Trump: I would settle the war in 24 hours. I want everybody to stop dying

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation.  

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

How would a President Fuzzy have gone about trying to effect such a settlement, and what would be the terms of such a settlement that President Fuzzy would try to get the parties to accept, and what forms of pressure would Fuzzy employ to try to cause such an acceptance on the otherwise recalcitrant parties?

Generalized statements that sound nice to the ears of some is no substitute for the particulars.

A fair enough question.  I would actually have to think about this for species.  For starters, however,  I would have not used the rhetoric of calling Putin a War Criminal, genocidal,  etc.  I don't believe he is "genocidal" in the sense of a Hitler.  As for being a "war criminal", no one believes that Putin will surrender himself to the Hague.  This rhetoric locks him in.  It may well be true, but it serves no purpose.

Americans should not want such a person as America's leader.  But America's leaders ought to recognize the World as it is and its leaders as they are.  Ousting Putin from power will likely require World War III.  Reality suggests that we begin at that point.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Also an important follow up question to what Trump says here is what his plan is to deal with the war crimes Russia has committed that Ukraine wants justice for, because his obvious answer will be nothing showing that he wants Russia to get away with what it has done

[Meclazine for Israel]

How a Trump Presidency would change the Ukrainian War.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65573756

[It’s so Joever]

Shame Trump did not show this same empathy to the Yemenis while he was President.

The situations in Ukraine and Yemen are fundamentally different. In Yemen, the Houthis are a terrorist group attacking innocent civilians in Saudi Arabia while working with Hamas and Iran. They cannot be negotiated with because their goal is death and destruction -- compromise with Iran or with the Houthis is nothing more than a truce for them to attack yet again. By contrast, Putin's goal in Ukraine is territorial expansion for political and international power. That makes Putin dangerous because he could always attack again, whether in Ukraine or elsewhere -- but also means Putin can be negotiated with. While we can debate the merits of Trump's specific call here, this isn't a question of empathy, but of two differing situations.

Let’s break this mess down.

1. The Houthis absolutely are a terrorist group working with Iran and are attacking civilians. Russia is doing the same but on a larger scale, they are acting worse than terrorists because they have the capacity to do so. (Also the Saudis are absolutely mass murdering the Yemeni people as well, I’m shocked you didn’t mentioned that)

2. The main Houthi goal is governance of Yemen. They will use death and destruction to get there but they are fundamentally interested in controlling Yemen. Your point about the Houthis not having concrete political aims is laughable at best. Their entire goal is political power.

3. Compromising with the Russians is only asking for future attacks. Remember Georgia? Remember Crimea? The Russian state will not cease in its current leadership until all of Ukraine is absorbed and the Ukrainian people are a footnote in history.

4. The Houthis can be negotiated with you have no argument against that.

5. “That makes Putin dangerous because he could always attack again” wait wait wait. You previously justified not negotiating with the Houthis because they could just attack again, are you reading your own posts??

6. Just say you will support Trump no matter what he does and be honest instead of having these pathetic “arguments”. A long paragraph of text doesn’t make you right.

[It’s so Joever]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation.  

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

How would a President Fuzzy have gone about trying to effect such a settlement, and what would be the terms of such a settlement that President Fuzzy would try to get the parties to accept, and what forms of pressure would Fuzzy employ to try to cause such an acceptance on the otherwise recalcitrant parties?

Generalized statements that sound nice to the ears of some is no substitute for the particulars.

A fair enough question.  I would actually have to think about this for species.  For starters, however,  I would have not used the rhetoric of calling Putin a War Criminal, genocidal,  etc.  I don't believe he is "genocidal" in the sense of a Hitler.  As for being a "war criminal", no one believes that Putin will surrender himself to the Hague.  This rhetoric locks him in.  It may well be true, but it serves no purpose.

Americans should not want such a person as America's leader.  But America's leaders ought to recognize the World as it is and its leaders as they are.  Ousting Putin from power will likely require World War III.  Reality suggests that we begin at that point.

If a mass murderer doesn’t turn himself in and is never caught, is he not a criminal anymore?

[It’s so Joever]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation. 

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

This was already proven to be a lie when you claimed it last time. This statement is actually hilarious that you believe it.

Our efforts in Afghanistan in the 1980s stopped well short of the kind of proxy war we are fighting today.

This is more akin to if the USSR invaded Finland, which they didn’t because they weren’t that crazy. But Putin is.

[Badger]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation. 

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

The other foolishness of not recognizing that Russia media, government, military, and pretty much all Society have called for literal genocide of ukraine. This statement is foolish is stacked upon foolishness. How foolish does one have to be to actually say this and believe it? Utter foolishness.

