Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
dave23 said:
They like each other personally. He's always displayed a clear affection for her. Who gives a crap?
Because he is a war criminal and she is normalizing him and trying to make him warm and fuzzy. He caused innocent people to die for nothing. That's not someone you call your spirit animal.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to.
ridski said:You make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe. The opposite is true.
Well, here’s the thing, either Russia is violating the treaty or it isn’t. Either way, what Russia wants is to be able to increase its nuclear arsenal in ways it currently cannot, because Putin’s goal is for Russia to regain its superpower status. Make Russia Great Again. If Putin tears up the agreement then they’d look like bad guys, though, right? So why not get the guy they put in power to point fingers and do it for him, then while the deal is being renegotiated you can build whatever you want, slide in some clause that allows for what you’ve already built, and voila! Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly Latvia if you still need it) are yours again.
Reality check from Mikhail Gorbachev:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html
A new arms race has been announced. The I.N.F. Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs. In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; this year, from the Iran nuclear deal. Military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising.
As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.
With enough political will, any problems of compliance with the existing treaties could be resolved. But as we have seen during the past two years, the president of the United States has a very different purpose in mind. It is to release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles.
The United States has in effect taken the initiative in destroying the entire system of international treaties and accords that served as the underlying foundation for peace and security following World War II.
nan said:
dave23 said:Because he is a war criminal and she is normalizing him and trying to make him warm and fuzzy. He caused innocent people to die for nothing. That's not someone you call your spirit animal.
They like each other personally. He's always displayed a clear affection for her. Who gives a crap?
He's never been de-normalized and she's not trying to "make him" anything. They are friends. Not everything is part of some dark underbelly of a broad effort to brainwash the masses. Of all the problems we have in the world, this is pretty close to the bottom of the list of what's truly worth fretting over.
Nothing in the article quoted below contradicts my statement, "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to."
The author certainly doesn't say anything about that in the article.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Reality check from Mikhail Gorbachev:
paulsurovell said:Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to.
ridski said:You make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe. The opposite is true.
Well, here’s the thing, either Russia is violating the treaty or it isn’t. Either way, what Russia wants is to be able to increase its nuclear arsenal in ways it currently cannot, because Putin’s goal is for Russia to regain its superpower status. Make Russia Great Again. If Putin tears up the agreement then they’d look like bad guys, though, right? So why not get the guy they put in power to point fingers and do it for him, then while the deal is being renegotiated you can build whatever you want, slide in some clause that allows for what you’ve already built, and voila! Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly Latvia if you still need it) are yours again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html
A new arms race has been announced. The I.N.F. Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs. In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; this year, from the Iran nuclear deal. Military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising.As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.With enough political will, any problems of compliance with the existing treaties could be resolved. But as we have seen during the past two years, the president of the United States has a very different purpose in mind. It is to release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles.The United States has in effect taken the initiative in destroying the entire system of international treaties and accords that served as the underlying foundation for peace and security following World War II.
I'd go back to this article from 2016, which had been cited earlier:
dave23 said:
nan said:He's never been de-normalized and she's not trying to "make him" anything. They are friends. Not everything is part of some dark underbelly of a broad effort to brainwash the masses. Of all the problems we have in the world, this is pretty close to the bottom of the list of what's truly worth fretting over.
dave23 said:Because he is a war criminal and she is normalizing him and trying to make him warm and fuzzy. He caused innocent people to die for nothing. That's not someone you call your spirit animal.
They like each other personally. He's always displayed a clear affection for her. Who gives a crap?
Really, so if he she was palling around with Mussolini, you would be fine with that?
nan said:
dave23 said:Really, so if he she was palling around with Mussolini, you would be fine with that?
nan said:He's never been de-normalized and she's not trying to "make him" anything. They are friends. Not everything is part of some dark underbelly of a broad effort to brainwash the masses. Of all the problems we have in the world, this is pretty close to the bottom of the list of what's truly worth fretting over.
dave23 said:Because he is a war criminal and she is normalizing him and trying to make him warm and fuzzy. He caused innocent people to die for nothing. That's not someone you call your spirit animal.
They like each other personally. He's always displayed a clear affection for her. Who gives a crap?
Actually, that would be weird. Like, Weekend At Benito’s weird.
nan said:
Really, so if he she was palling around with Mussolini, you would be fine with that?
