Last night, I caught part of Bill O’Reilly’s interview with President Trump, including an exchange that drained the moderate amount of enthusiasm I’ve been able to muster for the new president. O’Reilly asked Trump whether he respects Vladimir Putin. Trump said he does, but that this doesn’t mean he will get along with him.

No major problem so far. In a sense, I think you have to respect what Putin, operating from a position of weakness, has been able to accomplish at the expense of the United States.

However, O’Reilly followed up with an obvious objection: “But he’s a killer, though; Putin’s a killer.”

Trump answered this charge basically the same way he did as a presidential candidate:

There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot killers. What do you think? Our country is so innocent.

Trump was now suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between the U.S. and Russia under Putin. Would he back this up with specifics; if so, which ones?

The U.S. isn’t entirely innocent. Trump might have cited our treatment of the American Indians in the 19th century, for example. Andrew Jackson can be thought of as a “killer” we respect.

But this isn’t what Trump had in mind. Instead, he cited the Iraq War, and repeated his false claim that he opposed it from the beginning.

The Iraq War may have been a mistake — it was, in all events, fought under a mistaken premise. However, fighting that war in an order to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction does not make the U.S. and its then-president “killers.”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20...valent.php

I've said it before. He's being a moron by making these comparisons.

He's always been very critical of W.

This is nothing new.

As bad as his opinion of W. is, the left is going to have to quit saying he is in love with Putin. Comparing him to W. is the ultimate insult in Trump's mind.

War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

(02-06-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  As bad as his opinion of W. is, the left is going to have to quit saying he is in love with Putin. Comparing him to W. is the ultimate insult in Trump's mind.

strongly disagree. This is Trump defending Putin not Trump offending Bush. This is a very serious problem.

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

MUH PUTIN!

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

(02-06-2017 12:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

so your example is from 180 years ago?

After WWII the world grew up and decided said actions were no longer tolerable and that thinking has been in place ever since then.

Also the land we took from Mexico was frontier land. there is a massive difference between taking unsettled land verse land settled by a different ethnic group with a different history, religion, language, culture, etc. That's why trying to compare the Mexican-American war to other examples "israel occupation) is stupid.

The US didn't take modern day Mexico and Mexico scoffed at the Zimmerman Telegram for the very same reason. Frontier land vs settled land is fundamentally different.

(02-06-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  As bad as his opinion of W. is, the left is going to have to quit saying he is in love with Putin. Comparing him to W. is the ultimate insult in Trump's mind.

strongly disagree. This is Trump defending Putin not Trump offending Bush. This is a very serious problem.

Trump has publicly said Bush was a terrible president. He holds the Bushes in contempt and the feeling is mutual.

(02-06-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  As bad as his opinion of W. is, the left is going to have to quit saying he is in love with Putin. Comparing him to W. is the ultimate insult in Trump's mind.

strongly disagree. This is Trump defending Putin not Trump offending Bush. This is a very serious problem.

Trump has publicly said Bush was a terrible president. He holds the Bushes in contempt and the feeling is mutual.

I know reading is hard but please look at the bold.

(02-06-2017 12:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

The reference to Putin was in that he kills journalists who disagree with him. What journalist did Bush kill?

(02-06-2017 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  As bad as his opinion of W. is, the left is going to have to quit saying he is in love with Putin. Comparing him to W. is the ultimate insult in Trump's mind.

strongly disagree. This is Trump defending Putin not Trump offending Bush. This is a very serious problem.

Trump has publicly said Bush was a terrible president. He holds the Bushes in contempt and the feeling is mutual.

I know reading is hard but please look at the bold.

I know keeping up is hard but I've already said "He's being a moron by making these comparisons."

That being said, the intent by Trump is not to elevate Putin, rather to demean Bush.... It's not what he is accomplishing, but it's his intent.

(02-06-2017 12:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

so your example is from 180 years ago?

After WWII the world grew up and decided said actions were no longer tolerable and that thinking has been in place ever since then.

Also the land we took from Mexico was frontier land. there is a massive difference between taking unsettled land verse land settled by a different ethnic group with a different history, religion, language, culture, etc. That's why trying to compare the Mexican-American war to other examples "israel occupation) is stupid.

The US didn't take modern day Mexico and Mexico scoffed at the Zimmerman Telegram for the very same reason. Frontier land vs settled land is fundamentally different.

We've destabilize countries in the last few years. Iraq, Ukraine, and the Arab spring come to mind. We've droned thousands and our CIA assassinated people.

We're not innocent.

(02-06-2017 12:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

so your example is from 180 years ago?

After WWII the world grew up and decided said actions were no longer tolerable and that thinking has been in place ever since then.

Also the land we took from Mexico was frontier land. there is a massive difference between taking unsettled land verse land settled by a different ethnic group with a different history, religion, language, culture, etc. That's why trying to compare the Mexican-American war to other examples "israel occupation) is stupid.

