Posts by Noah Roberts46

Carl Hernandez3 said:Saddam was busy using chemical weapons against the Kurds—absolutely devastating—while simultaneously moving in to occupy Kuwait.
Just imagine—Zelensky actually managed to insult the Russians and then went ahead and occupied Moldova. Truly wild stuff.

Kyle Campbell4 said:He is just a mix of Assad and Saddam. He hasn't the slightest clue about the Kurds or chemical weapons. Everything from the invasion of Kuwait for oil to the prior attack on Iran—he dismisses all of it as if everything Assad did was merely propaganda 😁 when the reality is that every single clown tries to meddle in affairs where they don't belong, but since the topic is trending, he feels compelled to offer his "insight."

You people have no clue. The invasion of Kuwait happened in the early 90s—how could that possibly be a reason for an invasion in the 2000s? We are talking about actual motives here. I know the history of Iraq and Iran well enough. I have zero issues with Saddam being taken down since he was a criminal, especially if it had happened back in the early 90s. But should they have occupied territory thirteen years later and slaughtered so many civilians just for that? To grab their oil? Don't give me that bullshit.

What I'm saying is that the US intervention in Syria, where they claimed Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people without any real proof, ended up being proven wrong. The USA even admitted to arming ISIS, but you all conveniently ignore that. It seems to me that some people only bother with geopolitics when something relevant is happening in Europe, without having any grasp of global affairs because, frankly, they don't give a damn. This is a perfect example.🤦

Kyle Campbell4 said:The situations are completely incomparable, and that isn't just due to geography. In Iraq, Americans were welcomed as liberators by the Sunnis and the Kurds. You likely belong to that generation born in the 90s, so you have no real grasp of the devastation Saddam caused. This isn't the same as a global intervention against a dictator, nor is it the same as a powerful neighbor in the heart of Europe deciding to invade a weaker neighbor out of pure spite, especially one structured as a democracy. Let me put it bluntly: it is not the same thing when a midget bombs people in sandals as it is when someone launches an invasion on their immediate neighbor just because they’ve developed a massive ego and think they're the new Czar.

Look, I get it—Saddam was a dictator and a criminal—but that invasion had zero justification. I have to ask: would all those people have died if there hadn't been an invasion? Just because one group welcomed the USA as liberators doesn't prove anything. I could make the exact same argument that a certain group of Russians in Ukraine welcomed Vladimir Putin as a liberator. Your criteria are hypocritical. We all know the real motivation was economic interest, much like what happened later in Libya and Syria. It's the same pattern we see now in Ukraine, where Russia is operating right in areas with new energy resources that would give them a massive economic edge if Ukrainians were able to exploit them, especially with their move toward the EU. Trying to justify that war is ridiculous, and frankly, most people in America agree. It’s just as absurd to try and justify this current war.

They went in there looking for weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Osama bin Laden following 9/11, even though those groups hated each other. In the end, it turned out none of that was a legitimate reason. If we are going to intervene in every single country where there's a rebel faction based on human rights violations and dictatorships, why don't we go into Saudi Arabia then? Talk about double standards. Who is responsible for the millions of casualties? Where were the sanctions? If the West isn't to blame, then who exactly is, in your opinion?

And honestly, the more I think about it, the more that "heart of Europe" argument sounds laughable to me. It also used to infuriate me seeing all that performative outrage after the terrorist attacks in France, where everyone was waving flags without having any clue how it actually happened. My level of sympathy for the French and the Ukrainians is the same as it is for the people in Syria and Yemen. Which is to say: none at all. A human life is a human life; everything else is just political nonsense.

wiredfalcon2 said:So basically, you feel just as bad in both these scenarios:
a) I wreck one of my best buddies from the neighborhood
b) I screw over some random guy in Polynesia you didn't even know existed

What a parallel. 🤣

Obviously, I feel worse about Ukraine because it's closer to home and culturally similar to us. I'm just saying the moralizing is ridiculous; back then, I don't recall seeing signs everywhere calling Obama a war criminal or a psychopath, or Bush for that matter. At least not to that extent. And I didn't see all this whining about sanctions either. You can't lecture others on morality when you're doing the exact same thing. A human life is a human life, period.

