Admiral Mullen: Biden needs to 'back off' and 'resolve this thing'

It is probably of strategic importance to EU/NATO. And if it is of strategic importance to EU/NATO, then by default it is of strategic importance to us by supporting our allies unless you screw our allies like we have always done in the past.

As for Hitler, it was a direct assault on the Treaty of Versailles and the debacle by Foch and the French who wanted Germans to pay dearly for WW1. Adolf Hitler used that as an excuse and violated every nonaggression pact treaty he made. He argued, "we need more room" and wanted to reassemble the original Reich Empire of the Holy Roman Empire of the German People. Germans, at that time, were very nationalistic and nostalgic for the past and yearned for the glories of the past, which Adolf Hitler took advantage of with his speeches and policies.

As for the end of the times, hardly. I have heard that talk for over 40 years now from the Cold War to the Evangelical Preachers on TV that says we are "in the end times." Russia started this thing just like they started the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the influence and weapons peddling of their guerilla fighters in Vietnam, via China, South America, Africa, and the Middle East. They have no changed their tactics, motives, or goals since the October Revolution and all you want to do is hide and pretend it is not happening. Apparently, you have not learned from history, have you?

 

those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Sadly, the conservatives on this thread have failed to learn from history and are repeating it.

 

I dunno. If Putin uses nukes, it's because he's desperate and his back is up against the wall. So who can predict a cornered animal? But what would our excuse be? Your suggestion is a gateway to world war III, so to me, it sounds crazy. Putin might use them because he would have nothing to lose, but you want us to use them when we have everything to lose.

Sorry but this sounds like insanity.

 

Oh between the two, I absolutely care more what Biden does than what Putin does. Putin is engaged in a war with some other country that isn't even our ally. Biden could drag us into that conflict for absolutely zero benefit for US national security, and get us involved in a nuclear exchange that would kill millions and end the United States as we know it. And for what?

 

There is a lot of history to learn from. I just think in this scenario, the pertinent lessons are more from 1914 rather than 1939.

 

BS. Provide evidence of that or admit you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

 

Macron under fire for saying France wouldn’t respond in kind if Russia launched nuclear attack on Ukraine
https://www.politico.eu/article/france-emmanuel-macron-nuclear-attack-russia-ukraine/

 

"Sane," meaning "agreeing with your own view?"

If the necessity of assuming some nuclear risk, in order to stop a dictator from running rampant, and launching unprovoked invasions, is "astoundingly stupid;" do the adjectives even exist, to describe what it is, proportionally, to let said leader, wanting to ignite a new, colonial age, for his nation, know that all he needs do, even after committing heinous war crimes, is to raise the nuclear specter, and he can get anything he wants?

This has zero relevance, here. What led to the Crisis, was both NATOs putting U.S. missiles near the borders of the U.S.S.R., and our sponsoring an ill thought out attempt to overthrow Castro. So our actions, brought a Soviet reaction, directed at us. I have read enough Russian apologists, to already have a fair idea of the case you are going to try to lay out, to justify Russia's (Putin's) actions. Without even needing to address any of those extraneous points, I will simply ask, so why does that mean that Ukraine deserves to be invaded. If you are wronged by someone-- or believe that you have been-- does that, in any way, justify your attacking a third party?

While a strong objection could be raised, to the argument for Russia's entitlement to any part of Ukraine-- and that includes Crimea, if you actually know, & will admit, the honest history-- I will, instead, just correct your false, or at least woefully incomplete, axiom. The difference between COMPROMISE, and "Appeasement," is that, in the latter, there is no reason (ironically enough) to believe that the power, receiving concessions, will be appeased, by them.

This is a crazy argument. So we should pretend that Putin is reasonable, and will honor any agreements or treaties, despite his many examples to the contrary, because, if he's not, that's an even bigger problem, for us? Seriously?

Here, let me offer you, a counter, to your proposal. As Putin has already shown that he has no regard for international law, or conventions, and cannot be trusted to abide by any agreements, if he sees it in his interest to break them, and feels he can get away, the better, for his breach; also, that he is willing to threaten the use of nuclear weapons, not strictly to defend his country's long standing, and world- acknowledged, borders, but also elsewhere (due to his troops engagement on lands he merely claims for Russia, while his military struggles to rip them away from Ukraine), thus he has demonstrated himself already, to be a grave threat, to the entire world. As such-- specifically because of the nuclear threats, which would inevitably lead, at some point, to a catastrophic outcome for the world, should such behavior attain the credibility of being tolerated-- this enjoins, compels, and justifies the world, in taking the unprecedented step required, to answer Putin's own stridency: namely, to sanction, in this unique case, the assassination of this leader, who has too much lethal force, at his disposal, to be permitted to cast off all rules of international order, understood & in place for better than a half century, with particular emphasis upon his threatening what cannot be considered "defensive" use of nuclear weapons (as his threats pertain to the land area of his aggression, against a neighbor).

If it were an agreement made on the hush-hush, so that Putin was not especially expecting, such a baldface attempt on his life, I guarantee that the U.S. has both the technology and the intelligence sources, to assure a successful attack. Then, the threat to the world, which you admit should greatly worry us all, would be eliminated, permanently. So, will you get onboard, with the pragmatism, of that approach?

 

Your assumption has been mistaken-- we simply do not admire cowardice; particularly in a situation, in which its employment, solves nothing.

 

So, thats a surrender? Ok.

 

So typical of the French. Dude needs to man up

 

Nothing to lose? Its not like Russia is being invaded and occupied by evil capitalists. All he has to do is get the heck out of Ukraine. He'll be embarrassed, but life in Russia would return to normal. If he uses a nuke he, and Russia, will lose everything.

 

I honestly couldn't remember saying that to you so I did some scrolling and saw that you cut out a portion of my reply to another poster. So for fuller context, what I actually wrote was, " If Putin uses nukes, it's because he's desperate and his back is up against the wall. So who can predict a cornered animal? But what would our excuse be? Your suggestion is a gateway to world war III, so to me, it sounds crazy. Putin might use them because he would have nothing to lose, but you want us to use them when we have everything to lose. Sorry but this sounds like insanity."

So the argument was if Putin used nukes. The poster I was replying to suggested that if Putin used nukes, so should we, meaning the United States...on Russia. So are you suggesting that Putin would never use nukes in this war? Or are you agreeing with the other poster that we should?

 

I responded to the part I quoted. So, I stand by what I said: Putin is not even close to being in "back against the wall" or "nothing to lose" situation because all he has to do is stop the nonsense he started.

 

OK then. You made a point I guess.