We were 100% justified in invading Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

Ironically, Putin will now end up with a better deal when Zelensky "surrenders".

---

How so? Ukraine is in a much better position then when Putin proposed a deal in April of 2022.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

You seemed confident the reports from sources in his staff are inaccurate. I'm asking why. What leadership has Biden shown you that we shouldn't believe the reports coming out?

---

I have no idea if they are accurate or not. The point was the article didn't say what nortex claimed it said.

---

"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union."

I was asking what makes you so confident this statement is untrue? This is directly from the article.

---

Nortex claimed it was Biden officials. The article never claimed it was Biden officials, or even American officials after it was discussed at a joint Europe / US meeting.

---

Why are you so confident it wasn't Biden officials? Said differently, what has Biden done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I see a corrupts potus who ****s himself, clearly you and Weatherman see something else if you're tending goal for him like this. What do you see in Biden that I don't?

---

Where did I say it wasn't Biden officials?

---

That was the logical inference to be made when you spent your entire Friday afternoon arguing against someone who said it was

---

Nope. I said he was claiming something that wasn't in the article. Which is exactly what he did.

---

Okay. I will directly ask you then, do you think what Nortex claimed is possibly true or probably true?

If your answer is possibly, what do you see in Biden to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Yes, it's possibly true. And it still doesn't make it definitively true, which is what nortex claimed the article said. Why white knight for him when he's obviously wrong?

And it's not that I give Biden any doubt. It's that there's not enough information in the article and it could have easily been said by a euro staffer.

Teslag said:

---

And it's not that I give Biden any doubt. It's that there's not enough information in the article and it could have easily been said by a euro staffer.

---

I agree. It was premature of him to claim the Biden staff is certainly the ones who said it. But do not kid yourself, you're absolutely giving Biden the benefit of the doubt if you're not willing to admit it is probably true.

You're absolutely allowed to think what you want, but if you can't admit Nortex was probably right- you have way to much faith in the president who **** himself IMO

Teslag said:

---

Yes, it's possibly true. And it still doesn't make it definitively true, which is what nortex claimed the article said. Why white knight for him when he's obviously wrong?

---

Hilarious assumption of my position here. I am not white knighting for Nortex, but rather getting you to admit you're giving white knighting to Joseph Biden.

Not all, it's just that I place equal lack of faith and respect into the euro mindset and leaders.

And it's especially possible it came from someone in a former Soviet satellite that may also want our nukes parked there, namely Poland, Romania, or the baltics.

In fact if I had to bet that's where I'd put my money.

If the NYT were talking to 5-eyes types of folks abroad I'd expect them to have identified that, even though I have an exceptionally low standard/bar for their 'reporting.' (Trying to avoid propaganda vs. press discussion points).

But even if one accepted that as a 'possible' reality, in truth the blob of MI5 and CIA etc. are one entity running our executive branch right now, so the difference is again without a distinction.

The NYT report is quite evidently an early trial balloon from whoever is running our government for giving Zelensky nukes before Trump is sworn in. I've long lamented that Biden is an inept/demented commander but it's interesting this is gaining such steam in the last few weeks of his command, with prevarications about 'well achtually' etc.

Thats a solid theory, but I still suspect Joe.

I agree with all of this. The "well ackshually" game the Uke's played all Friday afternoon is not convincing.

I was hoping them to realize they're siding with President Poopshimself just to own you on a message board- but no avail. I can almost guarantee today's bookmark will be revisited. .

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

GAC06 said:

---

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

---

Another bookmark. You're putting way too much faith in Joe Biden. I'l just wish you were capable of articulating why. Are you?

GAC06 said:

---

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

---

Well, these are the same people that said this thing would be over in "weeks, maybe" almost a year ago. So here we are…

Teslag said:

---

We were 100% justified in invading Afghanistan.

---

Not sure what you mean by "justified". I could be "justified" in going around murdering pedophiles, but it would be incredibly stupid and result in an asymmetrically bad outcome for myself.

