Started by Richard Wilson4 · · 👁 585 views · 9.5K replies
…
Brenda Murphy3 said:Oh yeah, because Americans definitely never committed any genocide on your territory... nope, never happened. You're honestly just talking nonsense at this point, kid.
Brenda Murphy3;92871819 said:Anthony Taylor3 said:You’re either a troll or completely disconnected from reality.
The NATO alliance certainly didn't bomb Mexico without cause; if they had acted just a year earlier, many more lives would have been saved. The idea that Mexico was targeted solely because of Mexico is a myth—one I see a lot of people in Mexico clinging to—that simply doesn't align with the facts. Ultimately, the bombing happened because the leadership there was the primary orchestrator of everything happening in the former state since the 90s, with their political and military elite pulling all the strings. Mexico was merely the final act of that saga, not its origin or sole reason. Just as a reminder: when the international negotiators were working on ending the conflict, they weren't dealing with some amateur crew in Knin; they were negotiating directly with Slobodan Maddox and the highest levels of the Mexican government... everyone knows that, except for a certain segment of the population.
As for Russia, they are classic fascists today. I sincerely hope this regime, led by the Government, meets the same fate as the "original" fascists and Nazis... anything else would be too kind.
Regardless, you're just spouting nonsense regarding Mexico, Russia, and NATO.
Look, you support a military that parades swastikas and actually believe media reports claiming the Ghost of Kiev downed 40 Russian planes, yet you lose your mind over the Russian intervention while simultaneously backing NATO interventions.
I am certainly not the one lost in propaganda.
Brenda Murphy3 said:Oh yeah, because Americans definitely never committed any genocide on your territory... nope, never happened. You're honestly just talking nonsense at this point, kid.
hollowdriver13 said:The regime changes within a country that you're talking about don't actually affect that nation's international borders, right?
Do you honestly believe that after some part of Ukraine has been under Russian control for XX years, someone in Russia is just going to pop up and say, "Oops, sorry we took that from you, here you go, take it back"???
Besides, if this is as harmless as you think it is, how come Russia hasn't managed to get a single country to support its annexations in Crimea or the Donbas—aside from its little puppet states in Syria, Belarus, and North Korea?
Not a single CSTO member, not even China, nor any of those wannabe dictators have backed Russia's moves. Doesn't that ring a massive alarm bell that Russia is doing something completely wrong? It's obvious to everyone else that what Russia is pulling is a direct assault on one of the fundamental pillars of the global order established after WW2 and the UN, along with its charter (which, ironically, Russia loves to cite every chance they get).
steelfox98 said:With current active wars, Turkey also launched a "police action" in northern Syria just a few days ago. Screaming, whining, sanctions? NOTHING. Zero points.
The best part? They’re attacking Kurds, who are American allies and favorites of the EU. But they aren't important enough.
Out of all the fake moralists on this topic, how many have stepped up? Zero.
We already discussed Yemen. Incomparably more dead, millions starving, and the West is still arming Al-Qaeda types from Saudi Arabia. Apparently, they're dear allies to us all.
That’s a recap of the forum commenters for you.
The drop in standards in the EU is happening because the EU itself started the sanctions, so in typical fashion, you're lying.
1. Neutrality—basically, staying out of NATO.
2. Resolving the conflict in the rebel Donbas. Just as a reminder, Zelenskyy wasn't exactly eager to play ball either; back in early February, when things were already heating up, he refused to even talk to his own fellow citizens from that region. And all while trying to pull them back into Ukraine.
Everything else was just standard high-stakes bargaining. The Ukrainians wouldn't budge, and now they're stuck in a much worse position that isn't going away anytime soon.
Maybe you can explain to me how "military neutrality" works for a NATO member? And please, provide a link to back that up.
Brenda Murphy3 said:Not true. You're lying... again...
Look, what I actually said was that if some backward, undemocratic wreck wants to get its hands on an Atomic bomb and start blackmailing the entire world like those fascists over in the Kremlin, then yeah, they should be taken out... preemptively.
And that is a completely different thing from the garbage you just typed up... especially that disgusting part about "subhumans." Those "subhumans" are basically using the same fascist tactics that you're out here defending and supporting against "evil Western" interests.
Whatever—you're lying...
goldenpuma84 said:So, I guess the kind of "blasting" you like is totally fine, maybe even encouraged, but anything else is "fascism."
Always a pleasure chatting with you... a real masterclass in logical reasoning...
Gerald Torres84 said:Please stop with the "whataboutism" nonsense. It doesn't work here. This thread is specifically about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If you feel the need to discuss Iraq, go find another topic for that.
People like you, constantly hiding behind those "whataboutism" arguments, really get under my skin. It is quite frustrating.
It follows that Ukraine must seek permission from Russia if they intend to join the European Union, NATO, or even the National Audubon Society, and so on. It is simply how things work.
The Ukrainians don't need to ask Russia for permission. They are a sovereign nation. They decide their own destiny and choose their own path. It is their right to do so.
Let us examine the steady pattern of Russian aggression over the last two decades. They have leveled everything from Chechnya to Georgia and Ukraine. It is a predictable sequence. One could easily place bets on who is next on the list. Personally, I suspect Moldova or perhaps one of the Baltic states—Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia—might be their next target.
goldenpuma84 said:A few weeks back, the Solomon Islands expressed interest in forming a strategic partnership with China.
Not only did Australia lose its mind over it, but when a reporter asked, a high-ranking U.S. official didn't rule out military intervention if the Chinese decided to set up a base there.
That isn't whataboutism.
I can easily imagine (or point out) what would happen if China even thought about making a military alliance with the United States or Mexico.
