Offside (General Discussion)

Kyle Campbell4 said:Unlock the offside rule

Vladimir Putin locked down the offside rule, but we aren't backing down. ☕

Nancy Bishop4 said: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.

Look, I get it—I know it can't be a monolith. That’s exactly why what I’m laying out here is just a hypothetical scenario.
The point I'm trying to make is this: in that hypothetical scenario, neither you nor I would actually give a damn about maintaining unity. Honestly, who would?

Nancy Bishop4 said: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.

I don't know much about constitutional amendments, but if we're talking about sentencing political opponents, there's a massive logical flaw here. If you follow that line of reasoning, wouldn't it mean that the only governments actually allowed to prosecute a politician are the ones they belong to? It just doesn't add up, does it?
So, let me get this straight: if someone from the Democratic Party gets caught up in a corruption scandal while the Republicans are in power—or if it’s the other way around—it's immediately branded as some massive political vendetta? Is that really how we're playing it now? It's like the moment any politician slips up, everyone jumps to conclusions about partisan witch hunts instead of just looking at the facts. Isn't it funny how quickly everything turns into a "political process" the second things get messy?

Steven Fox37 said:Look, I get it—I know it can't be a monolith. That’s exactly why what I’m laying out here is just a hypothetical scenario.
The point I'm trying to make is this: in that hypothetical scenario, neither you nor I would actually give a damn about maintaining unity. Honestly, who would?

I don't know much about constitutional amendments, but if we're talking about sentencing political opponents, there's a massive logical flaw here. If you follow that line of reasoning, wouldn't it mean that the only governments actually allowed to prosecute a politician are the ones they belong to? It just doesn't add up, does it?
So, let me get this straight: if someone from the Democratic Party gets caught up in a corruption scandal while the Republicans are in power—or if it’s the other way around—it's immediately branded as some massive political vendetta? Is that really how we're playing it now? It's like the moment any politician slips up, everyone jumps to conclusions about partisan witch hunts instead of just looking at the facts. Isn't it funny how quickly everything turns into a "political process" the second things get messy?

What’s the point of bringing up a situation that is impossible? 🤷
If Canada were unitary in the way the Muslims wanted, there wouldn't be any Americans or Mexicans left there very quickly, so your hypothetical scenario wouldn't even apply.

No, I mean expanding presidential powers.

Is this some kind of living entity or just a high-tech hologram? Personally, it looks like he just beamed down from the planet Krypton.🤔

George Lewis27 said:Is this some kind of living entity or just a high-tech hologram? Personally, it looks like he just beamed down from the planet Krypton.🤔

Oh look, there's Mr. Chipmunk himself... we've all truly missed him. 😍

You couldn't find a better face for a main villain in a movie, say, a sci-fi flick.

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.

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.

feralcanyon73 said:Putin’s got a tiny little 5'6" frame, yet Zelenskyy is out here making himself look like a damn giant at 5'7"

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🤔

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. 🤣🤣🤣

There isn't much difference between him and those thugs at the pro-Russian protests. It's exactly the same thing.

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.

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.

Noah Roberts46 said: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.🤦

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.

He had to be removed if the country was ever going to move forward. 🙏

Just look at the state of the country now. 🤣

Are you even reading what you wrote?

There is absolutely no debate on my end regarding the condemnation of this aggression, and frankly, it’s disgusting that you’re implying I’m justifying anything. I’ve said this multiple times, but clearly, you lack basic reading comprehension. It’s the same deal with Saddam—you can’t grasp my point because you refuse to connect the dots. You have to look at the timing and the context. Saddam was taken out right at the start, yet the USA pulled its troops out eight years later. As for the oil, I already provided a link that seems to be way over your head.

So, you’d want to take out Assad? Just because things went so well in Libya? Honestly, you haven't offered a single concrete answer to anything; you just spout total nonsense. You love talking about propaganda while it’s blindingly obvious that your brain has been washed by pro-American rhetoric. I don't subscribe to any specific propaganda, whether it’s Russian or American. Both nations do terrible things—some more than others. You paint one side as modern-day Nazis while conveniently turning a blind eye and searching for excuses for the other. There is zero point in trying to have a real discussion with you on this topic. LP

Noah Roberts46 said:He had to be removed if the country was ever going to move forward. 🙏

Just look at the state of the country now. 🤣

Are you even reading what you wrote?

There is absolutely no debate on my end regarding the condemnation of this aggression, and frankly, it’s disgusting that you’re implying I’m justifying anything. I’ve said this multiple times, but clearly, you lack basic reading comprehension. It’s the same deal with Saddam—you can’t grasp my point because you refuse to connect the dots. You have to look at the timing and the context. Saddam was taken out right at the start, yet the USA pulled its troops out eight years later. As for the oil, I already provided a link that seems to be way over your head.

So, you’d want to take out Assad? Just because things went so well in Libya? Honestly, you haven't offered a single concrete answer to anything; you just spout total nonsense. You love talking about propaganda while it’s blindingly obvious that your brain has been washed by pro-American rhetoric. I don't subscribe to any specific propaganda, whether it’s Russian or American. Both nations do terrible things—some more than others. You paint one side as modern-day Nazis while conveniently turning a blind eye and searching for excuses for the other. There is zero point in trying to have a real discussion with you on this topic. LP

Under Saddam, Iraq was a nation stifled by sanctions and embargos. That madman could only be controlled in that manner. Food shortages and famine were commonplace occurrences. Today, Iraq is a country that trades freely with the entire world. Hunger and scarcity are merely grim memories from the era of that dark dictator. The security situation has also improved following the end of the civil war and the defeat of the Sunnis. If they can manage to overcome their tribal divisions, Iraq could actually transform into a functional state. This stands in stark contrast to Syria, which under Assad will never evolve into a healthy society. Your tiny intellect is even worse than the Nazis, who were actually sophisticated, urban players for their era. You are stuck somewhere in the 18th century.

