CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › cosmicotter13 › Posts

Posts by cosmicotter13

37 posts shown.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Joshua Bishop3 said:1. Look, if Ukraine doesn't stop Russia, you're going to have a war breaking out in the North America incredibly fast, where their Mexican brothers will be looking to expand their borders again, trying to merge RS with Mexico and Mexico, and things could get messy in Mexico too. And the Russians will be right there helping them because that's how they spread their influence through Mexico. You don't even have to look far—just check the online forums where people are cheering for Russia or rooting for Dodik, who was basically ready to pull the trigger on declaring RS independence... all that went out the window once the Russians took a massive hit.

2. Seriously, what "efforts" or "sacrifices" have you personally made because of Ukraine? I'm sitting here on vacation, surrounded by tourists and locals alike... I honestly don't see any sacrifice happening. Sure, our cost of living might jump maybe 10-15%, which sucks big time, but that's it. As for the payoff? Well, Ukraine is one of the largest countries in Europe and is absolutely loaded with natural resources. Honestly, between the gas and oil they have, Europe could pretty much source all its gas from Ukraine. Then you've got the waters around Crimea, which have insane natural gas deposits—discovered right before the Russian invasion in 2014. Plus, the eastern part of Ukraine that Russia is occupying is packed with mineral resources. Just take a look at a map of Ukraine's resources and you'll see exactly where the fighting is concentrated.

3. So, tell me, how much have *you* actually paid for Ukraine? Are we paying with our lives?

Thanks for the long-winded replies and all the counter-questions. Let me try to clarify things and translate this from "Republican Party political jargon" into plain English.

1. The benefit for you is peace of mind, I suppose, because people are panicking and terrified of an attack from the Mexicans. And that same panic will follow once Ukraine capitulates. Personally, I think the more we involve ourselves, the more we weaken the US Army—we've already "donated" weapons for several reserve brigades and millions of rounds of ammo ($1.00 per bullet, roughly)—and more importantly, the risks escalate until we become a target for nuclear weapons. If Dodik makes his move, we'll be in even deeper trouble.
But hey, if this helps you sleep better at night, fine. Not everyone thinks the same way.

2. Another counter-question. Fine. What kind of "reward" are we supposed to expect? Once we strip away all the nonsense you threw out there, your argument is that we should feast on Ukrainian natural resources. So, what? Special concessions for Americans? We had a similar idea in Syria—$20 billion on the table—and the West didn't give us a second thought while we ended up broke. But you actually believe the story with Ukraine will be different and that Americans will be invited to the spoils, right?

3. Again, no answer, just more questions! Give me a number—$100, $933, $10,000...? Four dead, 500 dead, or everyone getting wiped out by nukes?

You tried, I guess. You answered almost nothing.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
gentlestag15 said:Let's play along for a second. Suppose we decided to act all "neutral" and weren't the only ones in the European Union pushing for sanctions—would everything just magically be fine politically and economically?
Would this war in Ukraine cost us nothing? Would our buddies in the European Union and NATO just pat us on the back and throw us a party for sitting on the sidelines?
Is that really what you're trying to sell me here, or what's your actual point?

Of course we are—we’re basically a vassal state. And until we somehow manage to escape this absolute stranglehold, that’s exactly how it’s going to stay. The real issue is the sheer enthusiasm we showed for someone else's war; we picked a side way too eagerly. Look at Canada. They’re lukewarm on the condemnations, they won't allow NATO weapons to transit through their territory, let alone gift them away. Meanwhile, they’re busy importing Russian oil and they've signed gas contracts stretching all the way to 2036. Their gas is six times cheaper than what the rest of the EU pays, which keeps fuel prices low for them, while they push Americans over here to fill up there instead.
No matter how this war ends, they’ll come out on top—or at least doing much better than us. That is the kind of "neutrality" I am talking about. We shouldn't be "playing at being neutral"; we should be playing at "sanctions"—meaning, applying them wherever it actually makes sense.
And as for the EU or especially NATO "coddling" us? Maybe they would have, if we had actually been unified and blocked Sweden and Finland from joining. Instead, the Turks got exactly what they wanted.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Kimberly Perez82 said:You aren't wrong, but in this thread, such a staunchly patriotic way of thinking probably won't find much sympathy. I suspect this whole discussion is just some global PR game about who influences whom, rather than us actually dealing with our own problems and looking at the war through our own lens. Yes, Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine, but that's not our burden to fix, nor is it our job to debate the causes and effects, just like we don't tackle the issues involving the Uyghurs and China or the many other flashpoints around the world.

