Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

World War Three?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

    He's been treated for at least six years? Then he can't be getting chemo. Must be some other type of treatments. Six years of chemo probably would have killed him.
    Either the chemo would have killed him, or the cancer they were treating would have.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      Either the chemo would have killed him, or the cancer they were treating would have.
      I've heard that there is one variety of prostate cancer that is very slow-growing, and physicians often recommend just letting it go without treatment for men over a certain age. The reasoning is that treating such a cancer for a man of, say, 80-85 would be causing more risk and harm than to just leave it. Odds are he will die from something else before the cancer.

      A friend of mine survived colon cancer after chemo. He said chemo felt like death, and he almost refused it after a certain point.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

        I've heard that there is one variety of prostate cancer that is very slow-growing, and physicians often recommend just letting it go without treatment for men over a certain age. The reasoning is that treating such a cancer for a man of, say, 80-85 would be causing more risk and harm than to just leave it. Odds are he will die from something else before the cancer.

        A friend of mine survived colon cancer after chemo. He said chemo felt like death, and he almost refused it after a certain point.
        Yeah, chemo really messes you up. You're essentially making your body too toxic for even cancer to survive.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ronson View Post

          I've heard that there is one variety of prostate cancer that is very slow-growing, and physicians often recommend just letting it go without treatment for men over a certain age. The reasoning is that treating such a cancer for a man of, say, 80-85 would be causing more risk and harm than to just leave it. Odds are he will die from something else before the cancer.
          I have personal experience of this. Last year I had prostate surgery to relieve urinary problems (wonderful results!) and the Surgeon warned me that the cut off bits would be examined, and might contain cancer cells. He said at my age, then 80, there is an 80% chance of having prostate cancer. He said that to warn me, and added that the likelihood would be that they would just leave it alone for the reasons you give. Apparently most men die with prostate cancer and never know it. Amazingly they didn't find any cancer in my samples. How about that, eh?

          A friend of mine survived colon cancer after chemo. He said chemo felt like death, and he almost refused it after a certain point.
          I have a dear friend who is dying of stage 4 lung cancer. Originally he was going to let nature take it's course. He said he had had a long and mostly good life and was ready to go. His (adult) children talked him out of it and he's been having chemo.

          Comment


          • Source: Did Putin Wait Until Biden Became President to Invade Ukraine?


            In the days after Russia attacked Ukraine, there was a lot of talk among Republicans that Vladimir Putin would not have invaded had Donald Trump still been president. Trump was so difficult to predict, so impulsive, so impetuous, the thinking went, that Putin would not have risked a massive U.S. response under Trump.

            "The sheer unpredictability of Trump, his anger at being defied or disrespected, his willingness to take the occasional big risk (the Soleimani strike), all had to make Putin frightened or wary of him in a way that he simply isn't of Joe Biden," National Review editor Rich Lowry tweeted.

            The anti-Trump crowd scoffed. Trump was Putin's stooge, they said. The Russian strongman didn't need to invade Ukraine because Trump would have given him everything he wanted without all the messiness of a big war. "Trump never once showed any anger, risk-taking or unpredictability with Putin," tweeted Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Resistance fundraising group The Lincoln Project. "He showed deference, adoration, admiration, obedience, and sought to wreck NATO, Putin's highest goals. Putin didn't need to buy the cow. The milk was free."

            Now, though, the side skeptical that Putin would have acted had Trump been president has gotten some support from an unlikely source. Fiona Hill, the Russia expert, former senior National Security Council aide in the Trump White House and star witness against Trump in his first impeachment, appeared recently on a program sponsored by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Discussing the Ukraine war, Hill suggested that Putin waited to invade Ukraine until Biden became president, preferring Biden's "predictability" to Trump's volatility.

            Hill was quite critical of Trump, saying he knew nothing about matters concerning Ukraine or international relations. When Trump met with Putin, she continued, Putin found himself having to explain things to Trump. If Putin were going to launch an invasion, Hill said, "he thought that somebody like Biden, who's a 'transatlanticist,' who knows all about NATO, who actually knows where Ukraine is, and actually knows something about the history, and is very steeped in international affairs, would be the right person to engage with, as opposed to somebody you've got to explain everything to all the time." In this view, Putin saw Biden as someone he could deal with as Russia seized territory from Ukraine. But not the erratic Trump. Who knew what he might do? "[Putin] wants to have predictability in the person that he's engaging with," said Hill.

            Hill certainly made it sound as if Putin made the specific calculation that his brutal invasion of Ukraine would be more likely to succeed with Biden in the White House than with Trump. Of course, Hill is not the final authority on such matters. But her account lends credibility to those who argued that Putin would not have invaded Ukraine were Trump still in the White House.

