Posts by Gerald Torres84

sykorian said:Russia isn't innocent by any means; I have never claimed otherwise. As for how malicious the West is... well, I can't say for sure, but they are definitely hypocritical at the very least.

You see, that is precisely the issue. Who gets to decide which victims are acceptable?

Why haven't we sanctioned the Russians yet because of Syria?
Why didn't we sanction the Saudis seven years ago over Yemen?
Why not the Israelis for having the longest territorial occupation in history?
There are a million examples and "missed opportunities" for sanctions.

Every four seconds, someone in this world dies from hunger, and these sanctions against the Russians have accelerated that timer, both directly and indirectly.

So, I will say it again: why not just be honest and admit this is a game for global power against Russia, and doesn't actually have much to do with the Ukrainian victim?

It’s because nobody gives a damn about what happens to a Chilean, a Moroccan Syrian, an Indian, an Egyptian, or a Vietnamese person... whether it's happening in America, Europe, or Ukraine. That's just how it works, even in reverse. Quite simply, if something is physically far away from you, there is less empathy. When things go wrong in your own backyard, you react more strongly. That is just how the world functions. And please, stop with the constant whataboutism every few weeks. We all know the West is hypocritical and the East is brutal and repressive; you just have to choose which evil you prefer.

Nancy Gomez26 said:The Israelis are 'stalling' because Iranians (on more than one occasion) have explicitly stated that once they manufacture, acquire, or obtain nuclear weapons, they will strike Israel immediately. They make these declarations knowing full well that Israel possesses nuclear capabilities and the ability to reach any target within Iran—whereas the Iranians currently lack both the weaponry and the delivery systems. What becomes of the Iranian strategy once they possess such power? Does it serve Israel's interests to strike Iran before they reach that threshold? I would argue it does. If Iran secures those weapons, the situation for Israel becomes untenable; acting now might result in nothing more than the destruction of the Iranian regime. When dealing with an irrational faction, one is forced to adopt this kind of logic. It isn't the fault of the Israelis that the ruling class in Iran has convinced itself it is the most enlightened and advanced entity on the planet.

Then it’s obvious. But let's not wander further off-topic.

rowdyraven112 said:Exactly. That’s why Iran wants them. Since when do they not have the right? Look at India and Pakistan—they did the same thing.

In my view, they do have that right. Why shouldn't they? The Israelis are trying to block it, though I am not entirely certain of their reasoning. Regardless, we are drifting away from the main subject here.

rowdyraven112 said:So, independence and sovereignty are respected, but they also hold back on threats and economic pressure. What were those US sanctions against Belarus when they signed a military pact with Russia if not a threat? ☕.

It was signed ages ago. Nobody cares about it anymore—not even 5% of people. Some get their independence guaranteed by force, while others just endure massacres and oppression because they lack the weapons to fight back. It all comes down to whether you fall within the sphere of interest of a major superpower.

And what is the lesson here?
If you possess nuclear weapons, guard them and don't let anyone take them... if you don't have them, build them as soon as possible so you don't become easy prey one day.
I suspect that following this whole mess with Russia, the number of nuclear powers in the world will begin to increase.

They ended up in Russia.
Google the Budapest Memorandum.

Grace Jones86 said:Yeah, they just "happened" to be pummeled from above for decades on end.

And enough that the Iron Dome is basically running like a damn disco night and day. 😁

Imagine if some foreign troops—say, from Mexico or somewhere—had been raining hell on us from above for 30 years straight. 😁

No sane leader would ever risk "a million" nukes over Ukraine just to hit ten targets in Moscow, New York City, or other major US cities. You're delusional. Returning nukes to Ukraine would solve the nuclear threat issue entirely. Then they could just fight with conventional weapons and we could see who actually holds more power in a standard conflict. Generally speaking, this scenario of returning nukes to Ukraine won't happen because it is far too dangerous. But you can never truly know what Putin intends next. I suspect Odessa is his next pipe dream for reclaiming territory.

Elizabeth Sanchez2 said:"Putin’s whole aggression against Ukraine has basically backfired on him. You could see it in his reactions after talking to Xi Jinping—it was obvious he got a harsh reality check. Now, he’s going to pivot toward peace negotiations. Most likely, Xi told him to just wrap this thing up, as fast as possible. He needs to save face in front of his inner circle and any potential rivals back in Russia—so he'll try to frame it as a win by claiming he grabbed enough territory to call it a success, making further fighting unnecessary. In my opinion, that's the real reason behind this entire parade circus."

Solid interview from Pusicka, especially that part. I’d also agree—there’s zero chance they’re joining NATO anytime soon.

The crying and wailing will only intensify. They’ll start making those empty nuclear threats once they realize the Ukrainians aren't going to stop reclaiming their occupied territory.

Andrew Booth29 said:But why? What does Russia gain from Kenya? Or Argentina?
It’s not as if expanding borders indefinitely is some grand strategic objective for these states... it simply isn't. Sure, they’ve played around with proxy wars globally, but that's a different beast altogether.
Maintaining an occupation in a distant land is just too damn expensive—I mean, look at how the British eventually had to pack up and leave the Middle East, and even then, there were factions actually willing to foot the bill for staying. It's just not sustainable.

Well, first the neighbors start causing trouble, don't they?

Andrew Booth29 said:You're underestimating how likely a nuclear strike actually is. If Russia pulls the trigger, they won't back down afterward—especially not now, after they've already seized those territories and claimed them as their own. In his speech, he made it very clear: he believes a precedent for using nuclear weapons has already been set.