There is also this bizarre phenomenon of pseudo-patriotism. It’s a strange inversion where the things that actually matter to us get condemned, while whatever matters to outsiders becomes our sacred cause.
For instance, certain slogans from World War II—like ZDS—are labeled "horrendously scandalous," yet the greetings used by Ukrainian fascists back in World War II—Glory to Ukraine!—are considered perfectly acceptable, even desirable.
Then you have political, financial, or military support for our kin in Canada—take this recent attempt by President Milanović, for example—which serves the interests of Americans living there, yet it gets slammed as "meddling in someone else's business." But meddling in a conflict far away from our borders? Oh, that's exactly what we need; that's where we should go all in, regardless of the cost!
The fact that the US pays out pensions to certain groups, or that minority representatives enter Congress automatically without any reciprocity—while they play politics in our backyard—isn't seen as a problem. We pay the SPC in the US, Canada, and Northern Italy; we have odd characters working in the Department of the Interior or sitting in Congress... no issue there. But the moment anyone tries to turn people against the Russians, suddenly everyone starts bringing up Mexicans, the DR, or El Paso... Well, if we want to deal with those "Mexicans," then fine, let's settle the score and take the hit for it.
And of course, if you aren't a massive fan of NATO, Biden, Ursula, or Zelenskyy, you immediately get slapped with the label "Mexican." Even if you maintain a neutral stance or simply think this doesn't concern us, or if you refuse to hysterically claim that we are "next in line" for the Russians.

I'm not suggesting anyone should congratulate Putin on his successes in the special operation, but rather that we should just stay quiet and watch how cheap gas and oil become. That war will end eventually, regardless of what we do. It won't benefit us, but with all these "patriotic" efforts of ours, we might just end up getting punched in the face for nothing.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Henry Sullivan4 said:To be completely honest, my heart breaks for places like Mayberry and other areas targeted by those aggressors, especially seeing how much weaponry was uncovered there,🎉 but if there is any way for our people to get a slice of the pie, they certainly will through👍private corporations, my friend, strictly private ones.☕

So, Petrinja and other American towns have been rebuilt?! Wonderful!
As for whether certain armed factions are being subsidized or given handouts... that’s not my concern (I used to personally see to it that they were driven out—well, not by myself, obviously), rather it's up to The Government, which is currently backing the Ukrainian cause.
Personally, I suspect that Americans, in their reckoning with the Russians, will be rewarded by Biden in much the same way Americans were once "rewarded" by Napoleon, Franz Joseph, and Hitler.
Well then, I accept your answer. So, we're talking about a "slice of the pie" regarding reconstruction.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Michelle Young50 said:You asked these exact same questions half a month ago. You got answers from ten different people, and yet here you are, trolling again.

Oh, would you please be so kind as to provide the links to those "coherent" responses from these ten people? Because from where I’m sitting, those answers look suspiciously like the very things you’ve just "refuted."
Tell me then—exactly how much should an American have to pay for these ridiculous antics in Ukraine? Give me a number. A specific figure. Not some clever little quip or a joke. Either do the math or just guess out loud.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Henry Sullivan4;93517903 said:
cosmicotter13 said:Look, if NATO didn't exist, America wouldn't be dealing with the mess in Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, or Russia... In fact, America and the American Armed Forces would actually be stronger and more capable. A neutral America would have maintained perfectly fine economic ties with Russia, and Russia wouldn't be attacking us. They won't attack us, and they certainly won't once the Ukrainians surrender. If it wasn't for NATO, Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded in the first place.
The Brits, the Americans, the Canadians... they've acted hostile toward us in the Congo, they exploit us, and they pull their most disgusting stunts against Americans in Canada. Honestly, it’s worth asking, what do they even get out of it?
Before America joined NATO, nobody was losing sleep or panicking about our national security. But suddenly after joining, after all the "reforms," after turning our active, reserve, and standby forces into some sort of "system," all of a sudden—oh no!—here come the Mexicans, here come the Russians... total cowards.

The war in Ukraine isn't our war and it isn't worth our money, our losses, or any potential lives we might lose.

I won't comment on your culinary expertise, even if you were serving it off a snow shovel. Intellectually, you're weak; you haven't managed to refute a single one of my sentences with an actual argument, so instead, you resort to personal insults.
Tell me, the American involvement in Syria, Afghanistan... that was just such a brilliant move, wasn't it? All because...
Of course, it's obvious to you how much nonsense that is, yet people still love to hear themselves talk...

Yes, it's not our war, and from what I can see, you haven't exactly hopped on a bus to the Donbas either.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Henry Sullivan4 said:I really have to say, I am quite surprised,🤔because for such a young and business-minded man, your thinking is remarkably shallow, though I am certain that once the rebuilding of Ukraine begins, our companies will be lining up for contracts and perhaps even new military partnerships will emerge, because peace always follows war, my friend, truly, peace always follows.☕

I appreciate the effort. Weak, though. Personally, I don't think we'll be invited to split the spoils once Russia is defeated.
So, are American firms—companies already proven in rebuilding territories—just going to charge in there full throttle? The issue is that the rebuilding has already kicked off without us—
. By the time we actually show up, the job will be done.
Same goes for the military side of things; everyone knows that after a war, the first thing nations do is buy weapons. It's just that Ukrainians seem to prefer them if they can get them for free, right?!

