What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Terrorist is a relative term. If your side loses, you're a terrorist. If you're side wins, you're a freedom fighter.

One thing you can say about V. V. Putin - he does not speak in shades of grey. If he draws a red line, he will make sure it's your blood that does the drawing -- unless you got a bigger schwangsticker than he does. Then he'll cave.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Everytime I think about what Putin is doing, I'm reminded of the old quote by Stalin, "F the pope. How many divisions does he have?"

Substitute Moldova, Georgia, and now Ukraine and you pretty much has Vlad's attitude.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Did Congre$$ authorize or appropriate $1B? In Fed Gov Speak, there is a difference. Authorize means you can spend it - when you get the money. Appropriate means actually giving the money.
You think voters are going to parse words like authorize and appropriate? They voted to give a billion dollars to the Ukraine. Period.

Oh, really?

Just ask a Russian journalist for his/her opinion.

Oh, wait. You can't!

The list of journalists killed under Putin is too long to fit here; it exceeds the limit of 10,000 characters.

19 in 2000
12 in 2001
23 in 2002
12 in 2003
13 in 2004
6 in 2005
14 in 2006
5 in 2007
3 in 2008

22 during the Medved Presidency

One more under Putin in 2012

Several of the ones in the first set were killed in Chechnya or were "incident not confirmed" but I didn't go through to cull them out.



I guess you are right and I am wrong, Putin is just a genial, gentle soul who does nothing wrong and is woefully misunderstood by people like me, eh? :rolleyes:


How far does your sycophancy extend, anyway?

Are the Chinese terrorists? We still do plenty of business with them. I thought we didn't do business with terrorists. For that matter, we're still doing business with Russia. I'm pretty sure we have been doing business with both countries since the Berlin Wall crumbled. Yet we're still doing business with them. Tourists still go there. I guess we just have different definitions of "terrorists".

For the record, I have made no secret about the fact that I'm a liberal. I do not consider it a dirty word. *I* do not to pretend to be something I'm not. I don't say I'm a liberal and then make arguments counter to everything a liberal typically believes. I do not parrot the talking points of the RNC or post the latest from the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. I think we know how far your sycophancy extends.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Foreign aid is an inconsequential part of the federal budget deficit and IMHO is generally money better spent than many other things in the federal budget.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Key questions: Are people who speak of their admiration for Putin terrorist sympathizers? If they are elected officials, is it treason?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Here's the perspective of our Secretary of State emeritus:


Hillary Rodham Clinton [condemned] Russian President Vladimir Putin for using the excuse of protecting people with Russian ties to mask expansionist motives.....Clinton said she was "urging people to have a little historic perspective."

The ex-secretary of state and likely 2016 presidential candidate specifically lashed out at Russia’s plan to issue passports to ethnic Russians in Crimea.

“Now, if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the ‘30s,” Clinton said during a California fundraiser on Tuesday.

“All the Germans that were … the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people, and that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous,” she said, according to The Long Beach Press-Telegram.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I have to agree that there's been some downright treasonous comments out of the conservative knuckledragger crowd. Its pretty sad when collectively the opposition party is cheering on Putin instead of the President. Not too surprising though. One has to wonder if the Fishies and Opies of this board feel the same way and are sporting their "Rootin' for Putin" T-shirts that they're giving away at the CPAC conference.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

MOSCOW—Russia's upper house of parliament will support Crimea in its bid to join Russia and award the Black Sea peninsula the full powers of any other Russian region, the speaker of Russia's upper house said Friday, the highest-level confirmation yet that Crimea could soon become part of Russia.

Well, that didn't take long. Fait accompli as they say. Oh, well, who cares, right? :(


By the way, who better to understand long-term strategy than a chess grandmaster and world champion? Great article today by Garry Kasparov in the Wall St. Journal on how to stop Putin from annexing any more territory without using military force.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

By the way, who better to understand long-term strategy than a chess grandmaster and world champion? .

So the US should have outsourced policy making to known anti-Semite Bobby Fisher? Are you really this stupid?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

By the way, who better to understand long-term strategy than a chess grandmaster and world champion? Great article today by Garry Kasparov in the Wall St. Journal on how to stop Putin from annexing any more territory without using military force.

I assume you'll be giving him your entire portfolio to invest for you. I mean, he does have such a great understanding of long-term strategy....
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

I have to agree that there's been some downright treasonous comments out of the conservative knuckledragger crowd. Its pretty sad when collectively the opposition party is cheering on Putin instead of the President. Not too surprising though. One has to wonder if the Fishies and Opies of this board feel the same way and are sporting their "Rootin' for Putin" T-shirts that they're giving away at the CPAC conference.

I agree. Although they learned that trick from Democrats. You know, the ones who defended (and are still defending) Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs and went to Hanoi to collaborate with the North Vietbamese and have been kissing Castro's a*s for the last 50 years.

It's also a neat etymological trick to define "treasonous" in a way that includes the hard righties at CPAC but presumably excludes Jane Fonda.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

From the Legal Dictionary
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, julius and ethel rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.

Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.

Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Listening to Cheney on FTN talking about Crimea confirms he's as big of douche/weasel as he ever was.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top