I just seen that.
I can't wait for the American left to claim the vote was "rigged" and the process "illegal" so the "election" was "illigitimate"
Bunch of facist election deniers
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Russia begins invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter Fifap94
- Start date
I just seen that.
I can't wait for the American left to claim the vote was "rigged" and the process "illegal" so the "election" was "illigitimate"
Bunch of facist election deniers
Uh huh.
In other words, you have no coherent answers except that "Putin is a megalomaniac cartoon supervillain bent on world domination".
How original
He clearly had annexation in mind when he began the special military operation. Unfortunately he got his ass handed to him.
Now all he can say is we will use nukes to defend our country which a few months ago was someone else's country.
Nothing fucked up with that.
The whole thing is fucked up, on all sides.
I just wish our own government hadn't agitated and coerced it along.
Not to mention sending trillions of our dollars to keep the shit show going
I don't think anybody in America could even show where Ukrain was on a map until they started pumping money into Joe Bidens pockets.
Now we're supposed to support them at all costs?
Last edited:
Not to mention Donetsk, Crimea and Luhansk asked to be annexed by Russia in 2014 after the US coup.
The ethnic Russian people in the east and south could be part of Russia and Washington DC could have it's puppet regime in Kiev and everyone be in peace
Russia should have just annexed it all back then instead of just Crimea. Then there would have been no civil war, no trillions of US taxpayer money and no thousands dead.
It would've been over with back then
Ukraine fucked themselves anyway the second they took money from the Washington DC establishment and orchestrated a coup. From that point on the ukranian people would not have any hope for meaningful independence. Irregardless of what Russia did.
The ethnic Russian people in the east and south could be part of Russia and Washington DC could have it's puppet regime in Kiev and everyone be in peace
Russia should have just annexed it all back then instead of just Crimea. Then there would have been no civil war, no trillions of US taxpayer money and no thousands dead.
It would've been over with back then
Ukraine fucked themselves anyway the second they took money from the Washington DC establishment and orchestrated a coup. From that point on the ukranian people would not have any hope for meaningful independence. Irregardless of what Russia did.
Last edited:
Well here's the results of the election:
Seems to be in line with the opinion polls at the time:
And "317 international official observers, including 179 from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 26 from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 20 from the Ukrainian World Congress, 51 from the World Congress Committee of America, four from the Canadian election observation mission (CANADEM), and 37 from the United States." were watching. Actually more were added than that.
I suppose it could've still been rigged but the US probably would've wanted Tymoshenko. She's even more pro West. And whatever they would've done would've been pretty sophisticated, not easy.
Honestly at the time the people there were so Pro Ukraine and anti-Russian that no pro-Russian politician could've won.
And if Poroshenko is a US puppet they put a lot of effort into installing, why did they allow this to happen 5 years later?
How? They have no weapons that can reach Moscow.
I think his lawyers said he needed to do that to draft conscripts. The constitution doesn't allow for conscripting people when not being attacked and not at war. Other than mobilization and chemical/nuclear weapons he has been using their full military might. He could hit more civilian infrustructure without military value but that won't change the outcome. And he could use WMD but it would be very unpopular and NATO would probably install a no fly zone at that point.
Nothing. The cartels run that government and kidnap and kill Americans all the time. And they don't have armed American rebel militias in Mexico they just do this because they can. The US State Dept just tells us to be careful traveling down there.
Last edited:
That looked exactly like a Rachel maddow MSNBC segment. Parroted word for word
I can't wait for you explain to us all how the Russian referendum in Crimea, Luhansk and Donestk was "rigged" and "illegal"
But it should be taken with a grain of salt because you're still the type of cunt that thinks he should be able to spit in someone's face and be "protected" from that person by some outside authority instead of taking the ass kicking you had coming to you.
Last edited:
Hightower
Member
It was expected that they would become part of Russia
Hightower
Member
Just a chess game on a global scale, I would love to watch a movie with such a scenario. But when it actually happens, it's very bad.
Well other than their nukes we won't have to worry about Russia being a military or economic rival for some time.
Apparently there's a scandal going on with the age of their conscripts:
Apparently they're not just mobilizing men under 35. Men under 35 are just being "prioritized," but many older are being conscripted.
And for officers up to age 50 are prioritized, but people in their 60s are getting notices as well.. I suppose once their national guard is depleted and they start mobilizing citizens with military training, there isn't a whole lot left under 35. If this is true it's looking very bad. People are saying their grandpa was just conscripted.
Last edited:
Something else to point out here, since you're trying to point out equivalencies, is that Trump actually proposed lobbing missiles into Mexico:
"The president pulls me aside on at least a couple of occasions and suggests that maybe we have the U.S. military shoot missiles into Mexico… to go after the cartels." Esper tells Norah O'Donnell in an interview airing Sunday on 60 Minutes.
"We would have this private discussion where I'd say, 'Mr. President, you know, I understand the motive.' Because he was very serious about dealing with drugs in America," Esper says. "I get that, we all understand, but I had to explain to him, 'We-- we can't do that. It would violate international law. It would be terrible for our neighbors to the south. It would, you know, impact us in so many ways. Why-- why don't we do this instead?'"
After Esper politely pushed back, he says President Trump told him, "No one would know it was us."
"He said that," Esper tells O'Donnell. "And I just thought it was fanciful, right? Because, of course, it would be us."
