1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Re: Joe's chickenshit Ukraine aid policy is losing the war

    From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sun Dec 3 07:59:08 2023
    On 12/2/23 9:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
    If he would have supplied Ukraine the weapons we're supplying now a year earlier the situation would be very different today.

    The usual Monday morning quarterbacking. If your party were in control,
    aid to Ukraine would be slashed.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sun Dec 3 15:12:02 2023
    On 12/3/23 11:34 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 12/2/23 9:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
    If he would have supplied Ukraine the weapons we're supplying now a year earlier the situation would be very different today.
    The usual Monday morning quarterbacking.

    Such a childish argument. You can't learn from history?

    There's more to it than that. You're applying hindsight to decisions
    made in real time.

    If your party were in control,
    aid to Ukraine would be slashed.

    Not true. Yes there is division but much of the opposition is lack of oversight that can be addressed.
    Some of it is simple party politics and you know dems would do the same on steroids.

    No, I don't know that.

    Bottom line remains true. Joe is failing.

    If he's able to get aid to Ukraine despite both parties being divided, I
    would say he's succeeding in a way a less experienced politician couldn't.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Dec 4 07:00:30 2023
    On 12/3/23 6:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 1:12:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 12/3/23 11:34 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 12/2/23 9:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
    If he would have supplied Ukraine the weapons we're supplying now a year earlier the situation would be very different today.
    The usual Monday morning quarterbacking.

    Such a childish argument. You can't learn from history?
    There's more to it than that. You're applying hindsight to decisions
    made in real time.

    BS....Joe's own excuses for why not at the time were proven to be false by Joe himself.

    Sounds like more hindsight.

    If your party were in control,
    aid to Ukraine would be slashed.

    Not true. Yes there is division but much of the opposition is lack of oversight that can be addressed.
    Some of it is simple party politics and you know dems would do the same on steroids.
    No, I don't know that.

    Funny how devoted to a party you are that you don't even know.

    You're mixing up Ukraine aid and intra-party politics plus repeating
    your misconception about my politics which has been corrected many times.

    Bottom line remains true. Joe is failing.
    If he's able to get aid to Ukraine despite both parties being divided, I
    would say he's succeeding in a way a less experienced politician couldn't.

    BS....and there was far less opposition a year ago. Joe should have sent himars
    and atacs and cluster munitions and glide bombs and jdams and tanks and IFV and
    aircraft long ago. Instead he made excuses why he couldn't which he himself later
    dropped. Had he provided then what he says is needed now there is a good chance the world would be celebrating
    a Russian ass kicking instead of trying to steel itself for a years long meatgrinder of a
    war of attrition.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-another-trump-presidency-would-spell-doom-in-ukraine/ar-AA1kXUjS

    "[Petraeus] states ... that one of the reasons we have been slow in
    delivering capabilities to Ukraine is that the Chinese said that if we
    held off and slow-rolled some of those deliveries, that they would use
    their influence on Putin to keep him from using tactical nuclear weapons."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Mon Dec 4 14:32:55 2023
    On 12/4/23 10:12 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Monday, December 4, 2023 at 5:00:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 12/3/23 6:42 PM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 1:12:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 12/3/23 11:34 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 5:59:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
    On 12/2/23 9:47 PM, ScottW wrote:
    If he would have supplied Ukraine the weapons we're supplying now a year earlier the situation would be very different today.
    The usual Monday morning quarterbacking.

    Such a childish argument. You can't learn from history?
    There's more to it than that. You're applying hindsight to decisions
    made in real time.

    BS....Joe's own excuses for why not at the time were proven to be false by Joe himself.
    Sounds like more hindsight.

    As if the benefit of hindsight isn't how decisions in history or judged. You're just sputtering moronic platitudes cuz you think it sounds like a defense.
    It's not.

    It is. You're applying unfair standards.

    "[Petraeus] states ... that one of the reasons we have been slow in
    delivering capabilities to Ukraine is that the Chinese said that if we
    held off and slow-rolled some of those deliveries, that they would use
    their influence on Putin to keep him from using tactical nuclear weapons."

    and you believe China? LoL....

    Since Biden's concern was Russian tactical nukes it makes sense.

    Why would China want things "slow-rolled"? Hmmm.....
    Gee....what advantage could they find in draining every major adversaries military stocks
    in a years long war of attrition? You think that's going to work out better for your dumb buddy in Australia?

    Not many were expecting a long war of attrition. Again, hindsight.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)