U.S. GUARANTEED Ukraine’s Borders: It Is Simply STUNNING How Obama Has Played The Part Of WWII Patsy Neville Chamberlain

You’ve got to love the symbolism.  Russian media frequently shows Vladimir Putin as a bare-chested martial artist who goes hunting.  And then they show Barack Obama as a scrawny wuss who wears mom pants while riding a bicycle with a geeky helmet on his dumbo-eared head.  Will the real man please stand up?  And Obama is either having a fundraising party or going on vacation.  But it certainly aint him.

Do you want to know what is happening right now?  We’re replaying World War II all over again – only in this new incarnation, it is Neville Chamberlain who is the hero by allowing Hitler to do whatever he wants under the belief that if you allow evil to rule, evil will eventually stop on its own (and as everyone who isn’t a fool knows, it won’t).

I have in numerous articles compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  And Obama has now BECOME Neville Chamberlain: a petty tyrant domestically who proved himself to be a pathological coward in every way that counted.

Did you know that Ukraine had a TREATY that the United States under Bill Clinton signed swearing to PROTECT Ukraine and specifically Crimea FROM RUSSIA???  Do you have any idea what the CONSEQUENCES are of just letting Russia make the America that put its credibility and prestige on the line look like a bunch of weak and ineffectual cowards???

As weak, as pathetic, as godawful as I thought Obama has been, even I didn’t begin to grasp just how truly and stunningly demon-possessed-naively-incompetent Barack Obama and his administration is.

As we speak, Sarah Palin’s prediction is coming about with biblical accuracy:

“After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”

Realize that Palin was saying this in the aftermath of Putin’s seizure of two republics from the sovereign nation of Georgia with less than three months remaining in George W. Bush’s presidency.  Putin took advantage of the fact that Democrats and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry had demonized Bush as some kind of vicious warmonger, such that Bush could do nothing.  It was the end of eight years in which Democrats had demonized Bush as a monster who had started two wars.  Had Bush confronted Putin strongly over Georgia, Obama and Democrats would have been saying, “You see?  There he goes again starting wars!”  It was going to be up to Democrats what kind of response America gave.  And they promised to be completely different from Bush’s aggression.

You tell ME what Democrats – and particularly Obama – would have said if Bush had sent troops to the Ukraine.  Anybody who tries to argue that Bush didn’t go into Ukraine so Obama shouldn’t have to is a dishonest idiot.  Because you shouldn’t blame Bush for not doing something you damn well know you would have demonized him for doing had he done it.

Bush started out strong and ended up weak in his foreign policy because Democrats had demonized him every single time he tried to stand up for America.  Obama started out weak and has just gotten weaker and weaker and weaker until America under his failed policies no longer matters in our enemies’ calculations.

Most Republicans would support Obama if he offered a strong response against Russia.  Democrats NEVER support a Republican president for ANY strong response ANYWHERE.  And that is a fact.

And the Democrat response, as history records, was pathetic.  Obama radiated weakness, as Sarah Palin pointed out.  Putin STILL has those republics in Georgia that he invaded and he has never given them back and never will.  And Obama literally said his policy was weakness and not to do a damn thing which told Putin WHAT about invading Ukraine???

Putin has been planning this seizure of Crimea.  Do you know what was holding him back?  It wasn’t fear of America under Obama’s gutless cowardly leadership.  Putin fears Obama the way a bear fears a cotton-tail bunny.  The only thing that made Putin hesitate to seize Crimea from Ukraine was the Olympic Games.  And with Sochi over with, Putin moved right in.  Rest assured, whatever “unrest” happened in Ukraine happened because of Russian agitation according to Putin’s plan.  And that unrest gave Putin all the pretext he felt he needed to do whatever he wanted while Obama sat there like a weak, skinny little punk who was too weak and too afraid to do anything and knew he was too weak and too afraid to do anything.