            Meanwhile, a lot of Americans are going to see ominous undertones in a new move under consideration by the Biden administration. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal ran a story headlined, "Pentagon Weighs Deploying Special Forces to Guard Kyiv Embassy." The paper reported that U.S. officials are considering sending elite troops "for the defense and security of the [American embassy in Kyiv], which lies within range of Russian missiles." The paper added that the presence of U.S. special forces "would mark an escalation from Mr. Biden's initial pledge that no American troops will be sent into the country."

            Biden not only pledged that no American troops will be sent into Ukraine -- he pledged not to send the highest levels of other U.S. assistance to Ukraine, lest it draw the U.S. into the war. "The idea that we're going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews -- just understand, don't kid yourself, no matter what y'all say, that's called World War III," Biden said in early March, when he refused to facilitate the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine.

            More recently, on May 3, during a visit to a Lockheed Martin facility in Alabama, where the company makes the Javelin anti-tank missiles the U.S. is sending by the thousands to Ukraine, Biden told workers that, "You're making it possible for the Ukrainian people to defend themselves without us having to risk getting in a third world war by sending in American soldiers fighting Russian soldiers."

            And now there is a plan to send American soldiers into Ukraine, ostensibly just to protect the U.S. embassy, but also creating the risk that a Russian military action, intentionally or not, might hit Americans, drawing the U.S. further into the war. The Journal reports the special forces plan has not yet been presented to the president. But when it is, Biden -- and the United States -- will have a deeply consequential decision to make.


            Source

            © Copyright Original Source




            And just a reminder for those who reflexively regurgitate the Trump is Putin's stooge B.S.:

            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            Back in 2018 Trump griped that he had been much tougher on Putin than Obama ever was only for the MSM to mock that.

            CNN proclaimed "That's not true!" while WaPo declared that "the facts suggest otherwise" and the supposed "fact checkers" at Politifact issued a "Mostly false" judgment sneering that the claim "immediately drew guffaws among media commentators."

            They wanted you to look at only what he said and ignore what he did.

            Anyone who has watched Trump or read The Art of the Deal understands he has two basic modes of conducting business. First he either berates you publicly that shocks you with how willing he is to work with you when you are in private. Case in point, "Rocketman" Kim Jong-un of South Korea. The other is playing nice in public while in private he is trying to rip your lungs out. Case in point, Vladimir Putin.

            Of course folks who still think that the Collusion Delusion was anything but the hoax it has been exposed as being (but hey some people also think that the earth is flat, so what are you going to do?) want everyone to focus solely on Trump's public treatment of Putin -- what he says -- rather than what he actually has done. The last thing these folks want is for people to look behind the curtain they put up.

            The facts that WaPo had claimed "suggest otherwise" in fact do not support that paper's contention, and now with Trump safely out of office, a few of those who kept saying that Trump was soft on Putin -- if not a Russian asset, traitor or Putin's puppet -- have decided it is okay to stop lying and finally tell the truth.

            For instance, on CNN's New Day back on New Year's morning, Fareed Zakaria was asked how Biden's policies toward Russia would differ from Trump's, and Zakiria let the cat out of the bag when he said "the dirty little secret" regarding Trump and the Russians was that

            " the Trump administration was pretty tough on the Russians. They armed Ukraine. They armed the Poles. They extended NATO operations and exercises in ways that even the Obama administration had not done. They maintained the sanctions."


            Oops. That certainly went against the narrative now didn't it?

            Aside from why would that be considered a "dirty little secret" the facts showing that this was the case that the WaPo dismissively claimed "suggest otherwise" were plain to see even if the MSM refused to cover them like they did the Hunter laptop story.

            So, in reality, it was hardly a secret for anyone who actually bothered to check the record rather mindlessly regurgitating what the MSM spoon fed them.

            Moreover, it isn't just Zakaria who has admitted this -- once Trump was safely out of office. Trump deployed such aggressive sanctions against Russia that even Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who has never passed up an opportunity to trash Trump, said that it's "true" that Trump's treatment of Russia was harsher than that of previous presidents.[1]

            That's what happens when you pay attention to what someone actually does rather than to just what they say. As the old adage puts it "Action Speaks Louder Than Words"