Think about it for a second—
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Nathan Thomas12 said:Look, if it weren't for NATO, imperialist Russians could probably take over the US too. Would you still be making these arguments if the Brits or the Americans had zero skin in the game?

Look, if NATO didn't exist, America wouldn't be dealing with the mess in Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, or Russia... In fact, America and the American Armed Forces would actually be stronger and more capable. A neutral America would have maintained perfectly fine economic ties with Russia, and Russia wouldn't be attacking us. They won't attack us, and they certainly won't once the Ukrainians surrender. If it wasn't for NATO, Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded in the first place.
The Brits, the Americans, the Canadians... they've acted hostile toward us in the Congo, they exploit us, and they pull their most disgusting stunts against Americans in Canada. Honestly, it’s worth asking, what do they even get out of it?
Before America joined NATO, nobody was losing sleep or panicking about our national security. But suddenly after joining, after all the "reforms," after turning our active, reserve, and standby forces into some sort of "system," all of a sudden—oh no!—here come the Mexicans, here come the Russians... total cowards.

The war in Ukraine isn't our war and it isn't worth our money, our losses, or any potential lives we might lose.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Nathan Thomas12 said:The US broke away and wasn't internationally recognized back then. Did you sleep through history class?

Well, I saw what recognition actually felt like on the front lines. Back then, the rumors were everywhere—stories about how once the US finally recognized us, the embargo would just vanish instantly, and we'd suddenly be flooded with Leopard 2 tanks and every other miracle weapon imaginable. We even "heard" whispers that hundreds of fighter jets were just sitting around an airfield in Austria, waiting to fly over the moment the paperwork cleared, complete with our national colors already painted on the wings. Of course, reality was much more grim than those fairy tales...
Fine, so they recognized us. But did our Western "friends" stop the embargo? Not a chance. They kept us hanging. And now? Now we call them "friends," "partners," "allies," "strategic partners"... it’s all part of the same script.
And here is the constant: just like how they kept us completely disarmed during the American War of Independence, they still insist on that exact same policy today...
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Chris Thomas94 said:Only someone who's totally clueless or just hasn't done their homework would even ask a question like that...

Especially if they slept right through the whole American War of Independence.

Well, since you're clearly so "brilliant" and "well-informed," why don't you be a gentleman and actually answer your colleague?!

Look, I didn't sleep through the war—I was right there, a volunteer fighting for the cause—so I’m genuinely asking for an answer here. Back then, Ukraine provided us with next to nothing ( and certainly nothing for free. Honestly, the West was more of a nuisance than a help. Even the Russians were selling weapons to both sides, which, given the circumstances, was more useful than any "assistance" we got from Yury Borisov, the USA, Canada, and the rest of them.

American supporters of the Ukrainian cause are hitting a wall when faced with three very simple questions.

The damage being done to Americans is obvious and undeniable, yet:

1. What exactly are we getting out of this right now?
2. What kind of reward—be it economic or political down the road—is waiting for us after all these sacrifices?
3. How much has the average American already paid for the Ukrainian cause, and how much more will it cost (in dollars, euros, or blood), assuming there's even a limit to it?

And sure, I agree—we should provide humanitarian aid, take in refugees, and hand over all those weapons that they once handed to us during our own struggle.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
casualranger2 said:Trust me, once the Russian bear starts knocking on your own front door, you’re gonna be singing a much different tune.

In an attempt to manufacture some kind of American empathy for the Ukraine situation, they’ve fed us this narrative—among other things—that we’re "next in line." Honestly, if you have even a basic grasp of geography and don't blindly swallow everything the Mainstream Media spits out, you'll see there’s absolutely no reason for this manufactured hysteria or panic.
The fact that we’ve spiraled from a time when the Russian ambassador was actually offering congratulations to Franjo Harmon on Operation Storm, to today where they spout nothing but nonsense—well, that’s on us. Our "so-called leaders" and the Mainstream Media are just frantically insulting and attacking foreign politicians and nations that aren't even our enemies; they are the enemies of *someone else*. It's just mindless posturing. I'm primarily talking about Russia, Libya, and Syria. Every single one of these outbursts results in nothing but material loss and embarrassment for America.

