Is Trudeau out of his mind?

[blackbird]

Trudeau says Ukraine can strike deep into Russia with NATO arms, Putin hints at war (msn.com)

It sounds like this could trigger World War III.  Does Trudeau really know what he is talking about?

How is he qualified to say Ukraine can do this without triggering a war between Russia and NATO (the west)? 

Putin has stated that is a red line.  Of course sending long range missiles deep into Russia could have serious consequences for NATO, Europe, America, and Canada.  Does Trudeau really understand this?

How close are we to WWIII after Putin's latest threat to the West? (msn.com)

Edited September 14, 2024 by blackbird

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It sounds like this could trigger World War III.

Which is God's will, not Trudeau's.

26 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Putin has stated that is a red line.

Fu ck Putin.

[suds]

13 hours ago, blackbird said:

Trudeau says Ukraine can strike deep into Russia with NATO arms, Putin hints at war (msn.com)

It sounds like this could trigger World War III.  Does Trudeau really know what he is talking about?

How is he qualified to say Ukraine can do this without triggering a war between Russia and NATO (the west)? 

Putin has stated that is a red line.  Of course sending long range missiles deep into Russia could have serious consequences for NATO, Europe, America, and Canada.  Does Trudeau really understand this?

How close are we to WWIII after Putin's latest threat to the West? (msn.com)

If Trudeau really wants to stick his nose into something where it might not belong it should at the very least be consistent with present US/NATO policy. If not then he's getting into something way over his head.

[eyeball]

36 minutes ago, suds said:

If not then he's getting into something way over his head.

What part of fu ck Putin isn't there to get? When did the better dead than...red/Putin/whatever policy change?

[eyeball]

The west should put a $10 or $20 million bounty on his head. That'll get some oligarchs attention.

[suds]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What part of fu ck Putin isn't there to get? When did the better dead than...red/Putin/whatever policy change?

Well that really clears things up. Except my post wasn't directed toward anything you posted.

[eyeball]

So what did Trudeau say that was out of place?

[suds]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So what did Trudeau say that was out of place?

Here's what he actually said.... "Canada fully supports Ukraine using long-range weaponry to prevent and interdict Russia's continued ability to degrade Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, and mostly to kill innocent civilians in their unjust war." So it brings up the question if US/NATO policy on such actions is settled or is it still in discussion? I understand that in the past Ukraine has gotten the green light (under certain circumstances) by the US and a few Euro countries to hit border targets in Russia with US and European made ordinance. I'm just questioning on where everyone stands on this. Was it out of place? Probably not, it's not like Trudeau as a politician to stick his neck out on such things. Maybe it could have been worded (or even reported) a bit differently.

[taxesanddeath]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

Trudeau says Ukraine can strike deep into Russia with NATO arms, Putin hints at war (msn.com)

It sounds like this could trigger World War III.  Does Trudeau really know what he is talking about?

How is he qualified to say Ukraine can do this without triggering a war between Russia and NATO (the west)? 

Putin has stated that is a red line.  Of course sending long range missiles deep into Russia could have serious consequences for NATO, Europe, America, and Canada.  Does Trudeau really understand this?

How close are we to WWIII after Putin's latest threat to the West? (msn.com)

Because no Canada weapons can do that

Maybe I am wrong, I know only the us and the british weapons can, so he just open his mouth and breathe out hot air

[eyeball]

44 minutes ago, taxesanddeath said:

How is he qualified to say Ukraine can do this without triggering a war between Russia and NATO (the west)? 

Everyone is qualified to show Putin the door.

War with Russia is inevitable unless someone gets close enough to Putin to take him out.

[herbie]

Oh FFS Moscow is allowed to strike Kiev, but some other country is justified in forbidding Kiev to strike back?
Give your neighbour a shovel to qwws his garden but forbid him to use it?

