Believe it or not, you're not the only person who's familiar with the history of WW2. In any case, if Biden isn't ready to go to war to achieve an aim like regime change in Russia, he shouldn't raise expectations about it. Perhaps you recall that Bush 41 urged the Iraqi Shias to rebel against Saddam Hussein, whom he'd just let off the ho…
Believe it or not, you're not the only person who's familiar with the history of WW2. In any case, if Biden isn't ready to go to war to achieve an aim like regime change in Russia, he shouldn't raise expectations about it. Perhaps you recall that Bush 41 urged the Iraqi Shias to rebel against Saddam Hussein, whom he'd just let off the hook, and they were slaughtered for their troubles. It is not a President's job to react viscerally in public to events he's made no commitment to affecting.
Who said anything about "regime change"? You are making a giant leap from the statement that "That man cannot remain in power" to some threat of war against Russia. Biden said, "that man" not "that regime." Last time I looked at the dictionary, a "man" was not a "regime."
Believe it or not, you're not the only person who's familiar with the history of WW2. In any case, if Biden isn't ready to go to war to achieve an aim like regime change in Russia, he shouldn't raise expectations about it. Perhaps you recall that Bush 41 urged the Iraqi Shias to rebel against Saddam Hussein, whom he'd just let off the hook, and they were slaughtered for their troubles. It is not a President's job to react viscerally in public to events he's made no commitment to affecting.
Who said anything about "regime change"? You are making a giant leap from the statement that "That man cannot remain in power" to some threat of war against Russia. Biden said, "that man" not "that regime." Last time I looked at the dictionary, a "man" was not a "regime."
That's disingenious. It's like saying "Hitler cannot remain in power" and then insisting you'd be fine with Himmler.