The US didn't take modern day Mexico and Mexico scoffed at the Zimmerman Telegram for the very same reason. Frontier land vs settled land is fundamentally different.

We've destabilize countries in the last few years. Iraq, Ukraine, and the Arab spring come to mind. We've droned thousands and our CIA assassinated people.

We're not innocent.

Syria, Libya also. I don't see a net gain in the MENA medding. We do alot of it on behalf on Saudi Arabia.

(02-06-2017 12:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

so your example is from 180 years ago?

After WWII the world grew up and decided said actions were no longer tolerable and that thinking has been in place ever since then.

Also the land we took from Mexico was frontier land. there is a massive difference between taking unsettled land verse land settled by a different ethnic group with a different history, religion, language, culture, etc. That's why trying to compare the Mexican-American war to other examples "israel occupation) is stupid.

The US didn't take modern day Mexico and Mexico scoffed at the Zimmerman Telegram for the very same reason. Frontier land vs settled land is fundamentally different.

It is a moot point. Have started wars on foreign lands .....yes. Have we backed anti government rebels, yes, regime change yes, backed assassinations, yes.

The thread is not about manifest destiny, taking land, and trying to spin it in in that direction is STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(02-06-2017 12:53 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:39 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  As bad as his opinion of W. is, the left is going to have to quit saying he is in love with Putin. Comparing him to W. is the ultimate insult in Trump's mind.

strongly disagree. This is Trump defending Putin not Trump offending Bush. This is a very serious problem.

Trump has publicly said Bush was a terrible president. He holds the Bushes in contempt and the feeling is mutual.

I know reading is hard but please look at the bold.

I know keeping up is hard but I've already said "He's being a moron by making these comparisons."

That being said, the intent by Trump is not to elevate Putin, rather to demean Bush.... It's not what he is accomplishing, but it's his intent.

you clearly don't have the ability to comprehend an interview. he clearly said it with the intent of defending Putin. that's indisputable. why is it always the cons on here who can't comprehend video evidence/transcripts?

(02-06-2017 01:08 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

so your example is from 180 years ago?

After WWII the world grew up and decided said actions were no longer tolerable and that thinking has been in place ever since then.

Also the land we took from Mexico was frontier land. there is a massive difference between taking unsettled land verse land settled by a different ethnic group with a different history, religion, language, culture, etc. That's why trying to compare the Mexican-American war to other examples "israel occupation) is stupid.

The US didn't take modern day Mexico and Mexico scoffed at the Zimmerman Telegram for the very same reason. Frontier land vs settled land is fundamentally different.

It is a moot point. Have started wars on foreign lands .....yes. Have we backed anti government rebels, yes, regime change yes, backed assassinations, yes.

The thread is not about manifest destiny, taking land, and trying to spin it in in that direction is STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

how is it a moot point? if you are going to compare the Mexican-American war to any other conflict then you also have to mention how it is so fundamentally different from most conflicts. I didn't bring up the mexican american war. I didn't bring up manifest destiny.

If you want to bring up our shady banana republic/cold war shenanigans fine. However they pale in comparison to Russia spending two centuries trying to conquer, dominate, and destabilize Europe and Eurasia.

(02-06-2017 12:59 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:35 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:22 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-06-2017 12:20 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  War is different than regime change and assassinations and or attempts. CIA has certainly been in this game. Argentina comes to mind. We have been aggressive in combating Communist Socialist countries regimes, both in fighting wars, Korea, Vietnam, and covert stuff. Although I don't want see people die it has probably been a positive.
We got dragged into 2 World Wars so it makes sense to whatever we need to nip it the bud globally. Fighting communist regimes is different than Islamic Terrorism though.

But when did we ever annex Chile or Argentina? When did we ever destabilize countries specifically to prevent them from becoming 1st world countries?

We annexed Texas to California. It used to be part of Mexico. We had a war with them and then we ended it by paying them 20 Million something like that. But the USA has destabilized dozens of other countries for various reasons.

so your example is from 180 years ago?

After WWII the world grew up and decided said actions were no longer tolerable and that thinking has been in place ever since then.

Also the land we took from Mexico was frontier land. there is a massive difference between taking unsettled land verse land settled by a different ethnic group with a different history, religion, language, culture, etc. That's why trying to compare the Mexican-American war to other examples "israel occupation) is stupid.

The US didn't take modern day Mexico and Mexico scoffed at the Zimmerman Telegram for the very same reason. Frontier land vs settled land is fundamentally different.

We've destabilize countries in the last few years. Iraq, Ukraine, and the Arab spring come to mind. We've droned thousands and our CIA assassinated people.

We're not innocent.

and yet the cons cheered on Putin for the airstrikes he carried out in Syria because Russia is significantly less restrained in their bombing missions than we are.

this whole talking from the cons is a massive contradiction.