Sarah Palin understood the essence of Obama was an empty suit who could give speeches and sign executive orders but had no integrity and no leadership.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane and see WHAT Ukraine gave up to HAVE that treaty and what America’s betrayal – specifically Barack Obama’s betrayal of America – will now cost Ukraine:

Ukraine to disarm, Clinton says CLINTON IN EUROPE
January 11, 1994|By Carl M. Cannon

BRUSSELS, Belgium — President Clinton, hailing “a hopeful and historic breakthrough,” announced yesterday an agreement that would finally remove all nuclear weapons from Ukraine — the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.

The bulk of that arsenal is pointed at the United States from the time when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, but it is fear of Moscow that has lately made Ukrainians anxious about giving up the weapons as agreed to under earlier treaties.

The agreement announced yesterday contains guarantees that neither Russia or the United States would launch a nuclear attack against Ukraine. Ukraine will also get hundreds of millions of dollars to help dismantle the nuclear arsenal and considerable assistance in advancing its peaceful nuclear energy program.

Many details about the nuclear removal appeared to remain unsettled yesterday, but a clearly delighted Mr. Clinton said that he would stop off at the Ukrainian capital of Kiev tomorrow to thank Ukraine President Leonid Kravchuk personally before going to Moscow.

Details had to be worked out, and here was one of the big details finalized in 1997:

KIEV, Ukraine — Ending one of history’s oldest fraternal feuds, Russia and Ukraine signed away a millennium of rivalry and resentment Saturday with a friendship treaty destined to shape a new era of relations between Europe’s biggest states.

With his signature on the accord pledging respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin gave up Moscow’s long-running claims on Crimea. An accompanying agreement resolved years of dispute over who will inherit the Soviet-era Black Sea Fleet.

The opening la-de-da words of that one reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s epically stupid “reset” (well, actually “overcharge”) button with Russia as she and Obama affirmed that absolute, historic GUTLESSNESS was the way to power, prestige and wealth.

Let’s revisit an event in 2008, when Russia was building a dam that called into question Ukraine’s sovereignty.  It mentions the specifics of the treaty that Clinton had committed the United States to:

On Wednesday, lawmaker Yuri Yekhanurov called into question the security guarantees under which Ukraine agreed to disarm and urged a revival to Ukraine’s nuclear status.

In 1994, the United States, Russia and Britain guaranteed they would not attack Ukraine, which in turn sent some 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Under the deal, the U.S., Russia and Britain undertook to respect Ukraine’s existing borders, not to use economic coercion on Ukraine and not to attack the country except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. ambassador to Kiev, John E. Herbst, told journalists this week that the U.S. supported Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

And so yes, Russia didn’t just attack Ukraine.  Russia attacked the United States of America:

Ukraine’s territorial integrity guaranteed under 1994 deal
AFP
March 3, 2014 10:06 AM

Moscow (AFP) – Former Ukrainian prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko claimed on Monday that by “occupying” Crimea, Russia had not only declared war on Ukraine but also on Britain and the United States.

That is because on December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia along with Britain and the United States signed an agreement in which the three powers guaranteed the territorial integrity of the former Soviet republic in exchange for Kiev giving up nuclear weapons.

The Black Sea peninsula is currently under de-facto occupation by pro-Kremlin troops, a situation which has been embraced by the local Russian speaking population fearing Kiev’s new authorities.

However, under the terms of the 1994 so-called Budapest memorandum the three major powers affirmed their commitment to respect the independence, sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine. It was signed three years after Ukraine became an independent state.

Russia, the US and Britain also agreed to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons would ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

In the memorandum, they also agreed to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine if Kiev should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

In breaking America’s word to Ukraine, Barack Obama may just as well have issued an official decree in a speech from the Oval Office that he was abrogating all treaties and that the United States could and would break any and all treaty agreements and promises at any time if they inconvenienced Obama in any way, shape or form.

Think about it.  Because every single nation on earth that has ever depended on any agreement with the United States is sure thinking about it.

