The Communist Manifesto Makes More Sense Than it Used to, by John Engelman

[icanhelp1]

No..he didn't. He had a few equipment pieces from Russia because they saw an opportunity.

You are uninformed.

 

[ll74]

You are uninformed.

Lol .bullshit

 

[anarchoMando]

Happy mayday

Or other words happy international workers day

Solidarity to all

 

[pecksniff]

Happy mayday

Or other words happy international workers day

Solidarity to all

Called "Labor Day" elsewhere. For some reasons Americans had to be different and put Labor Day in September. Probably to avoid the socialist associations.

 

[icanhelp1]

Lol .bullshit

Back in 91 T-72s were a top line Russian tank which were fielded by the republican guard. Air defense systems were the best Russia had to offer.

 

[ll74]

Back in 91 T-72s were a top line Russian tank which were fielded by the republican guard. Air defense systems were the best Russia had to offer.

Yes, which is what I said...they had a few equipment pieces from Russia who saw an opportunity. I never was questioning the quality...just the amount provided. I doubt there were many outside Baghdad

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, which is what I said...they had a few equipment pieces from Russia who saw an opportunity. I never was questioning the quality...just the amount provided. I doubt there were many outside Baghdad

IRG had somewhere in the vicinity of 700 to 750 T-72s plus hundreds of 62s & 55s, that’s more than a few. Plus they were trained in Russian combat doctrine by Russian experts.

 

[pecksniff]

Of course, Hussein also had American weapons, supplied when that seemed like a good idea regarding any country fighting Iran.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Of course, Hussein also had American weapons, supplied when that seemed like a good idea regarding any country fighting Iran.

The United States supported both sides during the Iran Iraq War. We supported the side that was losing. We did not give it enough support to win, just enough to keep fighting and prolonging the War. If the side we had been supporting began to win, we switched our support to the other side.

 

[anarchoMando]

The United States supported both sides during the Iran Iraq War. We supported the side that was losing. We did not give it enough support to win, just enough to keep fighting and prolonging the War. If the side we had been supporting began to win, we switched our support to the other side.

I love you Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster you always make the most poignant message

 

[Ezkaton]

You know what the problem is there: No NATO member, including the U.S., dares engage Russia directly, for fear of nuclear escalation. The most we can do is what's being done now: Send Ukraine lots of weapons.

And that's risking Russian nukes too.

The problem here is that the risk and threat is already there and NATO is too chicken shit to do anything about it but sit in the corner and pull their pud while they watch Ukraine get fucked.

Cowardly fucks.

But, this situation has broader application: For similar reasons, it is not likely the U.S. will ever again fight the kind of war where victory goes to the side that can put more troops in the field.

You again show that you know very little to nothing about modern warfare.

Boots on the ground matter.

 

[Ezkaton]

In a country where the whole male population was subject to conscription. Hussein could always field more troops.

And yet he didn't and they got whooped before he had any ability to do so.

Boots on the ground matter peck,... just like socialism doesn't work for fuck all..... no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise the objective reality is that you are wrong.

 

[pecksniff]

And that's risking Russian nukes too.

The problem here is that the risk and threat is already there and NATO is too chicken shit to do anything about it but sit in the corner and pull their pud while they watch Ukraine get fucked.

Cowardly fucks.

So what should they do instead?

 

[YDB95]

Apparently you haven’t read about what life was like in the USSR prior to its implosion due to Reagan’s bankrupting it with his arms race.

Reagan didn't bankrupt it, it was already on its last legs when he took office. At best, Reagan sped up the inevitable by five years or so...and in the process, he bankrupted the USA for nothing.

 

[Ezkaton]

So what should they do instead?

End Russia.

Reagan didn't bankrupt it, it was already on its last legs when he took office. At best, Reagan sped up the inevitable by five years or so...and in the process, he bankrupted the USA for nothing.

Reagan didn't bankrupt the USA, 60 years of a wildly corrupt congress did that, you're a partisan idiot in desperate need of a basic civics class.

 

[pecksniff]

End Russia.

Impossible short of nuclear saturation.

 

[JohnEngelman]

End Russia.



Reagan didn't bankrupt the USA, 60 years of a wildly corrupt congress did that, you're a partisan idiot in desperate need of a basic civics class.

Those who bankrupted the United States were President Reagan and Congressional representatives who took Reagan's advice to cut taxes, especially for the rich, while raising military spending.

 

[DimmuBurger]

Impossible short of nuclear saturation.

Nope, they could be shut down before they knew what was happening just like Iraq.

 

[DimmuBurger]

Those who bankrupted the United States were President Reagan and Congressional representatives who took Reagan's advice to cut taxes, especially for the rich, while raising military spending.

Your anger and envy of those with more than you doesn't change the fact that Reagan had nothing to do with the US budget. No president is responsible for the actions of congress.

You need a remedial civics class.

 

[ll74]

Your anger and envy of those with more than you doesn't change the fact that Reagan had nothing to do with the US budget. No president is responsible for the actions of congress.

You need a remedial civics class.

The President makes a budget recommendation and is typically involved in negotiations of that budget. Reagan was part of that process.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Your anger and envy of those with more than you doesn't change the fact that Reagan had nothing to do with the US budget. No president is responsible for the actions of congress.

You need a remedial civics class.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves a personal attack: an argument based on the perceived failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case. In short, it's when your rebuttal to an opponent's position is an irrelevant attack on the opponent personally rather than the subject at hand, to discredit the position by discrediting its supporter. It translates as "against the man."

Using an ad hominem fallacy pulls the public's attention off the real issue and serves only as a distraction. In some contexts it's unethical. It's also called argumentum ad hominem, abusive ad hominem, poisoning the well, ad personam, and mudslinging. The attacks serve as red herrings to try to discredit or blunt the opponent's argument or make the public ignore it—it's not just a personal attack but one stated as a counterattack to the position.
https://www.thoughtco.com/ad-hominem-fallacy-1689062

---------

During the 1980 presidential campaign Reagan made it clear that he intended to cut taxes, raise military spending, and balance the budget. He claimed that all he would need to cut would be "waste, fraud, and abuse." Beyond that he was not specific about domestic spending programs he intended to cut.

---------

This is what the United States Constitution says:

The United States Constitution

Article I

Section 7: Legislative Process​

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated.

---------

Nevertheless, the way the system has evolved is that the President presents Congress with a budget. Each house of Congress adds and subtracts, and returns the budget to the President, who can sign or veto it. In other words, the initiative has passed to the President. In a column George Will said that if every one of Reagan's budgets had been passed in its entirety, the increase in the national debt would be only ten percent less than it was.

​

 

[ll74]

Lol....love the circle jerk you three have going on

 

[pecksniff]

Nope, they could be shut down before they knew what was happening just like Iraq.

Not even Hitler could end Russia.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

End Russia.



Reagan didn't bankrupt the USA, 60 years of a wildly corrupt congress did that, you're a partisan idiot in desperate need of a basic civics class.

Banned again. Tsk tsk

Lol