            And just what exactly was it that Trump did? Here's a short list:
            • accused Russia of deploying land-based cruise missiles saying that they violated the "spirit and intent" of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty -- something Obama refused to do.
            • bombed Syria's Shayrat Airbase (Russia's allies) when they use chemical weapons in 2017.
            • again bombed Syrian forces in 2018 killing over 200 Russian "mercenaries".
            • tried to get Merkel to stop importing natural gas from Russia which would deal a serious blow to the Russian economy.
            • sent weapons, including a bunch of anti-tank missiles, and not just blankets and well-wishes to Ukraine so they can fight the Russians.
            • facilitated the sale of more coal to energy-strapped Ukraine
            • sent Patriot missiles to Poland which had begging for them for years.
            • shifted a couple thousand U.S. troops from bases in Western Europe to Poland, which while largely symbolic, infuriated the Russians just like selling them the anti-missile defense systems did.
            • like with Poland, Trump supplied the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania with arms and training along with money to help them prevent Russian cyber attacks, again pissing off the Russians who think of those countries as theirs.
            • imposed stricter sanctions[2] than those initially called for by Congress including imposing sanctions on Ramzan Kadyrov, a close Putin ally.
            • ordered the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats and closure of Russian consulate in Seattle in response to Russia's poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov declared that the expulsion of the total of 153 Russian diplomats by 28 countries was the result of the Trump Administration "blackmailing" other nations).
            • sanctioned four Russian entities and seven individuals in response to their attempt to interfere in U.S. midterm elections, including Russian financier Yevgeniy Prigozhin, known as "Putin's chef" because he has his hands in so many pies
            • approved sanctions placed on builders of the Nord Stream 2 Russia-to-Germany gas pipelines.[3]


            There is also a Brookings Institute analysis of the Trump Administration's record with Russia published in December 2019 found it had taken 52 actions against the Russians, both severe and minor, but try and tell that to the cognitively challenged TDS crowd.

            And while written by a couple of Trump's former senior intelligence officials (hence has a dog in the fight), here's a piece from a few weeks back regarding what Trump was doing to Putin and why the latter didn't invade Ukraine under Trump when he invaded countries while Bush, Obama and now old Joe was/is president: Fear Of Donald Trump Kept Putin From Invading Ukraine. Here’s How Trump Pulled It Off They also cover some of the actions Trump took regarding Putin and Russia.

            All of this was in sharp contrast to what took place after that comical "Great Reset" under Obama which appears to have been a plan to bribe Putin into behaving in a civilized manner (while simultaneously enriching the Biden and Clinton clans), until their sharp pivot toward Ukraine.





            1. as an aside Gates thinks that old Joe has been wrong about everything his entire political career -- an assessment he is far from being alone in making.

            2. to be fair this has been a bit of a mixed bag in that earlier Trump expressed reluctance about enforcing some sanctions that he had signed into law. But in the end his placing harsher economic restrictions on Russian oligarchs (more than just Skripal) close to Putin hurt the latter enormously. Putin is thought to have illegally amassed tens of billions of dollars, but he can't hold all that wealth in his own name, so he appointed his oligarch cronies to be his trustees. Sanctioning his buddies was effectively putting sanctions on Putin himself

            3. Old Joe removed those sanctions which was a blessing to Putin and the Russian economy while shutting down the Keystone pipeline here, that, along with a few similar moves, turned us from finally becoming energy independent after decades of not being so, into being energy dependent again. In only 6 months the demented duffer was begging OPEC and Putin to increase their production in order to meet our demand

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • I don't think it was so much Joe's "predictability" that compelled Putin but, rather, his repeated displays of political weakness and mental impairment. After Joe and Putin's first meeting, Putin openly mocked him in front of the press, saying that he was confused by the jet lag.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                I don't think it was so much Joe's "predictability" that compelled Putin but, rather, his repeated displays of political weakness and mental impairment. After Joe and Putin's first meeting, Putin openly mocked him in front of the press, saying that he was confused by the jet lag.

                735R5-33h69o.jpg
                Take a good look at Putin's face. This was the moment he knew he had 4 years
                to do pretty much whatever he wanted to do and there was nothing to stop him

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • (June 2021)

                  “The image of President Biden portrayed by our and even by the American media has nothing to do with the reality,” Putin claimed. “He is on a long trip, he flew from overseas, having the so-called jet lag, the change of the time zones.”

                  Putin insisted that Biden was “fully in the know” of his surroundings and a “professional.”

                  The Russian strongman then attributed any confusion, lack of knowledge, or insufficient attention paid to important details not to any specific qualities that Biden may possess, but on the fact that he is an American, and Americans are too self-centered to bother with details on international issues. He used as his example Psaki, who he accused of often making incorrect statements.

                  “His press secretary is a young, educated and pretty woman. She is mixing things up all the time,” Putin said. “This is not because she is not enough educated or has a bad memory. Simply, you know when people think that some things are secondary, they don’t really fix their attention on this.”

                  Putin Defends Biden Gaffes: Jen Psaki ‘Young, Pretty,’ and ‘Mixing Things Up All the Time’ (breitbart.com)

                  Putin had this administration pegged from day one.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • It's not so much that Trump would have stopped Putin, or even if Obama would have, but knowing that Biden wouldn't.