Bin Laden wanted a 20 year multi-trillion dollar full scale war. Just like Iran and Taliban want with the October terrorist attack. Huge provacative terrorist attacks that cost very little, in order to nuke the US balance sheet. Unfortunately Trump is bringing Rubio and others that don't understand this concept either. Let's just hope their flexing takes us immediately to negotiation table and not more endless wars with no defined outcome.

Forgot about that one. Classic.

I said the invasion was justified, the occupation afterwards was botched.

Teslag said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

---

Well, these are the same people that said this thing would be over in "weeks, maybe" almost a year ago. So here we are…

---

Also many of the same who said that it was just a bluff and Putin wasn't going to do anything when he started amassing troops at the border.

Teslag said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

---

Well, these are the same people that said this thing would be over in "weeks, maybe" almost a year ago. So here we are…

---

For those who haven't been following for long, the proof Ukraine is getting trounced is how often Tesla has to resort to lying about what was said.

"trounced"

How many hundreds of miles away from Kiev are they now?

And he literally said it would be over in weeks. Maybe.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

---

Another bookmark. You're putting way too much faith in Joe Biden. I'l just wish you were capable of articulating why. Are you?

---

Why do you keep up this "faith in Joe" nonsense? There's zero chance we give Ukraine nukes. None. It's hilarious that you seem to think it's even a possibility.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

---

Well, these are the same people that said this thing would be over in "weeks, maybe" almost a year ago. So here we are…

---

For those who haven't been following for long, the proof Ukraine is getting trounced is how often Tesla has to resort to lying about what was said.

---

Proof Ukraine is getting trounced is that you're here lying about a terrible prediction from a year ago?

GAC06 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

It's amusing to see y'all pretending to think it's even somewhat plausible we'd give nukes to Ukraine

---

Another bookmark. You're putting way too much faith in Joe Biden. I'l just wish you were capable of articulating why. Are you?

---

Why do you keep up this "faith in Joe" nonsense? There's zero chance we give Ukraine nukes. None. It's hilarious that you seem to think it's even a possibility.

---

Its not that deep, friend. Just articulate why you trust the guy who **** himself and I'll have my answer. Can you do that? If not, why? You have the floor, defend the position you've taken that Joe Biden is trustworthy not to **** this up even further.

I don't trust him. That's why your tactic of the night is idiotic. Would you like to place a bet on whether we give Ukraine nukes before the inauguration?

I like that people think it's even logistically possibly to move nuclear weapons into Ukraine and then turn them over Ukraine in less than 3 months.

GAC06 said:

---

I don't trust him. That's why your tactic of the night is idiotic. Would you like to place a bet on whether we give Ukraine nukes before the inauguration?

---

Subtly moving the goalposts, but still moving them as you're backed into a corner now.

We've gone from the original Nortex claim of "Biden admin is considering handing Ukraine nukes" to "bet me bro"

I'm ashamed at myself I didnt see this deterioration coming.

Not surprised you're crawfishing now. wHy do yOu tRuSt JoE?!?

GAC06 said:

---

Not surprised you're crawfishing now. wHy do yOu tRuSt JoE?!?

---

What exactly have I crawfished on? I agreed it was premature for Nortex to claim what he did, while acknowledging Nortex is probably right that it is being considered.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

It's like the saddest game of telephone imaginable.

Article - "Random anonymous staffers suggest Biden could give Ukraine nukes back as a deterrent to Putin launching more unprovoked invasions."

Tweeter (who is also pro Palestine from the rest of his posts, great sourcing as usual from Nortex), shares the article with the usual anti-US commentary.

Nortex shares the anti US/pro Palestine twitter account and claims the article said Biden wants to give Ukraine nukes, despite the article not saying that, banking that people won't actually read the article.

Rinse repeat.

---

Biden officials telling the NYT they are considering giving Nukes to Ukraine to…prevent Putin from…re-invading again, or something.

---

Quote:

---

NYT reporting Biden might give nukes to the green goblin as a parting gift?