What was wrong with Mussolini?
dave23 said:
nan said:He's never been de-normalized and she's not trying to "make him" anything. They are friends. Not everything is part of some dark underbelly of a broad effort to brainwash the masses. Of all the problems we have in the world, this is pretty close to the bottom of the list of what's truly worth fretting over.
dave23 said:Because he is a war criminal and she is normalizing him and trying to make him warm and fuzzy. He caused innocent peope to die for nothing. That's not someone you call your spirit animal.
They like each other personally. He's always displayed a clear affection for her. Who gives a crap?
I think the "Jimmy Dore" type folks push this petty narrative about former First Lady Michelle Obama as a cover for their own "normalizing" of Trump. That's the effect of their "colluding" by joining in attacks on the Mueller probe, or claiming there's no real difference between Trumpists and Democratic leaders.
nohero said:
Nothing in the article quoted below contradicts my statement, "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to."
The author certainly doesn't say anything about that in the article.
paulsurovell said:I'd go back to this article from 2016, which had been cited earlier:
nohero said:Reality check from Mikhail Gorbachev:
paulsurovell said:Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to.
ridski said:You make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe. The opposite is true.
Well, here’s the thing, either Russia is violating the treaty or it isn’t. Either way, what Russia wants is to be able to increase its nuclear arsenal in ways it currently cannot, because Putin’s goal is for Russia to regain its superpower status. Make Russia Great Again. If Putin tears up the agreement then they’d look like bad guys, though, right? So why not get the guy they put in power to point fingers and do it for him, then while the deal is being renegotiated you can build whatever you want, slide in some clause that allows for what you’ve already built, and voila! Ukraine and Georgia (and possibly Latvia if you still need it) are yours again.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html
A new arms race has been announced. The I.N.F. Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs. In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; this year, from the Iran nuclear deal. Military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising.As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.With enough political will, any problems of compliance with the existing treaties could be resolved. But as we have seen during the past two years, the president of the United States has a very different purpose in mind. It is to release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles.The United States has in effect taken the initiative in destroying the entire system of international treaties and accords that served as the underlying foundation for peace and security following World War II.
INF Treaty Impasse: Time for Russian Action
Gorbachev undermines your statement that "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to" on two levels:
(a) He points out that Russia wants the keep the INF intact, which prevents Europe from being targeted by Russian intermediate-range missiles.
(b) Only a madman would suggest that Gorbachev shouldn't be listened to.
Regarding the 2016 article - as I noted before it includes the caveat that it "assumes" that US allegations of Russian violations are true, pointing out that the evidence behind the allegations is classified. As Scott Ritter puts it, the US allegations are "unsubstantiated."
A much more complete review of the dispute between the US and Russia over which side is violating the INF can be found here:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43832
And Putin's detailed response to Trump's decision to withdraw from the INF, with references to Europe, can be seen here, as well as comments by the Italian foreign minister:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Gorbachev undermines your statement that "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to" on two levels:
Nothing in the article quoted below contradicts my statement, "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to."
The author certainly doesn't say anything about that in the article.
paulsurovell said:
Reality check from Mikhail Gorbachev:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html
As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.
(a) He points out that Russia wants the keep the INF intact, which prevents Europe from being targeted by Russian intermediate-range missiles.
(b) Only a madman would suggest that Gorbachev shouldn't be listened to.
And Gorbachev isn't writing about Putin's desire to threaten in Europe (which is the second time I had to write that). Also, please read the other articles that are already on this thread about the reasons why Obama chose to consider Russia in violation and his course of action to deal with it. Finally, even your highlighted quote from Gorbachev is about negotiations "to find a mutually acceptable solution", which is not the same as "keep[ing] the INF intact", as it was originally negotiated.
nohero said:
dave23 said:I think the "Jimmy Dore" type folks push this petty narrative about former First Lady Michelle Obama as a cover for their own "normalizing" of Trump. That's the effect of their "colluding" by joining in attacks on the Mueller probe, or claiming there's no real difference between Trumpists and Democratic leaders.
nan said:He's never been de-normalized and she's not trying to "make him" anything. They are friends. Not everything is part of some dark underbelly of a broad effort to brainwash the masses. Of all the problems we have in the world, this is pretty close to the bottom of the list of what's truly worth fretting over.
dave23 said:Because he is a war criminal and she is normalizing him and trying to make him warm and fuzzy. He caused innocent peope to die for nothing. That's not someone you call your spirit animal.