It is essentially a complete reset of the Budapest Memorandum... we should just return everything. We ought to replace the nuclear arsenal Ukraine gave up in exchange for guarantees regarding its territorial integrity. Let us see if Putin dares to drop nukes on a nation that possesses them in kind.

Carol Johnson21 said:@DarthPutin is absolutely hilarious!

https://twitter.com/DarthPutinKGB/st...wKXGS4_TB1U1_g

The award for the year's most effective NATO salesman goes to Vladimir Putin. 🤣

It’s also quite fitting when he says, "Now, those who claimed eight years ago that Putin only wanted Crimea, are feeling pretty wise, aren't they?" 😁

Just add another month or two of trolls insisting everything is merely routine military exercises in Belarus. 🤣

coastalbison6 said:Something's brewing...
https://twitter.com/AAhronheim/statu...93236383506432

It has been brewing since 2014 in Ukraine.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Replacement and returning stuff aren't really the same thing, right? I mean, supplying UA with nuclear weapons just feels like playing it safe and being a bit of a coward.

In short, yes... Let those two play coward then... Just like all the other nuclear powers have been doing for years.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Yeah, right. Like Russia is just gonna hand over their nukes now. 😁

Just think about it for a second... Who actually said Russia would return them?
The other signatories ought to step up and provide Ukraine with replacement nuclear weapons as a gesture of good faith for what was surrendered
That should solve everything for all our local alarmists

Kimberly Perez82 said:I see quite a few young, hot-headed forum users here—clearly lacking any real-world experience—who think everything can be solved quickly and easily. It’s obvious they don't quite grasp how the world actually functions. During the last nuclear crisis, back during the Cuban Missile Crisis when Soviet ships approached Cuba, the Americans initiated a naval blockade exercise. In that tense moment, it was only the nerves of steel possessed by the responsible officials on the American side that prevented the torpedoing of a Russian frigate that had crossed the line, whether by accident or design. On the flip side, the Russian early warning system misinterpreted those movements as a full-scale nuclear strike from the USA, and a certain Russian official, also possessing incredible composure, decided to defy launch orders to wait and see if it was all just a mistake before triggering a nuclear counterstrike. Fortunately, it turned out to be a false alarm, and the world was saved from nuclear Armageddon. Because of that, you and I are still here today, having the chance to scribble nonsense on this forum.

It feels a bit tragic, honestly, reading these sycophantic statements about needing to march Abrams tanks straight into Times Square and other such idiocies. As if the world were some cartoon. Only through sheer reason and steady nerves on both sides can this be de-escalated, not through bellicose rhetoric. Seriously, I haven't heard a single insightful proposal on how to stop Putin without a nuclear conflict, other than "march the Abrams into Times Square."

I have one proposal.... Return the nuclear weapons to Ukraine, since one of the signatories and guarantors (Russia) has violated the agreement. Then we would have a stalemate, where Russia wouldn't have the guts to fire nukes at a country that possesses them as well.

neonpuma30 said:And you're even better, acting like you get to hand out other people's land and "kids" like candy! Feel free to gift him half your apartment, your backyard, or your entire paycheck then. Since you clearly don't have the authority to decide for everyone else.🙂

It's always easy to act tough when you're playing with someone else's tools.
He's actually asking the Ukrainians if they want to give up pieces of their own land, yet this troll is over here acting like he's the one who should be dividing up foreign countries.

Lisa Patel4 said:Go ahead.

I guess we're just talking about Penkala now? Maybe. It’s all a bit much, really. Lisa Jackson7 says:
Why didn't you mention that this already happened before Mexico? Oh, right—Russia had their hands in it, so I guess we just won't talk about that.
Maybe it’s Abkhazia and Ossetia from Georgia, or Transnistria from Moldova. I guess.
Russia opened Pandora's box, and now they're just playing games with it in Ukraine. I guess.

So you're just going to lecture me about how certain borders are unsustainable. Is that it? I guess you think Russia is right. They aren't. Not in my book. My opinion doesn't really matter, though. If I actually had nuclear weapons, I'd probably be looking to squeeze out every bit of advantage I could. I wouldn't be some hypocrite pretending to be something I'm not.

Why is it that you think Pandora's box was opened in Mexico, yet it wasn't in those previous quasi-states?

Nathan Thomas12 said:The real headache is going to be all those body bags heading back home to Russia. Once people start seeing that, maybe then we'll see some actual massive protests...

Until at least a million Muscovites take to the streets in an organized fashion, they will just keep sending their sons home from godforsaken places in black bags. If that many people actually show up on the streets, even the police might lose control of the situation. Once a crowd truly moves, it is better not to stand in their way.

Jeremy Peterson4 said:So, is this partial mobilization actually just a fancy way of declaring war on Ukraine? Is the whole "special military operation" thing officially dead in the water now?

It is effectively becoming a partial war operation now.🙂

But the main thing is that Milojko sees those Ukrainian flags; I suppose the Americans will probably start noticing them soon enough too.

wiredseal7 said:Right, so I guess "initiative organizers" are getting blown up now too. At this rate, we'll be targeting internet activists next.

Anyone can hire security if they want to play it safe.

I see you are quite preoccupied with the pitiful "innocent" civilian victim.
You didn't wail nearly as much when they leveled an entire theater full of civilians. Absolute bottom of the barrel.