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

The west should put a $10 or $20 million bounty on his head. That'll get some oligarchs attention.

peanuts....i think in around one billion...would create the will and drive to get it done...., i mean one billion is peanuts to the liberals...could do that with our eyes closed...

[Army Guy]

48 minutes ago, herbie said:

Oh FFS Moscow is allowed to strike Kiev, but some other country is justified in forbidding Kiev to strike back?
Give your neighbour a shovel to qwws his garden but forbid him to use it?

NATO is trying to avoid a confrontation with putin....he is holding on to power with his finger tips, he also has the keys to the nuclear locker or worse chemical weapons... 

[CdnFox]

Canada is about as relevant to this discussion as the owner of a zodiac inflatable would be when discussing international oceanic trade routes

[Moonbox]

On 9/14/2024 at 5:18 PM, Army Guy said:

NATO is trying to avoid a confrontation with putin....he is holding on to power with his finger tips, he also has the keys to the nuclear locker or worse chemical weapons... 

and his threats of "red lines" have been crossed over and over again, and revealed as impotent.  

Bullying with nuclear and chemical weapons is an actual red line for the rest of the world (including China).  It's not going to happen just for the sake of a murderous dictators' vanity.  

Edited September 16, 2024 by Moonbox

[TreeBeard]

On 9/13/2024 at 7:49 PM, blackbird said:

Of course sending long range missiles deep into Russia could have serious consequences

Why is Putin allowed to attack Ukraine, but not the other way around?

[blackbird]

38 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Why is Putin allowed to attack Ukraine, but not the other way around?

"Allowed"?  Do you think western missiles should be used to attack anywhere in Russia?  That is how wars escalate and become world wars.  Russia says it is a red line and they may choose to retaliate with an attack against NATO and with nuclear weapons.  

 Do you think the west should take the risk of starting World War III which would end with a nuclear holocaust and possibly wipe out half or much of the world's population?  Do you think Russia would absolutely not send nuclear missiles to European and north American cities?  They have thousands of nuclear missiles.

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 9/14/2024 at 12:19 AM, blackbird said:

Trudeau says Ukraine can strike deep into Russia with NATO arms, Putin hints at war (msn.com)

It sounds like this could trigger World War III.  Does Trudeau really know what he is talking about?

How is he qualified to say Ukraine can do this without triggering a war between Russia and NATO (the west)? 

Putin has stated that is a red line.  Of course sending long range missiles deep into Russia could have serious consequences for NATO, Europe, America, and Canada.  Does Trudeau really understand this?

How close are we to WWIII after Putin's latest threat to the West? (msn.com)

Russia has been striking deep within Ukraine for years. The situation is intolerable. Ukraine must be able to defend itself. As long as he remains in power, Putin will never have normal relations with the frontline states of Europe. He desires constant conflict with the West. I say call his bluff. 
 

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

"Allowed"?  Do you think western missiles should be used to attack anywhere in Russia?  That is how wars escalate and become world wars.  Russia says it is a red line and they may choose to retaliate with an attack against NATO and with nuclear weapons.  

 Do you think the west should take the risk of starting World War III which would end with a nuclear holocaust and possibly wipe out half or much of the world's population?  Do you think Russia would absolutely not send nuclear missiles to European and north American cities?  They have thousands of nuclear missiles.

 

Putin knows his regime and he personally are doomed the day he uses nukes. Are you saying he’s a fanatical lunatic? I see a vicious criminal, not a martyr.  

Edited September 16, 2024 by SpankyMcFarland

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

and his threats of "red lines" have been crossed over and over again, and revealed as impotent.  

Bullying with nuclear and chemical weapons is an actual red line for the rest of the world (including China).  It's not going to happen just for the sake of a murderous dictators' vanity.  

Regardless of what you and the others think of these threats, I'm sure NATO takes them very seriously. They have to the entire globe depends on their response and actions...passing off Russian intentions or aspirations is a dangerous game no one really knows what this person will do if cornered....I'm sure this question is what is giving NATO pause in the ukraine conflict.