[South Dakota Democrat]

W answers by Trump:

Kaitlan: "Who do you want to win, Ukraine or Russia?" (Like it's a sporting event)

"I don't think in terms of winning and losing. I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing these people"
"I want everybody to stop dying, Russians and Ukrainians"

Political nerds and Twitter users might not be so engaged. But your average normie would look at this and agree with these statements.

Weren't you supposed to leave for a year?

[South Dakota Democrat]

I still don't understand why anyone ever liked this clown.

Fat people like to see themselves represented in politics and media. It's that simple.

As a fat person...wtf?

[Badger]

W answers by Trump:

Kaitlan: "Who do you want to win, Ukraine or Russia?" (Like it's a sporting event)

"I don't think in terms of winning and losing. I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing these people"
"I want everybody to stop dying, Russians and Ukrainians"

Political nerds and Twitter users might not be so engaged. But your average normie would look at this and agree with these statements.

Weren't you supposed to leave for a year?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Rs are losing not be ause the War in Ukraine they are losing they voted with Neocon Ds for 76 B in Ukraine funds and they call for an Elimination of Student loans Forgiveness all of it that is against the Bankruptcy Reform Bill of 2005 all Debt don't have to be paid, Creditors can liquidate your assets but can't arrest you

Biden is a neocon he voted for the 2002 war in Iraq that's why he lost the D nomination for Prez I. 2007 and became Veep, not all Ds support unlimited funds for Ukraine and if Bernie was Prez or Warren Michael Moore would pressure either one for a ceasefire, Michael Moore hasn't said where he stands on Ukraine because Biden not Bernie or Warren are in office he stays silent he just says he isn't a neocon

I am received so many fake FBI investigation into me not paying back my 300 in payday loans and creditors get a Discharge like we do they can file it off as a charge off in their taxes if someone doesn't pays

The Rs are trying to make us pay our Student Loans and their Corporate bosses won't give everyone a Guarenteed White collar job but a Walmart job due to At will employment, that's why there are Labor Shortages

You get hired in the spot in a factory job at a job fair but what about a Hotel job that pays 19 an hr or Secretary of state job oh we will get back to you on the interviews, you can't even become a flight attendant without successful passing an interview

But, it will help if  blks not get 5 M in Reparations but 30 K

[HillGoose]

I don’t think the American people are dumb enough to believe that Trump could end the war in 24 hours. That’s a ludicrous claim.

I certainly don't believe it, but it amazes me the degree to which diplomatic efforts have not been attempted in this situation.  

The Soviet Union, back in the day, invaded East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia to (A) put down rebellions against Soviet rule and (B) install new governments that would be satellites of Moscow.  We condemned these actions, but we did not send troops, nor did we wage proxy wars against the Soviet Union.  We considered this not to be in our national interest.  It IS a fair question to ask why our current policy is in the American interest.  I certainly think it's in America's interest not to simply let aggression against sovereign nations stand, but Russia is a nuclear power, and we respond against nations with nukes differently than we do against nations that don't.  If that sounds crassly unfair, it's also reality and for good reasons.   I question the lack of efforts to bring about some kind of negotiated settlement to this situation, and I consider that particular tack to be, at a minimum, unrealistic.

How would a President Fuzzy have gone about trying to effect such a settlement, and what would be the terms of such a settlement that President Fuzzy would try to get the parties to accept, and what forms of pressure would Fuzzy employ to try to cause such an acceptance on the otherwise recalcitrant parties?

Generalized statements that sound nice to the ears of some is no substitute for the particulars.

A fair enough question.  I would actually have to think about this for species.  For starters, however,  I would have not used the rhetoric of calling Putin a War Criminal, genocidal,  etc.  I don't believe he is "genocidal" in the sense of a Hitler.  As for being a "war criminal", no one believes that Putin will surrender himself to the Hague.  This rhetoric locks him in.  It may well be true, but it serves no purpose.

Americans should not want such a person as America's leader.  But America's leaders ought to recognize the World as it is and its leaders as they are.  Ousting Putin from power will likely require World War III.  Reality suggests that we begin at that point.

hell ya it would, for God and country, lets get it done !

unfortunately American politicians are too much hippie peaceniks for that

[Pericles]

Is Fuzzy going senile? It's called the Cold War for a reason, the US and USSR waged proxy wars against each other across the world. The expense of this even contributed to the collapse of Communism, which was obviously a victory for the US, though saying 'Reagan won the Cold War' is grossly simplistic.