Carl Hernandez3 said:If only Ukraine weren't Syria or Iraq...
From what I can gather—and I try to stay informed—Zelensky hasn't been using chemical weapons against the Russians.
He didn't go invading neighboring Moldova by declaring it twenty-two different Ukrainian oblasts, much like how someone might act in Kuwait.

In Ukraine, for instance, you don't have minority Greek Catholics ruling over a majority of Orthodox Christians—unlike the situation in Sunni Iraq or Alawite Syria.
The President of Ukraine won through free elections; meanwhile, President Assad wins with 101%.
President Zelensky hasn't destroyed a single one of his own cities—Assad is the one who leveled Aleppo and Homs.
The West certainly has plenty of blood on its hands.
But honestly—and I mean this sincerely—only malicious or foolish people would attempt to compare Russia's actions in Ukraine to what happened in Iraq and Syria.

Look, when Assad was busy gassing his own people while the whole world watched, who even cares about that anymore? 🤦

The Gulf War happened, what, over ten years before Iraq was destroyed? Even if it had been at the exact same time, is killing half a million civilians considered "crossing a line"? I have no idea how those psychopaths sleep at night.

In Ukraine, for instance, you don't have a minority ruling over a majority—unlike, say, Sunni rule over Shias in Iraq or Alawite rule over Sunnis in Syria.
The Ukrainian President actually won through free elections, whereas Assad wins with 101%.
President Zelensky hasn't leveled any of his own cities; Assad leveled Aleppo and Homs.
The West has done plenty of terrible things.
But honestly, only malicious or incredibly stupid people try to compare Russia's actions in Ukraine to what happened in Iraq and Syria.

Yeah, comparing a conflict where over half a million people die to one where a few thousand die is nothing but pure malice.

And don't give me that lecture about democracy. We all know why the West went in there and why groups like ISIS were being armed. Anyone with half a brain knows the truth. There are a thousand places under dictatorships where human rights are trampled (look at Saudi Arabia, not to mention their mess in Yemen), but the West doesn't intervene because they have good relations and profit to protect. The reality is that these interventions killed massive numbers of people and triggered huge refugee crises. But nobody gave a damn. The West’s hypocrisy and moralizing is a joke; they've done much worse.

Steven Fox37 said:Just like how Zelensky was sleeping soundly while the Donbas was being shelled. 🤷

Yeah, I actually have that series sitting right there on my hard drive, but I just can't seem to find the time to sit down and actually watch it. Honestly, when am I ever going to get around to it?

Just like when Obama was running drone strikes in Syria, or when Bush had Iraq. Honestly, this Western moralizing is absolutely ridiculous.

Has anyone else been checking out this channel? RealLifeLore actually puts out some pretty fascinating videos.

I don't think the UFC is going to issue a ban on Russians. Let’s be real—Russia is still one of those heavy hitters alongside Brazil and the States when it comes to producing top-tier fighters. It's just illogical. These athletes have nothing to do with their government's politics; in fact, quite a few of them hail from regions that have actually been oppressed by the Russian state. Besides, look at history—the US bombed entire nations in the Middle East, yet American fighters aren't facing bans. Israelis have been fighting Palestinians for decades, yet their fighters compete in the UFC without a second thought.

Steven Fox37 said:And honestly? That propaganda is working so well that Russia has become one of the most hated nations on both sides of the Atlantic. We're seeing an unprecedented wave of sanctions and severed ties hitting them right now.
I mean, seriously? Americans are totally fine with hosting major international sporting events where Israel might be the organizer or Saudi Arabia is the VIP guest, and nobody says a word. But when it comes to these guys, even the international governing bodies are banning them from competing. Talk about a double standard!
Someone really needs to fire those bots. Clearly, they aren't doing their jobs properly if they haven't stopped this fallout.

The world would be a much better place if every act of aggression was condemned this way, but hey, that’s just how it goes.

wearywolf49 said:Mashe, you were the one saying he definitely won't attack because it’s all just media games, claiming he'll just toss it at somewhere like Chernobyl instead. Honestly, who knows—the guy might just drop it anywhere because he's an absolute moron. And then we're supposed to believe only Russia can save us from extinction? Give me a break, 🙂, if they just turn their backs on him and hang him publicly in front of the whole world, that would be a pretty good start.