---

---

Being deliberately obtuse = trolling. I see no intent to deceive in the assertions made.

Brilliant post.

It is most telling that it got quiet when I pointed out that denying the chance of what Biden "might" be doing is putting way too much faith in Joe Biden himself.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

You seemed confident the reports from sources in his staff are inaccurate. I'm asking why. What leadership has Biden shown you that we shouldn't believe the reports coming out?

---

I have no idea if they are accurate or not. The point was the article didn't say what nortex claimed it said.

---

"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union."

I was asking what makes you so confident this statement is untrue? This is directly from the article.

---

Nortex claimed it was Biden officials. The article never claimed it was Biden officials, or even American officials after it was discussed at a joint Europe / US meeting.

---

Why are you so confident it wasn't Biden officials? Said differently, what has Biden done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I see a corrupts potus who ****s himself, clearly you and Weatherman see something else if you're tending goal for him like this. What do you see in Biden that I don't?

---

No one is saying it wasn't, just that there is no definitive certainty it was, and without that definitive certainty, people like you and nortex are incorrect in the continued assertion that it was. Surely even you can recognize the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it."

---

I never said it was definitive but I think it's probably true. If you disagree, I'd love to know what you see in Biden to give him the benefit of the doubt. But it sounds like you're just trying to have a meta argument, which is typical but bores me.

---

True, but everything you've said regarding it, including arguing about giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, starts with the assumption that that's what has been said, which it hasn't.

If everything you say stems from the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it," then everything that follows is equally flawed.

jagvocate said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

It's like the saddest game of telephone imaginable.

Article - "Random anonymous staffers suggest Biden could give Ukraine nukes back as a deterrent to Putin launching more unprovoked invasions."

Tweeter (who is also pro Palestine from the rest of his posts, great sourcing as usual from Nortex), shares the article with the usual anti-US commentary.

Nortex shares the anti US/pro Palestine twitter account and claims the article said Biden wants to give Ukraine nukes, despite the article not saying that, banking that people won't actually read the article.

Rinse repeat.

---

Biden officials telling the NYT they are considering giving Nukes to Ukraine to…prevent Putin from…re-invading again, or something.

---

Quote:

---

NYT reporting Biden might give nukes to the green goblin as a parting gift?

---

---

Being deliberately obtuse = trolling. I see no intent to deceive in the assertions made.

---

Except the New York Times never claimed it was Biden or a Biden official

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

You seemed confident the reports from sources in his staff are inaccurate. I'm asking why. What leadership has Biden shown you that we shouldn't believe the reports coming out?

---

I have no idea if they are accurate or not. The point was the article didn't say what nortex claimed it said.

---

"Several officials even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union."

I was asking what makes you so confident this statement is untrue? This is directly from the article.

---

Nortex claimed it was Biden officials. The article never claimed it was Biden officials, or even American officials after it was discussed at a joint Europe / US meeting.

---

Why are you so confident it wasn't Biden officials? Said differently, what has Biden done to deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I see a corrupts potus who ****s himself, clearly you and Weatherman see something else if you're tending goal for him like this. What do you see in Biden that I don't?

---

No one is saying it wasn't, just that there is no definitive certainty it was, and without that definitive certainty, people like you and nortex are incorrect in the continued assertion that it was. Surely even you can recognize the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it."

---

I never said it was definitive but I think it's probably true. If you disagree, I'd love to know what you see in Biden to give him the benefit of the doubt. But it sounds like you're just trying to have a meta argument, which is typical but bores me.

---

True, but everything you've said regarding it, including arguing about giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, starts with the assumption that that's what has been said, which it hasn't.

If everything you say stems from the fallacy of, "An official said it, so it must be a Biden official that said it," then everything that follows is equally flawed.

---

The problem with your post is that everything I've said stems from "an official said it, and it was probably Biden's" which is a substantive difference.

So in a delicious bit of irony, you're committing the exact fallacy you're accusing me of, and everything you're posting is flawed. Yummy.