They like each other personally. He's always displayed a clear affection for her. Who gives a crap?
Maybe you think palling around with someone who caused a million innocent people to die is just fine, but some of us have standards. We also don't "normalize" Trump--we just see him as the predictable end to 30 years of neoliberal policies put forth by both Democrats and Republicans. Let's not forget that Obama let Citigroup pick out his cabinet and no bankers were jailed while homeowners were hung out to dry. And yeah, there is difference between the two parties on issues like gun control, women's rights to choose, LGBT, etc. but when it comes to war they are almost identical. Maybe that's why you are fine with Bush and we are not. Oh, and we attack the Muller probe because it instigates Cold War 2.0 without evidence and is used to blame the 2016 loss instead of the needed reflection and change. It's painful to see the Democrats double down on a losing strategy and still prefer to lose than to change.
nan said:And yeah, there is difference between the two parties on issues like gun control, women's rights to choose, LGBT, etc. but when it comes to war they are almost identical.
Leaving aside your claim that they are identical "when it comes to war" (which, by the way, is not the entirety of foreign policy), I see you recognize the differences. We clearly differ as to whether those are issues that matter. I think they do matter.
nohero said:
nan said:And yeah, there is difference between the two parties on issues like gun control, women's rights to choose, LGBT, etc. but when it comes to war they are almost identical.Leaving aside your claim that they are identical "when it comes to war" (which, by the way, is not the entirety of foreign policy), I see you recognize the differences. We clearly differ as to whether those are issues that matter. I think they do matter.
I think they matter, but the voting for war and corporate control is killing us and there is no end in sight for the Democrats or Republicans. American imperialism makes us a horrible country and is why we don't have infrastructure or healthcare or education, etc. and why we have Trump. These are the biggest issues we face and the Democrats are on the wrong side.
Nah. We have Trump because there are morons out there who didn't think there was a difference between Hillary and Trump.
Motion to rename this section from Alternative News to Endless Lucubrations.
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:And Gorbachev isn't writing about Putin's desire to threaten in Europe (which is the second time I had to write that). Also, please read the other articles that are already on this thread about the reasons why Obama chose to consider Russia in violation and his course of action to deal with it. Finally, even your highlighted quote from Gorbachev is about negotiations "to find a mutually acceptable solution", which is not the same as "keep[ing] the INF intact", as it was originally negotiated.
nohero said:Gorbachev undermines your statement that "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to" on two levels:
Nothing in the article quoted below contradicts my statement, "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to."
The author certainly doesn't say anything about that in the article.
paulsurovell said:
Reality check from Mikhail Gorbachev:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html
As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.
(a) He points out that Russia wants the keep the INF intact, which prevents Europe from being targeted by Russian intermediate-range missiles.
(b) Only a madman would suggest that Gorbachev shouldn't be listened to.
You said:
"Putin wants to threaten Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to"
in response to my comment:
"You (Ridski) make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe. The opposite is true."
Gorbachev's op-ed says we face a threat to the INF Treaty, because of actions by the US, not because of Russia (headed by Putin). By definition, a threat to the INF involves the threat of a nuclear arms race in Europe.
Putin's comments in his press conference confirm that Gorbachev's op-ed expresses Putin's position, which opposes a nuclear arms race in Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:And Gorbachev isn't writing about Putin's desire to threaten in Europe (which is the second time I had to write that). Also, please read the other articles that are already on this thread about the reasons why Obama chose to consider Russia in violation and his course of action to deal with it. Finally, even your highlighted quote from Gorbachev is about negotiations "to find a mutually acceptable solution", which is not the same as "keep[ing] the INF intact", as it was originally negotiated.
nohero said:Gorbachev undermines your statement that "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to" on two levels:
Nothing in the article quoted below contradicts my statement, "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to."
The author certainly doesn't say anything about that in the article.
paulsurovell said:
Reality check from Mikhail Gorbachev:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html
As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.
(a) He points out that Russia wants the keep the INF intact, which prevents Europe from being targeted by Russian intermediate-range missiles.
(b) Only a madman would suggest that Gorbachev shouldn't be listened to.