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.

Steven Fox37 said: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.

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.

Really? Which specific individuals are we talking about? I'm genuinely curious.

Steven Fox37 said: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.

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.

That’s not really how it works.

Nancy Bishop4 said:Really? Which specific individuals are we talking about? I'm genuinely curious.

Mossadegh, Gaddafi, Lumumba, Sankara

Nancy Bishop4 said:What’s the point of bringing up a situation that is impossible? 🤷
If Canada were unitary in the way the Muslims wanted, there wouldn't be any Americans or Mexicans left there very quickly, so your hypothetical scenario wouldn't even apply.

No, I mean expanding presidential powers.

The whole point is to see if your stance changes based on whether a unitary state actually exists or not—basically, to see if "unitarism" is even a valid argument.
My stance isn't changing; in either case, I'm standing with the Americans in Canada.

As for increasing presidential powers, I’d need to see more specific details on what exactly was intended; that's just too vague. To be honest, I'm not even 100% sure myself if I favor more or less presidential power. In the US, they are obviously quite substantial, while Germany serves as the complete opposite example.

Jacob Price95 said:Oh look, there's Mr. Chipmunk himself... we've all truly missed him. 😍

You couldn't find a better face for a main villain in a movie, say, a sci-fi flick.

It’s always the exact same setup.
Always looking dead serious, hair perfectly combed, wearing one of those sharp suits, sitting in front of a neatly framed picture in a spotless little apartment.
Because, hey, he’s the "expert," right? We just have to take his word for it.

Noah Roberts46 said:He had to be removed if the country was ever going to move forward. 🙏

Just look at the state of the country now. 🤣

Are you even reading what you wrote?

There is absolutely no debate on my end regarding the condemnation of this aggression, and frankly, it’s disgusting that you’re implying I’m justifying anything. I’ve said this multiple times, but clearly, you lack basic reading comprehension. It’s the same deal with Saddam—you can’t grasp my point because you refuse to connect the dots. You have to look at the timing and the context. Saddam was taken out right at the start, yet the USA pulled its troops out eight years later. As for the oil, I already provided a link that seems to be way over your head.

So, you’d want to take out Assad? Just because things went so well in Libya? Honestly, you haven't offered a single concrete answer to anything; you just spout total nonsense. You love talking about propaganda while it’s blindingly obvious that your brain has been washed by pro-American rhetoric. I don't subscribe to any specific propaganda, whether it’s Russian or American. Both nations do terrible things—some more than others. You paint one side as modern-day Nazis while conveniently turning a blind eye and searching for excuses for the other. There is zero point in trying to have a real discussion with you on this topic. LP

I don't think you're seeing the full picture here. This is what Libya looks like today. Before the intervention, you had a dictator who was handed weapons by the FRA or BRI and used them to crush the opposition in something resembling a semi-genocide or ethnic cleansing. In reality, Libya under Gaddafi was essentially an occupied nation.

And Assad is even worse. Honestly, he was facing total collapse from a population armed to the teeth. In Libya, they at least had to take out tanks just to give the rebel tribes a fighting chance, whereas this other guy was falling apart regardless.

In those kinds of broken, unstable countries, you find people who actually manage to spot the divisions, only to end up catching a bullet to the head from some random general.

Steven Fox37 said:Mossadegh, Gaddafi, Lumumba, Sankara

That’s like saying Andrej Plenković could just smooth over all the political divides in America and we wouldn't even need elections every four years.

The fundamental issue with these countries is that their citizens haven't yet found common ground through shared divisions.

Under Gaddafi, Libya was basically under occupation.🤦
Back during the Gaddafi days, they had free healthcare and education. People from all over the world could just show up and work in Libya without a care in the world—tons of our people had great, high-paying jobs in oil or construction. Even Ivan Canadian used to play soccer there. Now? You can't even step foot in the place because it's way too dangerous. Without security details, our people wouldn't even dream of going there to work.

Plus, when they took out Saddam, the whole justification was that he was building nuclear weapons. Funny how after killing him, they tore the entire country apart looking and couldn't find a single thing... nothing at all.

NATO said themselves they wouldn't expand past Poland, yet here we are seeing ambitions to push all the way to Russia.🤣

Honestly, anything is better than having America try to "introduce democracy." That should basically be considered a curse.

You’ve gotta play this smart. Look, Assad is a total joke—just like all those other dictators whose sons end up inheriting the throne—but honestly? The alternative is usually way worse. That’s the real headache with these current Western governments; they end up making even bigger messes than what came before, just look at what happened in Libya. It used to be different back in the day; if a government actually collapsed, there was usually someone else ready to step in and take over.

Steven Fox37 said:Mossadegh, Gaddafi, Lumumba, Sankara

It’s impossible to rank them—you can't really say which one was the worse dictator or degenerate.🤦>

In principle, this whole situation is a win for America. They aren't the ones suffering, the media machine is running at full throttle, and they've spun everything to their advantage. Their goal is just to destabilize Russia, and honestly, they couldn't care less about what happens to the poor folks in Ukraine. After this, Russia won't be a functional country for the next hundred years, and Ukraine will be just as screwed—all for the sake of their own economic bottom line. It always comes back to the money.