Kyle Campbell4 said:Of course they wouldn't do that if there is an aggression and an invasion by another global power hanging over their heads. Use that damn brain of yours and start thinking logically. How do I know they are fighting an aggressor? Look, everyone has a smartphone these days. People risk their lives to film the bombing of a family home or a building. Protesters themselves filmed the protests, even in areas where you claim they are just dying to be annexed by Russia. Shame on you, you war dogs. It isn't my problem if you are a classic old-school leftist looking back at Russia with nostalgia because it reminds you of the former USSR. God, you people are obsessed with every dictatorship that exists in the world.
You just don't get it; you never will. One is a midget, the other is a stud with massive balls. Now, think about how that🤔
There isn't much difference between him and those thugs at the pro-Russian protests. It's exactly the same thing.
The fundamental flaw of these nations is that they are utterly grotesque and artificial constructs. Their borders were drawn solely to satisfy the strategic interests of the French and the British. In these newly formed states, people who had never shared a common life were forced together—groups that fundamentally despise one another. This is precisely why the region remains so volatile and perpetually locked in internal conflict. It is also exactly why we see a continuous cycle of dictators emerging, men who ruthlessly suppress and trample every other ethnic community just to maintain their own grip on power.
Noah Roberts46 The user states:
Look, I am fully aware that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and a criminal, but that doesn't provide any justification for the invasion. I have to ask: would so many people there have died if the invasion hadn't happened? Just because one segment of the population welcomed the USA as liberators doesn't mean anything at all. I could make the exact same argument regarding how some Russians in Ukraine viewed Vladimir Putin as a liberator. The criteria being used here are nothing more than pure hypocrisy. We all know the true motivation was economic interest, much like what we saw later in Libya and Syria. It is the same pattern we see now with the Russians in Ukraine, specifically targeting areas where new energy resources have been discovered—resources that would give Russia a massive economic advantage if the Ukrainians were able to utilize them, especially with their integration into the EU. Trying to find moral justifications for that war is laughable, and honestly, most Americans already agree with that sentiment. It is just as ridiculous to try and justify this current war.
The intervention was driven by the hunt for weapons of mass destruction and alleged links to Bin Laden following 9/11, even though those factions were constantly at each other's throats. In the end, it became glaringly obvious that none of those justifications held any water. If we are going to justify intervening in every single nation where there is an insurgency based on human rights violations or dictatorships, then why aren't we seeing similar action in Saudi Arabia? It is pure double standards. Who is going to answer for the millions of lives lost? Where are the sanctions? If you refuse to hold the West accountable, then who exactly do you think is to blame?
I find myself increasingly convinced that the whole "heart of Europe" argument is nothing more than a laughable distraction. It also deeply irritates me when people engage in that performative mourning following a terrorist attack in France, where everyone starts waving flags without having the slightest clue how the tragedy actually unfolded. To be perfectly honest, I feel exactly the same way about the French and Ukrainians as I do about the people in Syria and Yemen. In other words, I feel absolutely nothing. A human life is a human life, and everything else is just mindless posturing.
You have churned out a mountain of nonsense, recycled from those old anti-American talking points you picked up on the internet years ago. You are completely contradicting yourself here. In one post, you claim he should have been left alone, yet in another, you argue his removal was entirely justified. For heaven's sake, pick a side and stay consistent. Let’s get one thing straight: Americans didn't arrive to a welcoming committee of liberators; they were met by the majority of the Iraqi population. And keep in mind—the Sunnis are actually the minority in Iraq. Yes, sure, the invasion happened because of the oil. If that were the case, Iraq would still be under occupation today. I am a firm believer in democracy, which means any dictator like Saddam Hussein deserves to have his regime dismantled. If you actually valued human life the way you pretend to, you would have condemned this aggression from the very beginning. Instead, you are just attempting to relativize the situation. Furthermore, let's correct the record: Americans did not kill the majority of civilians in Iraq. Most of those deaths occurred during the internal sectarian fighting between Shias and Sunnis.
So, was it actually a good thing that Saddam Hussein was finally dealt with? Honestly, you need to pick a side and stick to it. George W. Bush made the decision to finish what his father, George H.W. Bush, couldn't quite wrap up. The truth is, the entire narrative was just a manufactured lie used as a pretext. The cold, hard fact remains that Saddam had to be removed if the country was ever going to move forward; otherwise, it would have remained perpetually held hostage by him.
I was never fully clear on how the Americans actually executed their strikes against Assad. I am aware, for instance, of the specific arrangements made with him regarding airspace freedoms, all under the guise of assisting the Kurds in their fight against ISIS. While certain factions were busy shelling ordinary green vegetables, ISIS was being left entirely alone in the east. It is a stark reality: they effectively armed ISIS, only to have those same weapons turned back against their own soldiers later on. To be clear, I am all for seeing Assad removed from power, but I refuse to support any move that results in his replacement by Islamic radicals.
My brain is working perfectly fine, thanks. That's exactly why I can see they clearly didn't expect the attack—or maybe they thought NATO and Europe would actually have their backs, whether through troops or a no-fly zone. Now they realize all that NATO support was just empty talk. They completely misread the situation.
And again, those videos aren't an actual argument.
Talking about "Mother Russia," the USSR, and getting off on dictators? You’re the one obsessing over the biggest dictators in the world: America and Britain. You really don't have any room to talk on this one.
