World War Three?

[Ronson]

Actually in one of Putin's public addresses (I didn't read it myself, but was listening to commentary on it) he apparently said he felt betrayed by Obama and how the Minsk Accord went down (which Merkel later admitted was a ruse to buy Ukraine more time to arm). Personally, I wouldn't necessarily blame Obama. It's hard to imagine a bunch a nazis in Ukraine would have given a black man in America much credibility when it came to international negotiations in their country. It's possible that Obama didn't betray Russia, but the nazis in Ukraine simply dismissed the wishes of the Obama admin.

I'm sure Crimea has been a sore spot for Russia since the breakup of the Soviet Union (although I hadn't really paid any attention). It should have been addressed by Gorbachev and Yeltsin at that time. Instead, it festered over the decades, and Obama poured salt in the wound. Now, there's no easy answer. I just want the US and my tax dollars out of it. The EU should should be striving to reach a solution.

[Mountain Man]

I'm sure Crimea has been a sore spot for Russia since the breakup of the Soviet Union (although I hadn't really paid any attention). It should have been addressed by Gorbachev and Yeltsin at that time. Instead, it festered over the decades, and Obama poured salt in the wound. Now, there's no easy answer. I just want the US and my tax dollars out of it. The EU should should be striving to reach a solution.

Seems their "solution" is to demand that Putin completely withdraw from Ukraine, which is simply not going to happen, but Ukraine also has no hope of driving Russia out on its own, even with the billions of dollars in aide flowing into the country (and into Zelinsky's pockets). The only chance of driving Russia back is if other countries put boots on the group and start fighting Russia directly which will inevitably lead to worldwide conflict.

[JimL]

He's cheering on oligarch Zelensky. He wants all of our American tax dollars placed in Zelensky's pockets. I think JimL is a Ukrainian mole.

You keep pushing that crap that Zelensky is pocketing the money. Any evidence of that, or are you just a shill for Putin and Russia?

[Ronson]

You keep pushing that crap that Zelensky is pocketing the money. Any evidence of that, or are you just a shill for Putin and Russia?

With estimated revenues of $30 million annually, Forbes Ukraine values Zelensky’s stake at $11 million.

https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lea...ch-is-he-worth

There's also the story of Oleana buying expensive jewelry in NYC, while her husband was pimping US taxpayers for handouts
cartier.jpg

[Mountain Man]

With estimated revenues of $30 million annually, Forbes Ukraine values Zelensky’s stake at $11 million.

https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lea...ch-is-he-worth

There's also the story of Oleana buying expensive jewelry in NYC, while her husband was pimping US taxpayers for handouts
cartier.jpg

Also reports of Zelinsky's wife going on a $40,000 Christmastime spending spree in Paris while her husband was out begging for more donations.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...pree-in-paris/

[Ronson]

Also reports of Zelinsky's wife going on $40,000 Christmastime spending spree while he was out begging for more donations.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...pree-in-paris/

Of course, the warmongers dismiss these accounts because of the "fact checks" (sic) performed by the globalist media.

In regard to the NYC shopping spree, the "fact check" I read said "probably false" because Zelensky wasn't in NYC while his wife was shopping there (I guess he was in DC) - like the two are joined at the hip somehow.

[rogue06]

Biden is showing signs that he thinks he's going to lose the election - by committing the US to financing Ukraine in a 10-year bilateral defense agreement!

He's going to keep on ruining our country even after he's gone!

Biden, Zelenskiy inch toward NATO with 10-year defense agreement

U.S. President Joe Biden and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy signed a 10-year bilateral security agreement on Thursday aimed at bolstering Ukraine's defense against Russian invaders and getting Ukraine closer to NATO membership.
The deal, signed on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Italy, aims to commit future U.S. administrations to support Ukraine, even if former President Donald Trump wins November’s election, officials said.
"Our goal is to strengthen Ukraine's credible defense and deterrence capabilities for the long term," Biden said at a joint news conference with Zelenskiy.
He said the G7's message to Russian President Vladimir Putin is "You cannot wait us out. You cannot divide us." The group of rich nations also agreed to a $50 billion loan for Ukraine backed by profits from frozen Russian assets.
The U.S.-Ukraine security deal is a framework for a long-term effort to help develop Ukraine’s outdated armed forces and serve as a step towards Ukraine's eventual NATO membership, according to the text...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-ukr...or-2024-06-13/

That the left is already organizing a shadow government to counter OMB is a strong indication that they don't think old Joe will win.

[rogue06]

Of course, the warmongers dismiss these accounts because of the "fact checks" (sic) performed by the globalist media.