Having been conditioned by previous intimidation tactics, I simply didn't expect this; I'm not the only one. My mistake, though I still don't see things escalating to such extremes. Dammit, if we didn't reach this point during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we won't hit it here either. Even the USA struggled through wars without dropping nukes. But hey, we'll live to see what happens.

mellowotter36 said:They drop them everywhere. People seem to think that if a nuclear war breaks out, one side drops a single bomb, the other side retaliates, and that's the end of it. In reality, a nuclear war would be over in just a few hours because everyone would launch everything they have. If you're actually going to drop one, there's no point in stopping at just one, because the other side is definitely going to get their revenge within minutes.

Okay, that makes sense. So, he'd actually destroy the entire world and his own country just for this war? Do people seriously believe he's willing to go that far? Not a soul in Russia would let that happen.

Kyle Campbell4 said:If there is any truth to the rumors about how that little guy planned to whisk his family away to a nuclear bunker in Siberia, maybe the man genuinely believes he could pull the trigger somewhere just to prove to the rest of us that he isn't joking.

I am in complete agreement regarding the posts about Russian doctrine. They haven't shifted an inch. In fact, they are fighting exactly the same way they did fifty years ago. Their strategy relies solely on brute force—simply throwing humanity and hardware into the meat grinder as much as necessary. They expect some Western military to humiliate them, so they stick to the old playbook: heavy artillery preparation to level cities, followed immediately by armored infantry assaults. Their logistics and adaptability are incredibly weak. They follow a rigid pattern of warfare and refuse to deviate; they simply throw fresh troops into the fire. It is a pure numbers game where they calculate defeating the enemy through sheer volume. I don't see any scenario where they would ever dare to attack a NATO member. They will continue to target smaller nations outside the alliance. Right now, Ukraine remains their biggest bite.

But where exactly would he drop it? Maybe I'm being naive, but I feel like there's way too much hysteria building up over the threat of a nuclear strike. Dropping it in his own backyard makes zero sense, and targeting a NATO state doesn't make sense either. So where? To me, the whole nuclear threat feels like nothing more than blatant intimidation aimed at the West to ensure nobody interferes.

Kyle Campbell4 said:Back during the Great War, I was old enough to process everything happening around me. I remember my grandmother and mother tending to some Mexican children who had been injured in an accident. I can't recall all the specific details, but I know many of them died. My mother and grandmother were heartbroken because they were just children, whereas my reaction was simply: why are you helping them? They’re the enemy. My two women were horrified by the response of an eight or nine-year-old child. For a very long time after that, I carried a deep anti-Mexican sentiment where I couldn't stand anything associated with them. This anecdote serves to illustrate one point: when a nation becomes an aggressor, an intense resentment toward the entire population inevitably arises, even if there are people within that nation who oppose the war. But please, try to remain rational amidst the madness of conflict. Once war breaks out, it's an unstoppable avalanche. Yes, there were innocent Mexicans caught in the crossfire back then, but that is simply what happens when you are pushed into war. Reason disappears; there is only the madness of battle.

I think everyone understands that kind of mindset when it involves the citizens of Ukraine, America, or any nation that has faced aggression—of course, it makes sense in that context. But those who aren't directly involved in the fighting shouldn't adopt those views. Generalizing an entire nation—especially one as massive as Russia—as criminals won't achieve anything positive in the long run.

It's like what that guy was saying in the video that Jonathan Barnes5 posted. Obviously, things are hardest for the people in Ukraine, but if we start treating every single Russian as if they are Putin, what do we expect them to become in the long term? They will end up harboring hatred toward the West in exactly the same way. That's why I say it's a vicious cycle, and we should look at the lessons of history regarding Hitler. But hey, history has a nasty habit of repeating itself.

Oh, it’s incredibly simple. Especially when you consider how protesters have historically been treated in Russia.

Larry Fox5 said:Look, however you slice it, I'm against collective punishment. Picking on people based on their nationality just to mess with them because they're Russian—there's zero logic in that...
If the government hits them with sanctions and, more importantly, cuts off the funding for their war machine, that's plenty.

Some of you guys here would probably enjoy seeing Russians literally starve. You don't even realize that thinking like that makes you just as bad as the people you're fighting against.

Didn't that lead to Hitler rising in Germany? Go ahead, vent your rage at the loser or the aggressor—whatever you want—but the hatred will just persist in the next generation anyway. It’s nothing but a vicious, repeating cycle.