You said:
"Putin wants to threaten Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to"in response to my comment:
"You (Ridski) make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe. The opposite is true."Gorbachev's op-ed says we face a threat to the INF Treaty, because of actions by the US, not because of Russia (headed by Putin). By definition, a threat to the INF involves the threat of a nuclear arms race in Europe.
Putin's comments in his press conference confirm that Gorbachev's op-ed expresses Putin's position, which opposes a nuclear arms race in Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
Sorry, I'm done with that particular topic. You didn't manage to come up with anything to contradict my statement. You've moved on to some other nonsense about Putin. All I'll say is that I'm not stupid enough to rely on things he says at a press conference to reach a conclusion about Putin's strategies. Somebody else can engage you on that.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:And Gorbachev isn't writing about Putin's desire to threaten in Europe (which is the second time I had to write that). Also, please read the other articles that are already on this thread about the reasons why Obama chose to consider Russia in violation and his course of action to deal with it. Finally, even your highlighted quote from Gorbachev is about negotiations "to find a mutually acceptable solution", which is not the same as "keep[ing] the INF intact", as it was originally negotiated.
nohero said:Gorbachev undermines your statement that "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to" on two levels:
Nothing in the article quoted below contradicts my statement, "Putin wants to threaten in Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to."
The author certainly doesn't say anything about that in the article.
paulsurovell said:
Reality check from Mikhail Gorbachev:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/opinion/mikhail-gorbachev-inf-treaty-trump-nuclear-arms.html
As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.
(a) He points out that Russia wants the keep the INF intact, which prevents Europe from being targeted by Russian intermediate-range missiles.
(b) Only a madman would suggest that Gorbachev shouldn't be listened to.
You said:
"Putin wants to threaten Europe. Anyone who suggests the opposite shouldn't be listened to"in response to my comment:
"You (Ridski) make the incorrect assumption that Putin wants a nuclear arms race in Europe. The opposite is true."Gorbachev's op-ed says we face a threat to the INF Treaty, because of actions by the US, not because of Russia (headed by Putin). By definition, a threat to the INF involves the threat of a nuclear arms race in Europe.
Putin's comments in his press conference confirm that Gorbachev's op-ed expresses Putin's position, which opposes a nuclear arms race in Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
I watched that last night and I actually think he did threaten Europe.
ridski said:paulsurovell said:
I watched that last night and I actually think he did threaten Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
What did he say that you thought sounded like a threat?
nohero said:Sorry, I'm done with that particular topic. You didn't manage to come up with anything to contradict my statement. You've moved on to some other nonsense about Putin. All I'll say is that I'm not stupid enough to rely on things he says at a press conference to reach a conclusion about Putin's strategies. Somebody else can engage you on that.
In response to my statement that Putin doesn't want an arms race in Europe, you said Putin wants to threaten Europe and anyone who says the opposite shouldn't be listened to.
Your statement was contradicted by Gorbachev and by Putin, both of whom made clear that Russia does not want an arms race in Europe.
You suggest that Putin didn't threaten Europe in his press conference, but that doesn't change your belief. What is the basis for your belief that he "wants to threaten Europe?"
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:What did he say that you thought sounded like a threat?
paulsurovell said:
I watched that last night and I actually think he did threaten Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
"If it gets to the point that European countries agree to base U.S. missiles then they should understand they're putting themselves under threat of a potential retaliatory strike. That much is obvious."
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:In response to my statement that Putin doesn't want an arms race in Europe, you said Putin wants to threaten Europe and anyone who says the opposite shouldn't be listened to.
Sorry, I'm done with that particular topic. You didn't manage to come up with anything to contradict my statement. You've moved on to some other nonsense about Putin. All I'll say is that I'm not stupid enough to rely on things he says at a press conference to reach a conclusion about Putin's strategies. Somebody else can engage you on that.
Your statement was contradicted by Gorbachev and by Putin, both of whom made clear that Russia does not want an arms race in Europe.
You suggest that Putin didn't threaten Europe in his press conference, but that doesn't change your belief. What is the basis for your belief that he "wants to threaten Europe?"
I don't think he wants an arms race. I think he wants to put his missiles there. If only one side escalates the amount of weapons, it's not an arms race, is it? It's just a build up. If he really doesn't want an arms race, then why not just ignore us and let us put all the missiles we want in Europe?