I remember the Democrats and Obama mocking the forty nation “coalition of the willing” that George W. Bush assembled when he went into Afghanistan and Iraq beginning in 2001.  Do you know how many nations Barack Obama – the arrogant Chump-in-Chief – has been able to muster lately?

Try a big fat ZERO.

When Obama issued his infamous “red line” warning to Syria, how many allies were willing to go with him?  ZERO.

As Obama announced his policy of sanctions against Russia in the aftermath of this new Hitler annexing Poland issue, how many allies could Obama muster just for a miserable sanction???  ZERO.  Not even Britain will go along with the Sissy-in-Chief.  And it is DEMOCRATS who are resisting Obama’s pathetically weak response.

Think of it, because it is astonishing: the man who mocked Bush’s coalition has pissed away every friend we have and all the clout we had such that he doesn’t have even ONE ally on earth.

This is because Barack Obama has spent the past five years abandoning every single friend and emboldening every single foe.

Obama has weakened America on every imaginable level: we are weaker economically under his failed leadership, with the all-important measure of labor participation (the number of working-age adults who have a damn JOB) at a 37-year low.  Obama has weakened America militarily, having after spending YEARS undermining our military just called to make it weaker than at any time since before World War II just when America should have been showing STRENGTH instead.  And Obama has weakened us diplomatically by betraying our friends and emboldening our enemies across the world.

Do you know who also refused to take our side against Russia?  China.  Do you know why?  Because China has hunger for territorial seizure, too.  And they want to get some of what Russia just got.  You can count on China doing what Russia just did.

We’re going to learn the answer to the question, “What if Hitler and Stalin ruled the world and America was too weak and too isolated to do anything about it.”  Because that’s what’s happening now thanks to false messiah Obama.

The United States will literally have to fight a World War III at unimaginable cost to get back the credibility and prestige that Barack Obama foolishly and frankly insanely pissed away.  And if we don’t demonstrate a powerful willingness to fight World War III, we will instead decline and decline and decline some more as the American standard of life that DEPENDED upon U.S. power dwindles into poverty.

THAT is your future because you were stupid enough and depraved enough to elect and then incredibly RE-elect Barack Hussein Obama.  And one day you’ll burn in hell for it along with all your other sins against God.

This is the thing about liberals.  Liberals are people who are utterly without genuine principle.  Which means they will make a deal, promise that if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, and so on, but the moment it is politically expedient for them to abandon their promise, you can count on them to make themselves liars and hypocrites.  It is simply who they are.  Period.  End of story.

Tags: , , , ,

9 Responses to “U.S. GUARANTEED Ukraine’s Borders: It Is Simply STUNNING How Obama Has Played The Part Of WWII Patsy Neville Chamberlain”

  1. reasonablyliberal1 Says:

    The U.S. signed an agreement in 1994 to not invade the Ukraine. So did Russia. Russia just breached the agreement, the U.S. did not.

  2. reasonablyliberal1 Says:

    Ukraine is not a part of NATO and the U.S. does not have and obligation to go to war for it.

  3. Michael Eden Says:

    You are entirely wrong.

    “On December 5, 1994, Ukraine, Russia along with Britain and the United States signed an agreement in which the three powers guaranteed the territorial integrity of the former Soviet republic in exchange for Kiev giving up nuclear weapons.”

    The United States did NOT merely agree not to attack Ukraine. That is frankly idiotic, and I demand that you explain to me how that would have motivated a Ukraine that was PARANOID about Russian aggression deciding to give up their only defense against Russia? How full of idiocy are you to suggest that??? The United States GUARANTEED the integrity of Ukraine’s borders. We promised WE would stop any Russian invasion.

    And because it was a liberal who MADE that promise (Clinton) and a liberal who broke it (Obama), I can state with complete authority that Democrats are genuine liars and that only fools trust a damn thing they say.

  4. reasonablyliberal1 Says:

    Article 6 states that the signitories of the Budapest memorandum will consult in the event of a situation that raises a question about the commitments in the treaty, which they just did.

