTUS, everyone here is voicing their opinions. Stop making shit up as you go.

 

[cytg111]

So, Rupert or proxies have concluded that to own another pres they gonna need Putins help… Thats why they’re fondling and sucking his balls with Tucker and Sean as headliners.
Murdoch is a fucking pest.

Murdoch’s Fox News issues ABC with legal threat over ‘Four Corners’ Trump episode

A legal letter was fired off by Fox News to the ABC’s chairman Ita Buttrose before a Four Corners episode went to air on Monday. A complaint is now expected to be formalised.

amp.smh.com.au

(new ios15 is shit and cant edit the url properly)

Son on Tucker

Lachlan Murdoch backs Tucker Carlson in ‘white replacement’ furore

Fox CEO defends unrepentant host after Anti-Defamation League calls for him to be fired for anti-immigration tirade

amp.theguardian.com

 

[Bitek]

"After"?

Didn't think they were even waiting.

 

[hal2kilo]

So, Rupert or proxies have concluded that to own another pres they gonna need Putins help… Thats why they’re fondling and sucking his balls with Tucker and Sean as headliners.
Murdoch is a fucking pest.

Murdoch’s Fox News issues ABC with legal threat over ‘Four Corners’ Trump episode

A legal letter was fired off by Fox News to the ABC’s chairman Ita Buttrose before a Four Corners episode went to air on Monday. A complaint is now expected to be formalised.

amp.smh.com.au

(new ios15 is shit and cant edit the url properly)

Son on Tucker

Lachlan Murdoch backs Tucker Carlson in ‘white replacement’ furore

Fox CEO defends unrepentant host after Anti-Defamation League calls for him to be fired for anti-immigration tirade

amp.theguardian.com

Been waiting for a lawsuit like this. Hope they get run out on a rail by the judge. You really should be looking over your shoulder for the Dominion lawsuit. Maybe at least they wouldn't be allowed to have NEWS in their name, or logos any longer at least.

 

[pauldun170]

Your not very broght are you?? Who said the "left" didn`t want nuclear power???

This would have had more bite if you used spell check.