In regard to the NYC shopping spree, the "fact check" I read said "probably false" because Zelensky wasn't in NYC while his wife was shopping there (I guess he was in DC) - like the two are joined at the hip somehow.

It's that sort of pretzel logic that has caused so many to realize that these supposed "fact checkers" are nothing but a joke.

[Ronson]

It's that sort of pretzel logic that has caused so many to realize that these supposed "fact checkers" are nothing but a joke.

Exactly. Using that same logic, it's "probably false" that Biden actually attended the G7 conference because Jill was still back at the hotel. So how could Biden have been there? That means that all of his blunders and wanderings are just "fake news."

[JimL]

Exactly. Using that same logic, it's "probably false" that Biden actually attended the G7 conference because Jill was still back at the hotel. So how could Biden have been there? That means that all of his blunders and wanderings are just "fake news."

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the NY posts "fake news" about Biden just goes to show how gullible and susceptible you are to "fake news". They take you for fools, and oh well, if the shoe fits. Will you ever wise up is the question, and that seems highly unlikely.

[Mountain Man]

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the NY posts "fake news" about Biden just goes to show how gullible and susceptible you are to "fake news". They take you for fools, and oh well, if the shoe fits. Will you ever wise up is the question, and that seems highly unlikely.

I wonder what JimL has to say about this sort of behavior? Let's ask him:

When one has no argument left, trying to disparage his opponent becomes his tool.

[JimL]

I wonder what JimL has to say about this sort of behavior? Let's ask him:

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

[Mountain Man]

I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Rolling your eyes at yourself. Classic.

[rogue06]

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the NY posts "fake news" about Biden just goes to show how gullible and susceptible you are to "fake news". They take you for fools, and oh well, if the shoe fits. Will you ever wise up is the question, and that seems highly unlikely.

Old Joe's wandering off was reported by news organizations around the world with many calling it "embarrassing," "awkward" and "bizarre." But old Joe's handlers seem to feel that gaslighting is the best response and now call an unedited video a "cheap fake."

Old Joe's new campaign slogan is "Don't-believe-your-lying-eyes."

[seanD]

Wars and rumors of wars...

Congress Debates Expanded Draft Amid Military Recruitment Challenges

The United States military has not activated a draft in more than 50 years, but Congress is weighing proposals to update mandatory conscription, including by expanding it to women for the first time and automatically registering those eligible to be called up.

The proposals making their way through the House and Senate stand a slim chance of becoming law, and none would reinstate the draft compelling service right away. But the debate over potential changes reflects how lawmakers are rethinking the draft at a time when readiness issues have risen to the fore and as the Pentagon is facing recruitment challenges amid a raft of risks and conflicts around the world.

The House last week passed an annual defense policy bill that, along with authorizing $895 billion in military spending including for a 19.5 percent pay raise for troops, contained a bipartisan proposal that would make registering for the draft automatic. At the same time, a Senate committee last week approved a version of the Pentagon policy bill that would expand the registration requirement to women. Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and the chairman of the panel, has championed the draft parity proposal.

Current law requires most men between the ages of 18 and 25 to register with the Selective Service, the agency that maintains a database of information about those who might be subject to military conscription, commonly referred to as a draft. The program is aimed at allowing military officials to determine who is eligible as a conscript in the event that Congress and the president activate the draft, which last happened in 1973 at the end of the Vietnam War.

Failure to register is considered a crime and can lead to a range of punishments.

At least 46 states and territories have laws that automatically register men for Selective Service when they get a driver’s license or apply for college, which has helped the program drive a high compliance rate. In 2023, more than 15 million men registered across the country, about 84 percent of those eligible.

Defense Department officials say the number of young Americans who volunteer for military service has dropped, continuing a trend of decline since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. According to the latest reports, less than 1 percent of adults in the United States serve in active duty combat roles, a significant drop from the last draft era in the 1960s, when a far greater proportion of Americans served in combat.

A panel of military experts suggested to Congress in 2020 that including women in the draft would be “in the national security interest of the United States.” Since then, Congress has repeatedly considered proposals to make the change, but they have all been scrapped before becoming law.

Women have since 2016 been allowed to serve in every role in the military, including ground combat, and there is some degree of bipartisan support for the idea that they should also be required to be subject to the draft. Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, noted that she championed a similar proposal during her time in the Alaska statehouse and Senator Susan Collins of Maine said the change “seems logical.”

Even Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has previously expressed support for an expanded role for women in the military, including adding the same draft registration requirement that men face.

Future draft coming?