    I cannot find any source that states we MUST to militarily intervene on behalf of the Ukraine. The U.S. only guaranteed not to attack the Ukraine.

    According to Wikipedia, the countries that signed should:
    Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
    Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
    Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
    Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
    Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
    Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.

    Feel free to check these out:

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/03/05/US-UK-try-to-bring-Russia-into-diplomatic-dialogue-with-Ukraine/1531394028014/?spt=sec&or=tn

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/does_the_1994_budapest_memorandum_obligate_the_us_to_intervene_in_ukraine.html

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/04/1282010/-Ukraine-crisis-What-does-the-Budapest-Memorandum-obligate-the-U-S-to-do

    http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

  5. reasonablyliberal1 Says:

    Didn’t they call Jesus the Prince of War? Oh, no….I’m sorry…I think it was something else….hmmmm….what was it again?

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    There is a reason why journalists are pointing out that yes, the treaty DOES guarantee Ukraine’s borders.

    Again, you are simply wrong. And the fact that you can’t find squat only means that all you GOT is squat. But it is in fact in one of your links. The first and fourth point strike home as most obvious:

    1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine;

    2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

    3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

    4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used;

    5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclearweapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State;

    6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

    This Memorandum will become applicable upon signature.

    And in fact it was signed by Bill Clinton.

    Now, the treaty specifically refers twice to “the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.” I note that you couldn’t care less about that and have no link to it. But I do and so I have.

    http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true

    We have therein a section on “the inviolability of frontiers,” specifically referring of course to Ukraine’s fear that Russia would invade them.

    But I want you to explain to me how 1) the United States is affirming any commitment to Ukraine “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” if it passively allows a co-signatory ignore Ukraine’s sovereignty which by treaty you have affirmed and then to forcibly invade the existing borders of Ukraine. And then explain to me about this ‘”COMMITTMENT’ to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression.”

    I see Bill Clinton in you. He was a man who played at words, who would cleverly use his words to make it APPEAR as if he had made a promise, but when it came time for him to honor his word, he would weasel out, saying, “That’s not what I said. I said this, and technically I don’t have to do what you thought I agreed that I would do.” That pathological desire to deceive emerged most clearly when Clinton played that game with Monica Lewinsky after literally getting caught red-handed with his sperm on her dress and he said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

    You liberals are such pathological WEASELS. You make promises to get what you want and then you renege on your promises. You’ve done it over and over and over. You’re an Obama who can promise if you like your doctor and your health plan I guarantee you can keep your doctor and your health plan, period and end of story” when you’re just lying out your ass and you’re going to break your commitment as soon as it suits your amoral interests to do so. And then you try to conceal the fact that you are a hypocrite and a liar without shame in a bunch of garbage rhetoric.

    There is no question: we committed to ensure the sovereignty of Ukraine and its borders from a nation that it feared would INVADE it as the basis for getting them to give up their nuclear weapons. Ukraine is crystal clear in screaming that they never would have given up their nuclear weapons if they had had any thought that the U.S. could weasel out under technicalities from dishonest liars like you.

    If we don’t help Ukraine now, NO OTHER NATION ON EARTH SHOULD EVER TRUST ANYTHING THE UNITED STATES EVER PROMISES TO DO EVER AGAIN. PERIOD. END OF STORY (to put it in Obama terms).

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    Didn’t they call Jesus the Prince of War? Oh, no….I’m sorry…I think it was something else….hmmmm….what was it again?

    reasonablyliberal1,

    This is all I need to know that I’m talking to a pathologically dishonest hypocrite.

    You dishonest liars lecture us on “separation of church and state” which to you means the abolishment of any scintilla of religion from public life. And then you “fundamentally transform” Jesus into some kind of communist socialist wuss just like you are the moment it suits you – all the while loudly lecturing me that I have no right to similarly impose my religious views on anybody like you’re doing to me.

