Offside (General Discussion)

Putin’s got a tiny little 5'6" frame, yet Zelenskyy is out here making himself look like a damn giant at 5'7"

Steven Fox37 said:I know you think none of this matters because, in your eyes, the saintly Ukrainians would never do something like that.
How do you actually know the Russian minority in other areas is fighting the aggressor? Is it because you watched a few clips served up to you by the Ukrainians or the Mainstream Media and decided that's the whole story? This seems to be the pattern with everything you write here. Whatever the Ukrainians say is 100% truth... until a few days later when it turns out the video was actually from a video game, or those "brave fallen heroes" are actually still alive, and so on. And then your new allies—the New York Times reporters and those purple-haired Twitter libtards—write about how we shouldn't criticize such lying because it's "good" propaganda.
The Soviets, the empire, the Tsar, the little guy you're obsessed with... you're basically just copy-pasting the same lines from post to post now. 🤣

Well obviously they aren't. In one case, our guys are fighting, and in the other, it's the bad Russians.

I ordered for the first time about a week ago (I resisted as long as I could, DoorDash was doing the job fine) and the geniuses added a "bad weather surcharge" of $4-$1.75 And there isn't even a single drop of rain in sight.

No, it's more that Canada is a quasi-state and a protectorate that should never have existed in the first place, especially not in this specific form—a state whose existence is rejected by at least half its population, whereas Ukraine is nowhere near that situation.

Whoa, look at this! Dežulović just dropped a massive piece that seems to be doing a lot of relativizing when it comes to the war. 🤣🤣🤣

Justin James10 said:Whoa, look at this! Dežulović just dropped a massive piece that seems to be doing a lot of relativizing when it comes to the war. 🤣🤣🤣

He actually managed to write something even more mindless than his piece on Vukovar. Now that's quite an achievement.

The fundamental problem with these countries is that whenever it looks like someone might actually take power—or does take power—who could bring real stability and a better future, everything falls apart. We’re talking about actual progress, where a nation builds itself up to compete globally instead of just being treated as a bottomless pit of cheap resources for the West. As soon as that happens, the Americans step in. Whether it's the Brits, the French, or the Saudis, they jump right in to sabotage the process. They do it through covert means using the CIA, the Mainstream Media, or the IMF... and if those tactics don't work? Then they go in wide open with bombings, full-scale invasions, or by bankrolling puppet leaders to keep things under control.

Justin James10 said:Whoa, look at this! Dežulović just dropped a massive piece that seems to be doing a lot of relativizing when it comes to the war. 🤣🤣🤣

The guy is a proven, total idiot, and honestly, I have no idea why anyone still bothers following his work at all...

Steven Fox37 said:The fundamental problem with these countries is that whenever it looks like someone might actually take power—or does take power—who could bring real stability and a better future, everything falls apart. We’re talking about actual progress, where a nation builds itself up to compete globally instead of just being treated as a bottomless pit of cheap resources for the West. As soon as that happens, the Americans step in. Whether it's the Brits, the French, or the Saudis, they jump right in to sabotage the process. They do it through covert means using the CIA, the Mainstream Media, or the IMF... and if those tactics don't work? Then they go in wide open with bombings, full-scale invasions, or by bankrolling puppet leaders to keep things under control.

Take Khomeini, for instance, or maybe Gaddafi.🙄

Nancy Bishop4 said:No, it's more that Canada is a quasi-state and a protectorate that should never have existed in the first place, especially not in this specific form—a state whose existence is rejected by at least half its population, whereas Ukraine is nowhere near that situation.

Oh, sure! Ukraine is "far from that" because they're dealing with evil Russians as a minority, whereas in Canada, the whole issue is that the holy Americans (and those satanic Mexicans) are the ones living as a minority.

shadowcobra89 said:The guy is a proven, total idiot, and honestly, I have no idea why anyone still bothers following his work at all...

It’s because the leftists are absolutely obsessed with him... so maybe we should remind them just how much of a fool their little idol really is!

Nancy Bishop4 said:Take Khomeini, for instance, or maybe Gaddafi.🙄

Instead of Khomeini, you should put Mossadegh in there. His removal was actually what paved the way for Khomeini to seize power.
Yeah, honestly? I’m all for Gaddafi.

Steven Fox37 said:Oh, sure! Ukraine is "far from that" because they're dealing with evil Russians as a minority, whereas in Canada, the whole issue is that the holy Americans (and those satanic Mexicans) are the ones living as a minority.

First off, Canada isn't a unitary state like Ukraine; the difference is so massive that trying to draw parallels between them is honestly pointless.
Secondly, the vast majority of the population in Ukraine actually wants their country to exist, which just isn't the case in Canada.
Thirdly, Ukraine isn't a protectorate, while Canada absolutely is.
Finally, Ukraine is a country where you can actually hold legitimate elections, something that simply doesn't happen in Canada.

https://hr.n1info.com/svijet/granicn...resao-granicu/

Total propaganda... I don't believe a single word anymore! 😢

Nancy Bishop4 said:Lol, would they have been slaughtered? Maybe. If Americans hadn't gone to war with Iran, maybe they would've been killed even more. Maybe it would have turned into a civil war like in Syria, or maybe Saddam would have started using poison gas again—maybe, maybe.