Patrick Martin said:SPOILER ALERT!!!

I don't know, I'm getting hung up on something else again. That actor playing Bradley Cooper is just way too talented to end up like this.

If he’s really that much of a con artist—driven by nothing but pure greed—he could easily play the part. He's handsome enough and smart enough to pull it off. He’d just charm his way into some wealthy widow's life, and since America is practically crawling with them, he'd be set for life. 🤷

What is he even doing? He’s just making his own life a living hell for absolutely no reason.

I don't know, his whole trajectory feels a little forced to me.

The guy is probably one of the most wanted men in the country right now—partly due to the manipulation, the murders, and those attempted killings. And we aren't just talking about random street thugs; he’s clearly targeting high-profile figures. Honestly, what kind of life can you even lead like that? Not to mention the total mental breakdown; at one point, the man lost everything in the most brutal way possible. Getting played at his own game like that? It definitely doesn't do wonders for your self-esteem. 😬

It’s a solid film—certainly a massive step up from that fish nonsense Del Toro gave us. It drags in parts, though, and I found the opening to be pretty sluggish. As for the romance between Mar and him? That was easily the weakest link. It felt like two people only stuck together because they’re both attractive. They didn't put nearly enough work into her character. The rest of the movie holds up well, especially that ending. The cinematography is gorgeous and the acting is top-tier. Honestly, Cate can play cold-blooded better than anyone else in Hollywood. I disagree with your take on her character, though; I don't see any of those motivations you're claiming, especially regarding the science aspect. 🤣

Her character is exactly what Stan puts it: "no good." At first, I actually found her interesting, and honestly, I thought he might be able to just stay off her radar. But in my opinion, everything shifted the second she caught him taking that key impression. That was her cue to jump into the game and tear his life apart. She’s just pure evil—a far more dangerous manipulator than even our main protagonist.

goldenhound32 said:The movie was alright, but there were definitely parts that just didn't sit right with me.

Why on earth would anyone be foolish enough to hand over their entire life savings to some private individual? It’s pure insanity. They could have easily just walked into a Chase branch and deposited the cash themselves.

What actually happened with Molly? They were alone together... he started hanging out more and more with the doctor and Ezra... and now she’s just deciding to walk out on him? Why?

The third act's "downfall" was way too rushed. We’re talking about a guy who’s living the high life, money coming in from every direction—and then, suddenly, he loses everything overnight and becomes a fugitive? It makes zero sense. Even worse, there's absolutely no visible psychological breakdown. One minute he's successful, the next he's grown a full beard and is trading his luxury watch just for a single sip of whiskey. It happened way too fast. It felt completely unconvincing and incredibly rushed. 👎

Just a decent enough movie, honestly. Not much else to say.

It’s because his ego was through the roof. He honestly thought he had that doctor completely figured out—like she wasn't even a threat to him. And why didn't he just go to the bank? Because if things went south and he ended up getting screwed over, he wanted to make sure he still had a way to protect his cash.

2. There are several reasons for this. First off, he’s overcompensating in their relationship—it’s obvious from the first ten minutes they start living together. I don't know how you missed that; she’s constantly dropping hints. Second, because of that behavior, he isn't actually spending quality time with her. When he suggested taking her out dancing, she basically told him, "I need a break." Third, she spotted a photo of a doctor in his notebook and immediately concluded he was having an affair.

3. Throughout the end of the film, there’s constant emphasis on the stakes getting higher and the consequences getting uglier. And let's be real, he didn't just grow that beard overnight; the guy clearly let himself go over a long period. He was likely on the run from the law right from the start. As a geek, I see him surviving for at least some time after that fatal night—maybe a year or so. I honestly don't get what kind of psychological breakdown you're looking for. What kind of man is supposed to be left after losing absolutely everything?

Yep, that’s likely how they structured Izyju's new deal too. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to put together a decent contract for Francis by the end of the day.

Hah, look, my take is they’d actually step up if they had a contract guaranteeing them, say, $10 million for just doing three or four fights a year chasing a title. Wouldn't that actually motivate fighters? In other sports, people pull in $50 million a season, so they grind through a long schedule because let's face it—you can never have enough cash.