    If you wanted a theocracy, go ahead and bring it on. And we’ll talk about how the Bible says God would rule a government (hint: you homosexuals and baby killing abortionists wouldn’t like it AT ALL). But of course you’re too much of a dishonest hypocrite for that. Nope, it’s no Jesus until YOU bring in Jesus. But of course how DARE I bring in Jesus.

    The Bible is to you nothing more than a game for you to manipulate the rules, just as ALL truth is nothing but a game to you in which you constantly manipulate the rules so that the truth is a lie (e.g., “God loves it when mothers murder their very own BABIES”) and a lie is truth (e.g. “God loves homosexuality”). You constantly pervert the truth and smile at how clever you are in how you did it.

    The fact of the matter is that you’re flat out wrong. Because let me quote you a passage about Jesus:

    11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He 5had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in 6fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a 7sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. — Revelation 19:11-16.

    Oh, my goodness. What does the Bible say about Jesus: “in righteousness He judges and makes war“??? Oh, darn, I guess you’re point is completely bogus, then, isn’t it???

    That is in fulfillment of the Old Testament Messianic Scriptures (i.e. fulfilled by Messiah) such as this one:

    “The Lord is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations, He will fill them with corpses, He will shatter the chief men over a broad country.” — Psalm 110:5-6

    And Isaiah 34:1-3:

    “Draw near, O nations, to hear; and listen, O peoples! Let the earth and all it contains hear, and the world and all that springs from it. For the LORD’S indignation is against all the nations, And His wrath against all their armies; He has utterly destroyed them, He has given them over to slaughter. So their slain will be thrown out, And their corpses will give off their stench, And the mountains will be drenched with their blood.”

    And Joel 3:9-13:

    9Proclaim this among the nations:
    Prepare a war; rouse the mighty men!
    Let all the soldiers draw near, let them come up!
    10Beat your plowshares into swords
    And your pruning hooks into spears;
    Let the weak say, “I am a mighty man.”

    11Hasten and come, all you surrounding nations,
    And gather yourselves there.
    Bring down, O LORD, Your mighty ones.

    12Let the nations be aroused
    And come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat,
    For there I will sit to judge
    All the surrounding nations
    .

    13Put in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe.
    Come, tread, for the wine press is full;
    The vats overflow, for their wickedness is great
    .

    Oh, and Isaiah 63:1-6:

    Who is this who comes from Edom, With garments of glowing colors from Bozrah, This One who is majestic in His apparel, Marching in the greatness of His strength? “It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save.” Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like the one who treads in the wine press? “I have trodden the wine trough alone, And from the peoples there was no man with Me. I also trod them in My anger And trampled them in My wrath; And their lifeblood is sprinkled on My garments, And I stained all My raiment. For the day of vengeance was in My heart, And My year of redemption has come. I looked, and there was no one to help, And I was astonished and there was no one to uphold; So My own arm brought salvation to Me, And My wrath upheld Me. I trod down the peoples in My anger And made them drunk in My wrath, And I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.”

    And there are a WHOLE BUNCH of passages like that. Jesus will one day be dripping wet from the blood of all the enemies of God that He just slaughtered. So please have some vague clue and ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN JESUS before you try to throw Him up as a defense for your deceit.

    Here is your problem: on the one hand you’re an abject dishonest HYPOCRITE without shame, honor, integrity or virtue simply for (as a liberal) mentioning Jesus to exemplify how one who said “I came to fulfill the Law” would govern a nation. When of course at the same time you’re doing this, you’ve done everything POSSIBLE to purge the Jesus you’re now citing from public life.

    And then to make your hypocrisy even worse you are just flat out wrong with your point. Because Jesus WILL slaughter the wicked in a total bloodbath. And you will likely be among them when He does.

    St. Paul mentions government as having this duty: “For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Romans 13:3-4

    Which is to say that the Bible gives government not merely the right but the DUTY to use the sword to punish the wicked as an “avenger who brings wrath.”

    So as with everything else you think you know, you are simply flat wrong.