Kyle Campbell4 said:Of course they wouldn't do that if there is an aggression and an invasion by another global power hanging over their heads. Use that damn brain of yours and start thinking logically. How do I know they are fighting an aggressor? Look, everyone has a smartphone these days. People risk their lives to film the bombing of a family home or a building. Protesters themselves filmed the protests, even in areas where you claim they are just dying to be annexed by Russia. Shame on you, you war dogs. It isn't my problem if you are a classic old-school leftist looking back at Russia with nostalgia because it reminds you of the former USSR. God, you people are obsessed with every dictatorship that exists in the world.
You just don't get it; you never will. One is a midget, the other is a stud with massive balls. Now, think about how that🤔
There isn't much difference between him and those thugs at the pro-Russian protests. It's exactly the same thing.
The fundamental flaw of these nations is that they are utterly grotesque and artificial constructs. Their borders were drawn solely to satisfy the strategic interests of the French and the British. In these newly formed states, people who had never shared a common life were forced together—groups that fundamentally despise one another. This is precisely why the region remains so volatile and perpetually locked in internal conflict. It is also exactly why we see a continuous cycle of dictators emerging, men who ruthlessly suppress and trample every other ethnic community just to maintain their own grip on power.
Noah Roberts46 The user states:
Look, I am fully aware that Saddam Hussein was a dictator and a criminal, but that doesn't provide any justification for the invasion. I have to ask: would so many people there have died if the invasion hadn't happened? Just because one segment of the population welcomed the USA as liberators doesn't mean anything at all. I could make the exact same argument regarding how some Russians in Ukraine viewed Vladimir Putin as a liberator. The criteria being used here are nothing more than pure hypocrisy. We all know the true motivation was economic interest, much like what we saw later in Libya and Syria. It is the same pattern we see now with the Russians in Ukraine, specifically targeting areas where new energy resources have been discovered—resources that would give Russia a massive economic advantage if the Ukrainians were able to utilize them, especially with their integration into the EU. Trying to find moral justifications for that war is laughable, and honestly, most Americans already agree with that sentiment. It is just as ridiculous to try and justify this current war.
The intervention was driven by the hunt for weapons of mass destruction and alleged links to Bin Laden following 9/11, even though those factions were constantly at each other's throats. In the end, it became glaringly obvious that none of those justifications held any water. If we are going to justify intervening in every single nation where there is an insurgency based on human rights violations or dictatorships, then why aren't we seeing similar action in Saudi Arabia? It is pure double standards. Who is going to answer for the millions of lives lost? Where are the sanctions? If you refuse to hold the West accountable, then who exactly do you think is to blame?
I find myself increasingly convinced that the whole "heart of Europe" argument is nothing more than a laughable distraction. It also deeply irritates me when people engage in that performative mourning following a terrorist attack in France, where everyone starts waving flags without having the slightest clue how the tragedy actually unfolded. To be perfectly honest, I feel exactly the same way about the French and Ukrainians as I do about the people in Syria and Yemen. In other words, I feel absolutely nothing. A human life is a human life, and everything else is just mindless posturing.
You have churned out a mountain of nonsense, recycled from those old anti-American talking points you picked up on the internet years ago. You are completely contradicting yourself here. In one post, you claim he should have been left alone, yet in another, you argue his removal was entirely justified. For heaven's sake, pick a side and stay consistent. Let’s get one thing straight: Americans didn't arrive to a welcoming committee of liberators; they were met by the majority of the Iraqi population. And keep in mind—the Sunnis are actually the minority in Iraq. Yes, sure, the invasion happened because of the oil. If that were the case, Iraq would still be under occupation today. I am a firm believer in democracy, which means any dictator like Saddam Hussein deserves to have his regime dismantled. If you actually valued human life the way you pretend to, you would have condemned this aggression from the very beginning. Instead, you are just attempting to relativize the situation. Furthermore, let's correct the record: Americans did not kill the majority of civilians in Iraq. Most of those deaths occurred during the internal sectarian fighting between Shias and Sunnis.
So, was it actually a good thing that Saddam Hussein was finally dealt with? Honestly, you need to pick a side and stick to it. George W. Bush made the decision to finish what his father, George H.W. Bush, couldn't quite wrap up. The truth is, the entire narrative was just a manufactured lie used as a pretext. The cold, hard fact remains that Saddam had to be removed if the country was ever going to move forward; otherwise, it would have remained perpetually held hostage by him.
I was never fully clear on how the Americans actually executed their strikes against Assad. I am aware, for instance, of the specific arrangements made with him regarding airspace freedoms, all under the guise of assisting the Kurds in their fight against ISIS. While certain factions were busy shelling ordinary green vegetables, ISIS was being left entirely alone in the east. It is a stark reality: they effectively armed ISIS, only to have those same weapons turned back against their own soldiers later on. To be clear, I am all for seeing Assad removed from power, but I refuse to support any move that results in his replacement by Islamic radicals.
And in those messed-up, unstable states, you find people who manage to exploit those divisions, only to end up taking a bullet from some general funded by the CIA, MI6, DGSE, or Mossad. Or the IMF and similar outfits wreck their economy, or they get hit with sanctions, or a "spontaneous" color revolution gets triggered, or extremists from a neighboring state start shelling towns and villages with weapons provided by the Americans, and so on and so forth.
The region stays unstable because whenever there's a chance for stability, the bombing starts—whether it's literal or figurative. And the reason? Because stability and development mean unwanted economic and geopolitical competition.