Sure, and we can just blame the Americans for everything. Is that any different from blaming the Republican Party for how long they've held power here?
The fundamental issues in those countries aren't actually about the USA; it's because most of them are Frankenstein states. They don't make sense in their current forms, and honestly, most should probably break up into several smaller nations that are ethnically and religiously homogeneous.

Saddam got his ass kicked once; what are the odds he'd try that again? Everything you're saying is just one big "maybe." I’m talking about facts and what actually happened.

I agree that the region is a minefield and there hasn't been a solution since Israel was established with Western help. But nothing before the Americans arrived there had any consequences for Europe. Trying to justify their intervention makes no sense at all.

Nancy Bishop4 said:First off, Canada isn't a unitary state like Ukraine; the difference is so massive that trying to draw parallels between them is honestly pointless.
Secondly, the vast majority of the population in Ukraine actually wants their country to exist, which just isn't the case in Canada.
Thirdly, Ukraine isn't a protectorate, while Canada absolutely is.
Finally, Ukraine is a country where you can actually hold legitimate elections, something that simply doesn't happen in Canada.

Calling a state "unitary" or a "protectorate" is an unimportant thing—it's just nitpicking to try and justify a specific point.
Are you seriously trying to tell me Canada is some unitary state that isn't a protectorate? In that case, how do you explain the fact that the majority people—the Americans in Canada (who are the indigenous inhabitants!)—are being treated exactly the same way they are today? Add in all the various bans on the American language and being forced into Canadian-language schooling, and what would you say if you were back home in America? You'd probably just shrug and say, "Oh well, we can't do anything about it, it's a unitary state."
No way in hell.
And regarding elections? A coup d'état (which the US is currently neck-deep in) took down the man that most of the breakaway regions voted for. The Canadians are just more sophisticated; they don't even allow the Americans to elect their own representative in the first place, so they don't even have to worry about removing him later.

Noah Roberts46 said:Saddam got his ass kicked once; what are the odds he'd try that again? Everything you're saying is just one big "maybe." I’m talking about facts and what actually happened.

I agree that the region is a minefield and there hasn't been a solution since Israel was established with Western help. But nothing before the Americans arrived there had any consequences for Europe. Trying to justify their intervention makes no sense at all.

People have always been intervening there, probably for at least 2,000 years if you go all the way back to the days of Rome. I guess saying "Americans just meddle in everything" doesn't really make much sense when you look at the full picture. Maybe it's worth noting that since they started getting involved, the borders in the Middle East have actually stayed somewhat stable, which wasn't exactly the case before.

Steven Fox37 said:Calling a state "unitary" or a "protectorate" is an unimportant thing—it's just nitpicking to try and justify a specific point.
Are you seriously trying to tell me Canada is some unitary state that isn't a protectorate? In that case, how do you explain the fact that the majority people—the Americans in Canada (who are the indigenous inhabitants!)—are being treated exactly the same way they are today? Add in all the various bans on the American language and being forced into Canadian-language schooling, and what would you say if you were back home in America? You'd probably just shrug and say, "Oh well, we can't do anything about it, it's a unitary state."
No way in hell.
And regarding elections? A coup d'état (which the US is currently neck-deep in) took down the man that most of the breakaway regions voted for. The Canadians are just more sophisticated; they don't even allow the Americans to elect their own representative in the first place, so they don't even have to worry about removing him later.

Unimportant things? You are literally comparing apples to oranges.

The fact is, Canada can't be a unitary state, nor will it ever be, and that puts an end to that "argument" right there.

You also forgot to mention how Viktor Yanukovych even came to power in the first place, or all the things he pulled that led to the coup.

Nancy Bishop4 said:Unimportant things? You are literally comparing apples to oranges.

The fact is, Canada can't be a unitary state, nor will it ever be, and that puts an end to that "argument" right there.

You also forgot to mention how Viktor Yanukovych even came to power in the first place, or all the things he pulled that led to the coup.

Lol, why wouldn't it be able to be unitary? My whole point is that unitarity is an irrelevant argument. If it actually were a unitary state, you wouldn't even care, just like I don't.
Oh, and sure, everyone is corrupt except for the golden boy with the offshore accounts, right?
That's how they ousted Dilma and Lula in Brazil—to make it look like the FBI was involved in everything, while the lead judge later went on a little pilgrimage to Langley.

Edit: I'm sure Yanukovych is corrupt too, and yeah, the elections in Ukraine are shaky. We're talking about one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, but that doesn't mean the opposition is suddenly clean.

Unlock the offside rule

Steven Fox37 said:Lol, why wouldn't it be able to be unitary? My whole point is that unitarity is an irrelevant argument. If it actually were a unitary state, you wouldn't even care, just like I don't.
Oh, and sure, everyone is corrupt except for the golden boy with the offshore accounts, right?
That's how they ousted Dilma and Lula in Brazil—to make it look like the FBI was involved in everything, while the lead judge later went on a little pilgrimage to Langley.

Edit: I'm sure Yanukovych is corrupt too, and yeah, the elections in Ukraine are shaky. We're talking about one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, but that doesn't mean the opposition is suddenly clean.

It can't be unitary because neither the Mexicans nor the Americans will agree to it; they'd rather see the whole thing fall apart than accept a unitary state, much like what happened with Yugoslavia.

The issue isn't just the corruption; it's the constitutional amendments he pushed through, which basically built the infrastructure for a dictatorship.

So that basically means the opposition is 350 times cleaner.