    And, of course, there’s another way you lie and pervert the truth. In your snide remark invoking Jesus, you are illegitimately trying to claim some moral high ground when you got no such ground, you sodomite-worshiping baby murderer. You falsely claim that I want war, but Jesus is a Prince of Peace. I don’t want war, you liar. I want a strong military and a clearly-stated national security policy so that we WON’T have a war. It is you Democrats who want war, and in fact want a bloodbath of Americans because you want to leave us weak and blind just as you’ve been doing the last forty years since a Democrat President started the Vietnam War.

    Let’s consider who started the wars we’ve had for the last hundred years and how many Americans were killed in each to see which party wants “war” more:

    World War I – waged by Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. American soldiers killed: 116,516
    World War II – waged by FDR, Democrat. American soldiers killed: 405,399
    Korea – waged by Harry Truman, Democrat. American soldiers killed: 36,516
    Vietnam – waged by LBJ, Democrat. American soldiers killed: 58,209.
    Grenada – waged by Ronald Reagan, Republican. American soldiers killed:20
    Panama – waged by George H.W. Bush, Republican. American soldiers killed: 23
    Gulf War – waged by George H.W. Bush, Republican. American soldiers killed: 294
    Iraq War – waged by George W. Bush, Republican. American soldiers killed: 4,487
    Afghanistan War – waged by George W. Bush, Republican AND Barack Obama, Democrat
    U.S. Casualties under Bush: 630
    U.S. Casualties under Obama 1,681

    So I did the math, and I noticed that liberals want dead Americans to the tune of 618,321 dead Americans versus Republicans who only want them to the tune of 5,454 dead Americans.

    So Democrats are warmongers to the tune of 113 times more than Republicans. And it would REALLY get ugly if I added the Civil War when Democrats were responsible for all 600,000 plus dead Americans because they tried to destroy the United States while fighting for slavery while a Republican president led Republican-voting states to fight for decency and morality.

    There are Putins in the world. You either have and are willing to project the strength to deter them or they will become increasingly bold until we have to fight and prevail in a GIANT war to survive. Republicans have long held the belief that JFK and LBJ wisely held and Democrats held until they turned truly evil: if you have a powerful military and show a willingness to project force, you WON’T have to fight a deadlier war. It comes down to this: Republicans fight small wars that we can win so that we can deter aggressive enemies from provoking us into big ones. Democrats of today refuse to fight the small wars which emboldens our enemies into becoming so aggressive that we have to fight a shockingly bloody world war in order to prevail.

    So please don’t cite Jesus to insinuate that you’re not on the side of war and death, you whose party has planted way over a million American graves going back to the Civl War. You don’t get to lecture me on which party has the worst history in war, because it’s YOUR party. Not mine.

    Now, get lost. I’m through with you. I am simply not going to waste my time arguing with somebody who lives in their own dishonest world with his own dishonest facts. I am particularly not going to argue with somebody whose ideology largely constitutes screaming at me for bringing in my religion only to lecture me with YOUR miserable excuse of a religion. Especially when you fundamentally misrepresent Jesus when you do so (as I just documented) the same way you fundamentally misrepresent ALL truth.

  8. Hans Wust Says:

    At first glance, this article seems rather a joke for people that warp the Bible to make it support their chauvinist views.
    Later on, this assessment is widely confirmed.
    Anyway, it’s good to laugh sometimes.

  9. Michael Eden Says:

    Hans Wust,

    Your real name is “Hans Wuss.” Because you are a true wussy to so completely and profoundly lack the courage to actually have either the balls or the basic decency to actually ARGUE that whatever point you are trying to make has any merit whatsoever.

    You are what I call a “drive by rhetoric terrorist.” You don’t have an argument. You don’t have any facts. All you have is a rabid God-hating bias and the vileness to attack someone under the false pretense that that person has a weak argument WHEN YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT WHATSOVER and can’t even point out ONE SINGLE THING that is wrong with any of his/her facts.

    Get lost. There is no point debating someone who has no facts and doesn’t have the integrity to care that he doesn’t have any facts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: