Russian Bomber base in Venezuela

#51
#51
Russia plans to pull bombers from Venezuela on Friday, White House says

Well gosh, they say they are sending them home Friday.



Meanwhile: Russia Considers Deploying Military Aircraft in Venezuela Long Term, Media Reports


Trump himself has said nothing that I've seen, which is just astounding.

200w.gif
Why would he. Your first article, if you would've read it, says the President called Moscow. The planes are leaving, nothing to say.
 
#55
#55
Did you expect some Kennedy-esque 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis level speech?
Why would he. Your first article, if you would've read it, says the President called Moscow. The planes are leaving, nothing to say.


First, yes, it is a big freaking deal that nuclear-capable Russian bombers posted in the Americas, even if briefly. Venezuela does not need nuclear-capable support. This was a pure power play by Putin as against the US, nothing else.

As to them leaving, it was always the plan for them to be gone by Friday. Making it seem like Trump called and told them to and they agreed is a misrepresentation.

The question is, are they coming back? Will there be another "exercise"? Maybe a need to store some things there for the "exercises" down the road? Etc., etc. What we SHOULD be seeing, what we WOULD be seeing if we had a President who is not beholden to Russian interests is an absolute statement that we take this very seriously and a stern warning that no future "stationings" of Russian bombers in our hemisphere will be tolerated.

But no, we get an email from the press secretary continuing the narrative that we believe what the Russians tell us.
 
#56
#56
First, yes, it is a big freaking deal that nuclear-capable Russian bombers posted in the Americas, even if briefly. Venezuela does not need nuclear-capable support. This was a pure power play by Putin as against the US, nothing else.

As to them leaving, it was always the plan for them to be gone by Friday. Making it seem like Trump called and told them to and they agreed is a misrepresentation.

The question is, are they coming back? Will there be another "exercise"? Maybe a need to store some things there for the "exercises" down the road? Etc., etc. What we SHOULD be seeing, what we WOULD be seeing if we had a President who is not beholden to Russian interests is an absolute statement that we take this very seriously and a stern warning that no future "stationings" of Russian bombers in our hemisphere will be tolerated.

But no, we get an email from the press secretary continuing the narrative that we believe what the Russians tell us.
B12BC6DC-F87C-4196-9B4C-2E2F2DFCF8C2.jpeg
 
#57
#57
First, yes, it is a big freaking deal that nuclear-capable Russian bombers posted in the Americas, even if briefly. Venezuela does not need nuclear-capable support. This was a pure power play by Putin as against the US, nothing else.

As to them leaving, it was always the plan for them to be gone by Friday. Making it seem like Trump called and told them to and they agreed is a misrepresentation.

The question is, are they coming back? Will there be another "exercise"? Maybe a need to store some things there for the "exercises" down the road? Etc., etc. What we SHOULD be seeing, what we WOULD be seeing if we had a President who is not beholden to Russian interests is an absolute statement that we take this very seriously and a stern warning that no future "stationings" of Russian bombers in our hemisphere will be tolerated.

But no, we get an email from the press secretary continuing the narrative that we believe what the Russians tell us.

So Trump should draw a red line?
 
#58
#58
First, yes, it is a big freaking deal that nuclear-capable Russian bombers posted in the Americas, even if briefly. Venezuela does not need nuclear-capable support. This was a pure power play by Putin as against the US, nothing else.

As to them leaving, it was always the plan for them to be gone by Friday. Making it seem like Trump called and told them to and they agreed is a misrepresentation.

The question is, are they coming back? Will there be another "exercise"? Maybe a need to store some things there for the "exercises" down the road? Etc., etc. What we SHOULD be seeing, what we WOULD be seeing if we had a President who is not beholden to Russian interests is an absolute statement that we take this very seriously and a stern warning that no future "stationings" of Russian bombers in our hemisphere will be tolerated.

But no, we get an email from the press secretary continuing the narrative that we believe what the Russians tell us.

My, my, my, you certainly turned into a war hawk.

Did Trump call them? Did he make that public statement? And furthermore, who gives a flying rat's backside if they are coming back? Russia, like us, projects force when they feel the need. We orbited our nuclear LOADED bombers over the Arctic right outside of Soviet airspace when we felt the urge, they flew nuclear capable Bear bombers into Cuba from time to time.

It's all part of the game we both have played since the 50s. We have the option to base our own nuclear capable bombers way closer to the Russian Federation than we currently do if we feel the need. Poland or Romania or Hungary would likely be perfectly content with having a permanent US base there.

Calm down with the crazy war talk. You aren't that good at it.
 
#59
#59
My, my, my, you certainly turned into a war hawk.

Did Trump call them? Did he make that public statement? And furthermore, who gives a flying rat's backside if they are coming back? Russia, like us, projects force when they feel the need. We orbited our nuclear LOADED bombers over the Arctic right outside of Soviet airspace when we felt the urge, they flew nuclear capable Bear bombers into Cuba from time to time.

It's all part of the game we both have played since the 50s. We have the option to base our own nuclear capable bombers way closer to the Russian Federation than we currently do if we feel the need. Poland or Romania or Hungary would likely be perfectly content with having a permanent US base there.

Calm down with the crazy war talk. You aren't that good at it.


If it were Clinton in office and this had happened this place would be going nuts with posts about her betraying the country in allowing this to occur with no meaningful response.
 
#61
#61
If it were Clinton in office and this had happened this place would be going nuts with posts about her betraying the country in allowing this to occur with no meaningful response.

Or...

I understand how the game is played and know such things happen.

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will do some exercise in the future that'll get your panties in a wad because you feel it's overtly provocative.
 
#62
#62
If it were Clinton in office and this had happened this place would be going nuts with posts about her betraying the country in allowing this to occur with no meaningful response.
That's because while she has balls like Trump hers haven't dropped yet.
 
#63
#63
Or...

I understand how the game is played and know such things happen.

Don't worry, I'm sure Trump will do some exercise in the future that'll get your panties in a wad because you feel it's overtly provocative.


What this is really about is motivation and agenda. In the cases of prior administrations you could always question the wisdom of policy decisions, particularly in matters of military situations and diplomacy. That is, you could think something was too light, too heavy. You could even question whether the administration had its ducks in a row and that the decision was made on correct information. But, you never questioned whether the motive was personal, was dictated by a financial or similar agenda on the part of the President.

The problem we have here is that the evidence of Trump acting in his own self interest in these matter is mounting. He has repeatedly stood down to Russian wishes and to Saudi positions, adopting them as his own, and under circumstances that naturally make you wonder if Trump, right or wrong, is acting out of his own personal interests.

So now every time something like this comes up, it is automatic to wonder if Trump's response is based on his best policy judgment (and the judgments of those around him), or is another example of him lying to help himself.
 
#64
#64
What this is really about is motivation and agenda. In the cases of prior administrations you could always question the wisdom of policy decisions, particularly in matters of military situations and diplomacy. That is, you could think something was too light, too heavy. You could even question whether the administration had its ducks in a row and that the decision was made on correct information. But, you never questioned whether the motive was personal, was dictated by a financial or similar agenda on the part of the President.

The problem we have here is that the evidence of Trump acting in his own self interest in these matter is mounting. He has repeatedly stood down to Russian wishes and to Saudi positions, adopting them as his own, and under circumstances that naturally make you wonder if Trump, right or wrong, is acting out of his own personal interests.

So now every time something like this comes up, it is automatic to wonder if Trump's response is based on his best policy judgment (and the judgments of those around him), or is another example of him lying to help himself.

That's a whole lotta words just to say "anything Trump does, I'm opposed to. Anything he doesn't do, I'll be opposed to that as well."

Your side whined about him going too far in regards to North Korea, claiming he was provoking a war. Then, they whined the peace isn't being done fast enough and that we are being taken advantage of. Damned if he does try something different, damned when he doesn't.
 
#65
#65
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#66
#66
But, you never questioned whether the motive was personal, was dictated by a financial or similar agenda on the part of the President.

Oh, one more thing on this...

Your side sure as eff had no problem blaming Iraq on corporate greed while pointing the finger at Cheney and Bush, you hypocritical ****.
 
#68
#68
Oh, one more thing on this...

Your side sure as eff had no problem blaming Iraq on corporate greed while pointing the finger at Cheney and Bush, you hypocritical ****.
No kidding.

"Bush invaded Iraq so Cheney could cash in on Halliburton stock options and get no-bid contracts" was a talking point for years. Much of the same things they say about Trump were said about Bush. Bush was incompetent, not interested in what advisors told him, a racist, and a warmonger.
 
#69
#69
If it were Clinton in office and this had happened this place would be going nuts with posts about her betraying the country in allowing this to occur with no meaningful response.
We have had Russian bombers buzz our borders plenty of times. never once caused an out roar. We launched our jets and shepherded them, same thing they do to us. If anything Ras was ticked because we responded at all. Under Obama, under Bush, etc etc. This isn't a Trump thing no matter how much you want to make it. Just remember he will be more flexible after the election to work with the Russians.

Venezuela is 1500 miles from the main Florida land mass (Miami) and thats from closest points. probably going to be something like 2000 miles in the end. and again that's just to Miami. I think its only a little further to go from Russia to Seattle. You must be terrified all the time.
 
#71
#71
No kidding.

"Bush invaded Iraq so Cheney could cash in on Halliburton stock options and get no-bid contracts" was a talking point for years. Much of the same things they say about Trump were said about Bush. Bush was incompetent, not interested in what advisors told him, a racist, and a warmonger.
The communist dems only like gop presidents after they die.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again

VN Store



Back
Top