- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Where we screwed up regarding Ukraine
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:28 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:What does Beirut have to do with Reagan answering a question about the Soviet Union?
I'll repeat Reagan's reply when he was asked that by the whiners and cry babies of his day, "We win, they lose."
I forget, was that before or after he evacuated the surviving Marines from Beirut?
1
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:29 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So now you're saying we would have to go to war "over this" if Russia attacks us.
Russia attacking us wouldn't exactly be "over this". We would have to have done something else, something really stupid for them to go to war with us. And then, we wouldn't really be going to war over them attacking us as much as going to war over having done something stupid ourselves.
You are trolling.
You are the only one who can not follow what I stated there and after.
Need a hint as to why?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:29 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Because we won't mind our own business and are upping the rhetoric
So you're saying we might HAVE to go to war over 'this' if we provoke a war with Russia. Then you want to know who we're fighting for at that point?
I'll make this simple for you. If Russia declares war on us, we'll be fighting for ourselves. Is that easy enough for you?
And you want to know if I'm dumb?
But how about this: WE STAY THE frick OUT AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR OVER "THIS".
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So you're saying we might HAVE to go to war over 'this' if we provoke a war with Russia. Then you want to know who we're fighting for at that point?
I'll make this simple for you. If Russia declares war on us, we'll be fighting for ourselves. Is that easy enough for you?
And you want to know if I'm dumb?
But how about this: WE STAY THE frick OUT AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO WAR OVER "THIS".
You are melting down because you don't understand simple English now?
Let me guess...you're a liberal.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:31 pm to LSURussian
quote:
What does Beirut have to do with Reagan answering a question about the Soviet Union?
Just wondering if all that tough talk was before or after he had those Marines killed and then eased out like a dog with his tail between his legs.
So which was it, before or after? My guess is it was before.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:36 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:40 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
You are melting down because you don't understand simple English now? .
No, I'm melting down because I'm a sucker for a troll. Do you really not know who we'd be fighting for if Russia declared war on us?
quote:
Let me guess...you're a liberal
Do you not understand that this whole idea of being the world's protector of Liberty and defender of Justice is the ULTIMATE liberal ideology?
You think sticking our noses in the business of other sovereign nations, half way around the world, with which we have little trade is a conservative position?
I don't want any part of entangling alliances, I just want all of our soldiers home, and to conduct ourselves in an economically sound manner at home so that we may trade with other nations abroad without fear of extortion. You think that's liberal?
Wow.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:45 pm to LSURussian
That it's easy to talk tough - until someone punches you in the nose.
The difference is, do you stand and fight, or was it all talk and you tuck tail and run...?
In the case of Beirut, he tucked tail and ran. So I wouldn't really use him as an example.
The difference is, do you stand and fight, or was it all talk and you tuck tail and run...?
In the case of Beirut, he tucked tail and ran. So I wouldn't really use him as an example.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:49 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Do you not understand that this whole idea of being the world's protector of Liberty and defender of Justice is the ULTIMATE liberal ideology?
You think sticking our noses in the business of other sovereign nations, half way around the world, with which we have little trade is a conservative position?
I don't want any part of entangling alliances, I just want all of our soldiers home, and to conduct ourselves in an economically sound manner at home so that we may trade with other nations abroad without fear of extortion. You think that's liberal?
I get it now. You didn't even READ this thread before posting.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:52 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Let me guess...you're a liberal.
When in doubt while losing an argument result to call opponent a Liberal
Works every time.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 4:53 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
When in doubt while losing an argument result to call opponent a Liberal
Considering he has been arguing with himself in this thread...I guess he calls himself a liberal?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 5:01 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
I get it now. You didn't even READ this thread before posting.
It's true, I stopped when I got to this idiocy:
quote:
Let's say it's the worst case scenario and we HAVE to go to war over this, what then? Who are we fighting for?
I should have just moved on.
It's just that I keep seeing this sort of shite, "What if we go to war with Russia over Ukraine?", and "What if Russia drops a nuke on us?" and it just gives me the creeps. I remember the lead up to both wars with Iraq, and I kept seeing these crazy hypotheticals as if they were understood as being realistic, and the next thing I knew, they were actually taking place.
Maybe if we all just calmed down and quit thinking in terms of putting our armed forces in harm's way for the benefit of other people, we would be at a lot less risk of having our armed forces in harm's way for the benefit of other people.
But ultimately, your post was ridiculous. 'Who are we fighting for if Russia declares war on us?"...
Posted on 3/17/14 at 5:09 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Man spends entire thread stating USA should mind own business and fix its own problems
Gets accused of being a war monger
Gets accused of being a war monger
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 3/17/14 at 5:24 pm to theunknownknight
quote:The utter confusion of many of the posters along this thread is living proof of two things:
Man spends entire thread stating USA should mind own business and fix its own problems... Gets accused of being a war monger
1) The lessons of 1938 were not learned. Munich Conference/"Peace for our time" policy of appeasement that donated Czechoslovakia uncontested to Herr Hitler (who felt the deep need to protect the interests of ethnic Germans living inside that unfortunate country). Chamberlain crowed "Peace for our time!" Umm, then came Poland. Sound a little like Putin and his need to see to the interests of ethnic Russians living in Crimea?
2)The Obama foreign policy is as incoherent as it is ineffective.
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 3/17/14 at 6:37 pm to deltaland
When I think of Obama and Putin meeting at G8 I am reminded of a quote by Edward I in Braveheart.
quote:
Not my gentle son. The mere sight of him would only encourage an enemy to take over the whole country. So whom do I send?
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:24 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Getting it bed with Chechnya wont happen. Thats something us and the Russians agree on taking out.
What are you talking about? Chechnya has received the 'o-they-are-not-really-terrorists-because-they-hate-russia' treatment for over fifteen years.
Why do you think the Tsarnaevs were living in America?
Do we agree with Russia about the Sunni terrorists in Syria? Because within the past year John McCain appeared on national television to tell Americans to ignore their fanatical cries of 'Allah hu akbhar'.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:28 pm to C
quote:
I think this is true and every nation will realize that having nukes is the only way to protect their sovereignty. And all you have to do is look toward North Korea to see how reluctant powers are to challenge even the most corrupt nuclear regimes.
fricking this.
If I were elected dictator of a 3rd world shithole tomorrow, project number one would be securing myself nuclear weapons. If recent history has taught us anything, is that mutually assured destruction works.
Posted on 3/17/14 at 9:56 pm to Aubie Spr96
hmmmm.........
(1939) The Soviet government announced it was acting to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians who lived in the eastern part of Poland, because the Polish state had collapsed in the face of the Nazi German attack and could no longer guarantee the security of its own citizens
(1939) The Soviet government announced it was acting to protect the Ukrainians and Belarusians who lived in the eastern part of Poland, because the Polish state had collapsed in the face of the Nazi German attack and could no longer guarantee the security of its own citizens
This post was edited on 3/17/14 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 3/18/14 at 1:09 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:America's hypocrisy, idiocy, and just overall buffoonery is mind blowing.
It's remarkable that we said it was unconstitutional for Crimea to secede, yet it is constitutional for us to manipulate the forming of Ukraine's new government.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News