If NATO truly believes Russia will not use chemical or Nuclear options then why won't they pull out all the stops and give Ukraine the weapons it needs to push Russia out...Is it because NATO does not have the weapons to give, or they are highly concerned with escalating the current situation.... meaning they take every threat seriously...

Edited September 16, 2024 by Army Guy

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Why is Putin allowed to attack Ukraine, but not the other way around?

Nukes.  Obviously. 

If russia didn't have nukes this would be a very different war, i think we can all agree on that. 

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Russia has been striking deep within Ukraine for years. The situation is intolerable. Ukraine must be able to defend itself. As long as he remains in power, Putin will never have normal relations with the frontline states of Europe. He desires constant conflict with the West. I say call his bluff. 
 

Putin knows his regime and he personally are doomed the day he uses nukes. Are you saying he’s a fanatical lunatic? I see a vicious criminal, not a martyr.  

If you back a vicious animal into a corner, you can expect anything.

[Moonbox]

6 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Regardless of what you and the others think of these threats, I'm sure NATO takes them very seriously. 

Evidently not, since they've repeatedly called Russia's bluff, crossed a series of Putin's balogna red lines, and the nukes have predictably not been launched.  That inconvenient fact is something that throws a pretty big wrench in your logic - one that I'd be stunned if you actually tried to address.  

[WestCanMan]

On 9/13/2024 at 7:49 PM, blackbird said:

Trudeau says Ukraine can strike deep into Russia with NATO arms, Putin hints at war (msn.com)

This douche-baggery is the exact reason why Russia can't allow NATO into Ukraine. 

All of the mealy-mouthed leftards here who say "Awwww, but NATO are just the good guys. Russia should trust us. We're not aggressive at all" need to take note of fact that the mamby-pambiest b1tch who ever walked the western world just talked about using NATO weapons to strike "deep into Russia". Is he retarded!!!?!!!?!!!

Of all people, it had to be CANADA'S Prime Minister who went and threatened nuclear Russia with attacks deep within their country while Russia is at war. DDDDUUUUUHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please prop that little jackass up a little longer? Jagmeet? Blocheads? Someone? 

If there was EVER a time for a vote of non-confidence in a western democracy it is right. f-cking. now. 

[TreeBeard]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Allowed

Yes.  Why are you for Chinese, Russian and North Korean missiles killing Ukrainians?  But not Ukrainian missiles going the other way?

 

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

Do you think western missiles should be used to attack anywhere in Russia? 

Yes.   Any Ukrainian missiles made anywhere should blow up Russian targets. 
 

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Do you think the west should take the risk of starting World War III which would end with a nuclear holocaust and possibly wipe out half or much of the world's population? 

Yes.  The alternative is to allow a bunch of Europe, including our allies to salute Putin as he rides by shirtless on a horse. 
 

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

Do you think Russia would absolutely not send nuclear missiles to European and north American cities?  They have thousands of nuclear missiles.

I put the odds pretty low.  But it could happen.  

[SpankyMcFarland]

46 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This douche-baggery is the exact reason why Russia can't allow NATO into Ukraine. 

All of the mealy-mouthed leftards here who say "Awwww, but NATO are just the good guys. Russia should trust us. We're not aggressive at all" need to take note of fact that the mamby-pambiest b1tch who ever walked the western world just talked about using NATO weapons to strike "deep into Russia". Is he retarded!!!?!!!?!!!

Of all people, it had to be CANADA'S Prime Minister who went and threatened nuclear Russia with attacks deep within their country while Russia is at war. DDDDUUUUUHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

Could someone please prop that little jackass up a little longer? Jagmeet? Blocheads? Someone? 

If there was EVER a time for a vote of non-confidence in a western democracy it is right. f-cking. now. 

Who has ever listened in Russia to what a Canadian PM has to say? We can reassure ourselves on that score.