                    I don't know what Trump would have done if the invasion happened during his watch - but that's the key; ambiguity. The same goes for the US Taiwan policy being debated now. Trump was loud, forceful, boorish - someone that conveys conviction and strength. If you don't know how such a person would react to being poked, you probably wouldn't poke him. But with Biden, you pretty much know he's going to roll over. Or wander out the door in a mental daze.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ronson View Post
                      It's not so much that Trump would have stopped Putin, or even if Obama would have, but knowing that Biden wouldn't.

                      I don't know what Trump would have done if the invasion happened during his watch - but that's the key; ambiguity. The same goes for the US Taiwan policy being debated now. Trump was loud, forceful, boorish - someone that conveys conviction and strength. If you don't know how such a person would react to being poked, you probably wouldn't poke him. But with Biden, you pretty much know he's going to roll over. Or wander out the door in a mental daze.
                      And never forget, like Afghanistan, pro-level FUBARed but he still grins like a fool and declares it an "outstanding success."

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • The US media is finally starting to wake up to the reality of the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

                        The Associated Press [HERE] and more importantly the U.S. Intel Community outlet, the Washington Post [HERE], are beginning to change direction in their narration of the war in Ukraine.



                        Both sources of information are starting to position Eastern Ukraine as a lost cause, with the Washington Post giving specific examples of conscripted Ukraine fighters who are abandoning the effort in the donbas region. As noted, “after three months of war, this company of 120 men is down to 54 because of deaths, injuries and desertions. The volunteers were civilians before Russia invaded on Feb. 24, and they never expected to be dispatched to one of the most dangerous front lines in eastern Ukraine.”

                        The Ukraine commander, Serhi Lapko and one of his lieutenants, Vitaliy Khrus, “retreated with members of their company this week to a hotel away from the front. There, both men spoke to The Washington Post on the record, knowing they could face a court-martial and time in military prison.” Together, Lapko and Khrus describe the essential elements of a fragmented Ukraine fighting force up against a committed Russian military advance.

                        Even the Washington Post admits the Ukraine central government is desperate to push morale boosting propaganda which seems constructed from the efforts of the U.S. State Dept, specifically the intelligence community within it. “Videos of assaults on Russian tanks or positions are posted daily on social media. Artists are creating patriotic posters, billboards and T-shirts. The postal service even released stamps commemorating the sinking of a Russian warship in the Black Sea.”

                        These examples are targeted toward a western audience and likely not being carried out by independent Ukraine government operation in Kyiv. Promoting the image of Ukraine is a construct of the U.S. state dept and U.S. intelligence.

                        The global impression of Ukraine must remain elevated to continue the U.S. proxy war against Russia. However, as noted, the WaPo is starting to shift the goal posts and expectations away from a Russian defeat in the donbas region.

                        https://theconservativetreehouse.com...donbas-region/

                        Of course they waited until after Zelinsky got his grubby little hands on 40 billion tax payer dollars before shifting the narrative.
                        Last edited by Mountain Man; 05-30-2022, 01:45 PM.
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          And never forget, like Afghanistan, pro-level FUBARed but he still grins like a fool and declares it an "outstanding success."
                          Afghanistan might have been a success - it would depend on what the administration's actual goals were.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                            Afghanistan might have been a success - it would depend on what the administration's actual goals were.
                            If their goal was to bungle things as badly as possible then it was a success.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                              Afghanistan might have been a success - it would depend on what the administration's actual goals were.
                              I like Assange's explanation:

                              The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the US and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war
                              That was bit specific, though I definitely believe it was a tax heist between government and defense contractors. There's really no reason for me not think that since there's no real adequate explanation why a cost of $8 trillion over a 20 year occupation actually happened. Then when you consider the fact that the Taliban retook the country in day after we pulled out just underscores that explanation even more.

                              So, obviously, it was NOT a success based on the reasons we were told for being there and spending all that money -- i.e. defeat Taliban, rebuild a democratic political system, maintain stability -- but it was a HUGE success as a tax payer heist between government and defense contractors.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seanD View Post

                                I like Assange's explanation:



                                That was bit specific, though I definitely believe it was a tax heist between government and defense contractors. There's really no reason for me not think that since there's no real adequate explanation why a cost of $8 trillion over a 20 year occupation actually happened. Then when you consider the fact that the Taliban retook the country in day after we pulled out just underscores that explanation even more.

                                So, obviously, it was NOT a success based on the reasons we were told for being there and spending all that money -- i.e. defeat Taliban, rebuild a democratic political system, maintain stability -- but it was a HUGE success as a tax payer heist between government and defense contractors.
                                I'll rephrase. It was not a success if the publicly stated aims were the real aims.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                189 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                311 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X