Look at how Fury has been talking trash to Francis for ages now; he's just out for the entertainment and the money. And fighting Franjo would definitely bring in more than a fight against Whyte would. You've got this guy marketed as the best heavyweight from another sport, running a promotion along the lines of "who is the baddest man on the planet?" Especially those fighters with massive KO power—they are marketing gold, and Fury knows it. That’s why he went three rounds with Wilder; plus, for him, it's an easy payday. 😬

Obviously, it won't sell like Floyd vs. Conor, but it could easily move about a million PPV buys. People live for this kind of nonsense. Just tweak the rules, do cage boxing, use different gloves. Boom—instant show.

And maybe they’re looking for some kind of excuse or whatever. Either way, they've treated him like absolute garbage ever since he became champion. First, they hand out that ridiculous interim belt when they should have been setting up the title fight after waiting a year, then they scramble to make one just four months after he won the title. On top of that, the promotion for his last fight was practically nonexistent—not to mention those lawsuits popping up right before the bout. There were plenty of other bullshit moves too... Franjo is just vindictive. ☕

bluemason3 said:They are currently in negotiations because the old contract expired, and the whole conflict stems from what comes next in the new one.🤔

Beyond that, fighters need to be careful not to over-commit themselves in their contracts, even if it provides some sense of security.

Look, I’m not just talking about Francis here; I mean this generally. Besides, it’s not like he’s whining about how much he "deserves." He simply has his demands, and if the UFC meets them, great—if not, he’s ready to look at other options. Which is completely legitimate.

I don't know the exact mechanics of how these deals work, but from what I understand, the UFC usually signs people for at least 4 or 5 fights. If you sign a deal like that and suddenly become a superstar after 2 or 3 fights (take Khamzat Chimaev, for example), do you end up fighting for scraps, or does the contract scale up if you hit certain milestones?

@bluemason3/">@@bluemason3

Of course, it's all about the money; he just doesn't want to say it outright so he doesn't come off as greedy. At least, that's my take, especially since he works so hard to maintain that humble, good guy image. And I suspect he wants that one boxing match, which isn't an impossible ask right now—Ariel mentioned that in an interview.

Comparing a regular 9-to-5 to being a cage fighter. 🥱

They sign a predatory contract at the start because there isn't any other option. Once you make it, you're stuck fighting under those same restrictive terms for your next few bouts. If you don't like it, just go join another organization, right? Lol, please. Even GSP has been retired for five years and still can't compete. Screw that; you deserve more.

Dammit, look at the NBA—every single sport has seen salaries skyrocket alongside their growth, whether it's football, boxing, or any major global sport. Only the UFC hasn't kept pace, and nobody has ever managed to explain why to me. And yeah, sure, we're talking about WWE, which obviously isn't even a real sport. 🤦

Instead of going in circles about this, let's just wait and see how long this lasts. Even now, the biggest stars are fighting less frequently. Franjo pulls one fight against Tyson Fury and he's already made more money than he would have in his next five fights in the UFC, so we'll see what happens to everyone else.

The heavyweight division is such a massive pain in the ass; seeing those monsters go at it is fascinating, I'll give you that. But honestly, you could count on one hand the number of fights from the last five or six years that actually left me breathless. In fact, I can barely remember any top-tier battles besides Stipe Miocic vs. Daniel Cormier in their second fight—most of the time, someone just gets murdered before the third round even starts, and that’s it. Sure, maybe something happens in those two specific bouts, but otherwise, nothing. Heavyweights are convincingly the worst division in the UFC. Over in flyweight, they've got guys like Henry Cejudo and a brunette fighter who practically deliver a Fight of the Year every single time they step in the cage. Same goes for LHW; it used to be the strongest division, and while it's gone a bit stale, it's still better than heavyweights. The heavyweights finally have some big names like Stipe, Francis Ngannou, and potentially Jon Jones, but absolutely nothing ever happens. We get maybe one title fight a year. 🥱

Why wouldn't they just pull the trigger right now? Regardless of what the contract says, it looks like Frank isn't going to be ready until next year anyway. That makes this the perfect window for Stipe vs Jones. Any other matchup just doesn't make sense. You can't just leave the division sitting idle with an interim belt hanging around; there's way too much at stake for that. Look at the facts: over the last five years, there was only one instance where we saw two title fights in the Heavyweight division back in 2018. That means we've averaged basically one title fight per year. It’s honestly pathetic.