Today's Paul Krugman column could apply to the theme of this thread.
"In America 2018, whataboutism is the last refuge of scoundrels, and bothsidesism is the last refuge of cowards."
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:I don't think he wants an arms race. I think he wants to put his missiles there. If only one side escalates the amount of weapons, it's not an arms race, is it? It's just a build up. If he really doesn't want an arms race, then why not just ignore us and let us put all the missiles we want in Europe?
nohero said:In response to my statement that Putin doesn't want an arms race in Europe, you said Putin wants to threaten Europe and anyone who says the opposite shouldn't be listened to.
Sorry, I'm done with that particular topic. You didn't manage to come up with anything to contradict my statement. You've moved on to some other nonsense about Putin. All I'll say is that I'm not stupid enough to rely on things he says at a press conference to reach a conclusion about Putin's strategies. Somebody else can engage you on that.
Your statement was contradicted by Gorbachev and by Putin, both of whom made clear that Russia does not want an arms race in Europe.
You suggest that Putin didn't threaten Europe in his press conference, but that doesn't change your belief. What is the basis for your belief that he "wants to threaten Europe?"
So he actually didn't threaten Europe.
South_Mountaineer said:
Today's Paul Krugman column could apply to the theme of this thread.
"In America 2018, whataboutism is the last refuge of scoundrels, and bothsidesism is the last refuge of cowards."
https://nyti.ms/2yGEf0x?smid=nytcore-ios-share
You mean because Russiagaters say in defense, "What about Trump Tower?"
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:"If it gets to the point that European countries agree to base U.S. missiles then they should understand they're putting themselves under threat of a potential retaliatory strike. That much is obvious."
ridski said:What did he say that you thought sounded like a threat?
paulsurovell said:
I watched that last night and I actually think he did threaten Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
So Putin's "threat" consists of -- if Europe attacks Russia with nuclear missiles then Russia will retaliate. That's fine, as long as it's noted that the "threat" is a threat to retaliate against a first-strike. I think that's the position of all nuclear weapons powers, including us.
paulsurovell said:
ridski said:So Putin's "threat" consists of -- if Europe attacks Russia with nuclear missiles then Russia will retaliate. That's fine, as long as it's noted that the "threat" is a threat to retaliate against a first-strike. I think that's the position of all nuclear weapons powers, including us.
paulsurovell said:"If it gets to the point that European countries agree to base U.S. missiles then they should understand they're putting themselves under threat of a potential retaliatory strike. That much is obvious."
ridski said:What did he say that you thought sounded like a threat?
paulsurovell said:
I watched that last night and I actually think he did threaten Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
Not actually what he said. He said if a country agrees to base US there they should be prepared for a retaliatory strike. You receive missiles, you will be attacked. He didn't say he would wait until Russia was attacked at all.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:You mean because Russiagaters say in defense, "What about Trump Tower?"
Today's Paul Krugman column could apply to the theme of this thread.
"In America 2018, whataboutism is the last refuge of scoundrels, and bothsidesism is the last refuge of cowards."
https://nyti.ms/2yGEf0x?smid=nytcore-ios-share
That would depend on what the "what about" is a response to.
ridski said:
paulsurovell said:Not actually what he said. He said if a country agrees to base US there they should be prepared for a retaliatory strike. You receive missiles, you will be attacked. He didn't say he would wait until Russia was attacked at all.
ridski said:So Putin's "threat" consists of -- if Europe attacks Russia with nuclear missiles then Russia will retaliate. That's fine, as long as it's noted that the "threat" is a threat to retaliate against a first-strike. I think that's the position of all nuclear weapons powers, including us.
paulsurovell said:"If it gets to the point that European countries agree to base U.S. missiles then they should understand they're putting themselves under threat of a potential retaliatory strike. That much is obvious."
ridski said:What did he say that you thought sounded like a threat?
paulsurovell said:
I watched that last night and I actually think he did threaten Europe.
Do you think he threatened Europe in the press conference?
No, in the context of nuclear weapons, "retaliatory strike" means a strike in retaliation for a nuclear strike.
And the proof, is that if Putin said what you say he said, Chuck Todd, Rachel Maddow and all the other Russiagate loonies would have lost their s__t and it would have been blasted endlessly all over corporate and social media. But that didn't happen.
Right, Chuck Todd is the deranged one.