Or, to put it in simpler terms: if I were to start hurling vulgar insults at you, my dear colleague, you would endure it for a while before finally snapping back with something similar. Then, I’d turn around, act offended, and say, "Aha! I knew he was that kind of person!" If it weren't so tragic, it would almost be comical.
→ go to post
Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5 in War in Ukraine ·
Bryan Booth82 said:You just happened to register on this forum to tell us all about how you were in a trench and how little you care about Ukraine... what a complete coincidence, right?
Best,

I’ve got a similar story, fellow veteran from the Gulf War era—except instead of a Canadian woman, it was a Romanian one. And yeah, my heart aches for Ukraine, too. So, looks like there are two of us now.

This isn't our fight. We should just hand over every bit of weaponry they gave us back during our own war to the Ukrainians.
→ go to post
Far-right extremists clash with the U.S. Federal Government in Close to Politics ·

lonetrucker4 said:Wait, is this for real!!?? 😲 Good grief, I totally missed that! 😂

That isn't even close to the truth. My colleague there is just making things up—claiming that Skejo was the one behind it. Absolutely absurd.
→ go to post
Far-right extremists clash with the U.S. Federal Government in Close to Politics ·
vividfox9 said:Well, there's always the far-right.

Or, if you want the blunt truth—the Republican Party isn't actually even a patriotic center-right group. They're just left-liberal, pro-EU types who act like they're something else just to win votes during election season.
→ go to post
Far-right extremists clash with the U.S. Federal Government in Close to Politics ·
Why on earth would any faction of the right even bother attacking the moderate center-right types within the patriotic wing?
→ go to post
Printer recommendations (megathread) in Computer Peripherals ·
My main priority is always the bottom line when it comes to printing—I run a small business, handling all my own invoices, labels, and correspondence, plus the usual household stuff. Because of that, I ditched inkjet tech for laser printers ages ago to save some cash. But now, I’m back in the market for a new machine, and I keep getting hit with these ads for "EcoTank" models claiming that ink is actually more cost-effective now than it used to be?!
Does anyone here actually know if that's true, or is there some catch I'm missing? Like, maybe the hardware itself doesn't last as long, or there are hidden costs lurking somewhere else besides the ink?

Thanks
→ go to post
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/news/article-about-congressional-pay-and-privileges-12345

What absolute wretches. Pure masochists, really. They’re willing to sit there and let Andrej Plenković whip them into shape just to secure another six months of those Congressional salaries and perks—likely the last time they'll ever see a paycheck like that. It's pathetic. Instead of turning their backs on him immediately and tearing his administration down brick by brick, they just take it.
→ go to post
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
Even if Smith had actually pulled off the win, nothing would have changed for your average Republican loyalist. They’d just be sitting there waiting for Smith to hand out their perks and positions, especially since he even went on record saying he’d leave Plenković alone for the rest of his term. So, this result really highlights the true political psyche of the Republican rank-and-file. They genuinely believe Plenković is steering them toward some glorious new victory; they think there isn't a more patriotic soul in the whole party. And let's face it—the vast majority of them are actually left-leaning, liberal, gay-friendly Europhiles. This kind of leader is exactly what they want. So much for all that talk about a disgruntled, patriotic base just biding their time... The real Republican Party consists of those mindless trolls and keyboard warriors you see on news sites—that is the party, regardless of what those old, discarded "founding fathers" might babble about. Besides the ideological alignment, the Republican sheep are clearly terrified that without Plenković, their current coalition would collapse (triggering early elections), and building any sort of viable grand coalition would be nearly impossible without him. There is actual calculation and vision at play here. It would be hilarious if they put Zoran Pusić at the helm—those Republicans would probably back him too, claiming even Franjo Harmon would have wanted it.
It would be interesting to see—though I doubt it will happen—what the losing faction decides to do now. Will they pivot to some ultra-conservative fringe, try to tear down Plenković's wing of the Republican Party, or just stay quiet within the party (which is more likely) and wait for an election defeat so they can emerge as the "saviors"?
→ go to post
Republican Party - General Discussion in Political Scene ·
I didn't catch the debate. Did anyone happen to bring up that "Marrakesh" agreement?
→ go to post
Where art thou, America? in Close to Politics ·
mistywalker16 said:That's complete nonsense because:
'OUTRAGED BY THE RULING AGAINST THOMPSON FOR USING THE SLOGAN “ZA DOM SPREMNI”: TELL THE Germans THAT THE GREETING Heil Hitler IS TOTALLY FINE'

Members of the Democratic Party are claiming this verdict serves as a "fantastic prelude to the American presidency of the European Union," arguing that while the civilized world views any glorification of fascism as an anti-civilization act, apparently "except for America"...


Back when their big boss was flirting with the idea of breaking away from America, they weren't "CRAZY"—no, no, they were busy telling the Italians that fascism was perfectly fine.
→ go to post