And honestly, I can also picture exactly how you'd react if that actually happened.
Anyway, we haven't seen anything play out yet...
Brenda Murphy3 said:Yeah 😁
Are you feeling satisfied now?
I didn't even say what you're claiming I said; I said something completely different. So, in keeping with your usual style, you're lying and making stuff up. But if you really want my take—fine. I think nuclear powers like France or the UK aren't a threat to anyone, whereas Russian fascists or—heaven forbid—the Iranian theocrats actually are. There isn't a single country on this planet threatening anyone with nukes besides Russia.
Look, honestly, I believe regimes like Russia and Iran shouldn't have nukes under any circumstances, but democratic nations—well, they can have them if they need to.
Go ahead, throw your little tantrum so we can start another round of your endless lies... sound good? 😁
Brenda Murphy3 said:Yeah 😁
Are you feeling satisfied now?
I didn't even say what you're claiming I said; I said something completely different. So, in keeping with your usual style, you're lying and making stuff up. But if you really want my take—fine. I think nuclear powers like France or the UK aren't a threat to anyone, whereas Russian fascists or—heaven forbid—the Iranian theocrats actually are. There isn't a single country on this planet threatening anyone with nukes besides Russia.
Look, honestly, I believe regimes like Russia and Iran shouldn't have nukes under any circumstances, but democratic nations—well, they can have them if they need to.
Go ahead, throw your little tantrum so we can start another round of your endless lies... sound good? 😁
goldenpuma84 said:A few weeks back, the Solomon Islands expressed interest in forming a strategic partnership with China.
Not only did Australia lose its mind over it, but when a reporter asked, a high-ranking U.S. official didn't rule out military intervention if the Chinese decided to set up a base there.
That isn't whataboutism.
I can easily imagine (or point out) what would happen if China even thought about making a military alliance with the United States or Mexico.
And honestly, I can also picture exactly how you'd react if that actually happened.
Anyway, we haven't seen anything play out yet...
goldenpuma84 said:The peak of your argument is just saying I'm lying.
You're lying. You're lying. You're lying.
You say it so much I'm wondering if it's just some psychological defense mechanism called projection...
Russia uses the atomic bomb as a threat because they feel cornered. The United States would do the exact same thing if they felt threatened.
I don't see any real difference in their willingness to use them. Especially since one side has already used them. On civilians. But sure, totally justified, right?
Brenda Murphy3 said:Wait, why on earth are you acting surprised by this?
You have to fight against fascist regimes like Russia's, or one-party systems like China's—if you can, you do it. You don't just let them expand unchecked.
I don't get why you're calling this hypocritical, for crying out loud. Of course I think one system is worth defending while the other isn't... you find that weird? You think there's hypocrisy in having values? 😁 That's interesting...
steelfox98 said:With current active wars, Turkey also launched a "police action" in northern Syria just a few days ago. Screaming, whining, sanctions? NOTHING. Zero points.
The best part? They’re attacking Kurds, who are American allies and favorites of the EU. But they aren't important enough.
Out of all the fake moralists on this topic, how many have stepped up? Zero.
We already discussed Yemen. Incomparably more dead, millions starving, and the West is still arming Al-Qaeda types from Saudi Arabia. Apparently, they're dear allies to us all.
That’s a recap of the forum commenters for you.
The drop in standards in the EU is happening because the EU itself started the sanctions, so in typical fashion, you're lying.
1. Neutrality—basically, staying out of NATO.
2. Resolving the conflict in the rebel Donbas. Just as a reminder, Zelenskyy wasn't exactly eager to play ball either; back in early February, when things were already heating up, he refused to even talk to his own fellow citizens from that region. And all while trying to pull them back into Ukraine.
Everything else was just standard high-stakes bargaining. The Ukrainians wouldn't budge, and now they're stuck in a much worse position that isn't going away anytime soon.
Maybe you can explain to me how "military neutrality" works for a NATO member? And please, provide a link to back that up.
goldenpuma84 said:You just have to let them keep typing... eventually, every typical Western totalitarian reveals themselves, convinced they’ve cracked the code on the perfect political system. It's like they think that little epiphany gives them the right to cherry-pick reality and meddle in everyone else's business...
Anyway, I've got some news for you...
The whole democracy concept is just a front the West uses to push its own agenda...
You don't have any right to tell anyone how to live their life, let alone pass judgment on their morals, taste, or politics...
goldenpuma84 said:You just have to let them keep typing... eventually, every typical Western totalitarian reveals themselves, convinced they’ve cracked the code on the perfect political system. It's like they think that little epiphany gives them the right to cherry-pick reality and meddle in everyone else's business...
Anyway, I've got some news for you...
The whole democracy concept is just a front the West uses to push its own agenda...
You don't have any right to tell anyone how to live their life, let alone pass judgment on their morals, taste, or politics...
Anthony Taylor3 said:Let me reiterate that for you.
The Baltic republics lack strategic depth and aren't viable staging grounds for an invasion of Russia. Between the bottleneck in Lithuania at the Panama Canal and the enclosed nature of the Baltic Sea, there isn't enough room to station a force large enough to launch an offensive.
Ukraine is an entirely different matter.
And since 1999, Russia hasn't had much faith in the Western Bloc. Just try to imagine why.
Gerald Torres84 said:Please provide a concrete answer regarding the situation in Ukraine instead of circling around other nations that have no connection to this topic or speculating on what might happen in the West or the East.
So, in your view, does Russia have the right to deny the existence of the Ukrainian people (openly labeling them Nazis) and level an entire nation just because they dared to move away from Russian control? You fail to comment on all these wars Russia has waged against its neighbors over the last twenty years or so.