"And then I was having dinner after the election in 2020 with a fellow Cabinet member," Esper says. "And he said to me, he goes, 'You know, remember that time when President Trump suggested you shoot missiles into Mexico?' And I said to him, 'You heard that?' He goes, 'Oh, yeah. I couldn't believe it. And I couldn't believe how well you managed and talked him down from that.' And at that moment, I knew I gotta write the story. Because at least have one witness who will verify that this really did happen."
When contacted about the veracity of Esper's story, Mr. Trump told 60 Minutes "no comment."
President Trump suggested missile strikes in Mexico against drug cartels, former defense secretary says
"I had to explain to him, 'We-- we can't do that. It would violate international law,'" Mark Esper tells Norah O'Donnell.
www.cbsnews.com
Now, I will say if Texas seceded from the Union and started having Pro and Anti US union militia fighting each other we'd probably intervene and try to annex. And that's the part you're not understanding here, we consider Texas part of the US and would want it back. We would want to annex no part of Mexico. And Russia/Putin wants Ukraine back.
Posting the poll numbers and how they aligned with opinion polls, pointing out the international observers, and how Russia didn't even have a dog in the race - their preferred one was impeached, and how the guy who won the 2014 election lost to Zelensky 5 years later? That's not just something just Rachel Maddow would say, that's something Hannity would say and anything across that spectrum. Sorry, I don't read the communist sources you posted.
Nobody's saying the US hasn't interfered in Ukraine or done anything wrong here. The problem is you use weasel words like coup, installed, threatened, and provoked. That's trying to convey something that didn't really happen. Why can't you just say there was interference and that angered Putin? Because that's not really a justification for an invasion and annexation?
More weasel words. "Authoritarian dictator trying to expand his territory into Ukraine" is quite different from "megalomaniac cartoon supervillain bent on world domination." Can't you argue with just the facts?
We are fine with Europe as a rival, but as long as Russia has a dictator for life who is fond of the old Soviet Union and antagonistic towards the West we can't be friends with them and can't have them as rivals.
Last edited:
Something else to point out here, since you're trying to point out equivalencies, is that Trump actually proposed lobbing missiles into Mexico:
"The president pulls me aside on at least a couple of occasions and suggests that maybe we have the U.S. military shoot missiles into Mexico… to go after the cartels." Esper tells Norah O'Donnell in an interview airing Sunday on 60 Minutes.
"We would have this private discussion where I'd say, 'Mr. President, you know, I understand the motive.' Because he was very serious about dealing with drugs in America," Esper says. "I get that, we all understand, but I had to explain to him, 'We-- we can't do that. It would violate international law. It would be terrible for our neighbors to the south. It would, you know, impact us in so many ways. Why-- why don't we do this instead?'"
After Esper politely pushed back, he says President Trump told him, "No one would know it was us."
"He said that," Esper tells O'Donnell. "And I just thought it was fanciful, right? Because, of course, it would be us."
"And then I was having dinner after the election in 2020 with a fellow Cabinet member," Esper says. "And he said to me, he goes, 'You know, remember that time when President Trump suggested you shoot missiles into Mexico?' And I said to him, 'You heard that?' He goes, 'Oh, yeah. I couldn't believe it. And I couldn't believe how well you managed and talked him down from that.' And at that moment, I knew I gotta write the story. Because at least have one witness who will verify that this really did happen."
When contacted about the veracity of Esper's story, Mr. Trump told 60 Minutes "no comment."
President Trump suggested missile strikes in Mexico against drug cartels, former defense secretary says
"I had to explain to him, 'We-- we can't do that. It would violate international law,'" Mark Esper tells Norah O'Donnell.
Now, I will say if Texas seceded from the Union and started having Pro and Anti US union militia fighting each other we'd probably intervene an try to annex. And that's the part you're not understanding here, we consider Texas part of the US and would want it back. We would want no annex any part of Mexico. And Russia/Putin wants Ukraine back.
Posting the poll numbers and how they aligned with opinion polls, pointing out the international observers, and how Russia didn't even have a dog in the race - their preferred one was impeached, and how the guy who won the 2014 election lost to Zelensky 5 years later? That's not just something just Rachel Maddow would say, that's something Hannity would say and anything across that spectrum. Sorry, I don't read the communist sources you posted.
Nobody's saying the US hasn't interfered in Ukraine or done anything wrong here. The problem is you use weasel words like coup, installed, threatened, and provoked. That's trying to convey something that didn't really happen. Why can't you just say there was interference and that angered Putin? Because that's not really a justification for an invasion and annexation?
More weasel words. "Authoritarian dictator trying to expand his territory into Ukraine" is quite different from "megalomaniac cartoon supervillain bent on world domination." Can't you argue with just the facts?
The facts are, Putin has tried to sound the alarm and negotiate a path for ukranian neutrality for twenty fuckin years. Now that's a fact.
Russia gave Warning after warning after warning of NATO encroachment eastward after promises by NATO not to expand. That's a fact
Russia drew the line in Ukraine a decade ago and said no further. That's a fact
Russia sees the US and NATO as a threat....and it should. That's a fact because NATO has no other purpose than to hem in Russia.
Now, you don't have to agree with Russia to understand where their coming from.
I don't agree with Russia and think they could have handled it differently, but then so could the Ukraine/US/NATO alliance.
Last fact, you are a mealy mouthed cunt that thinks he should be able to spit in a man's face without fear of having to defend himself from a bludgeoning.
But any other man would understand that a line in the sand has a meaning. And crossing the line carries consequences.
You don't have to agree with where the man drew his line, but, the line is fair warning. Cross it only when prepared to deal with the fallout without crying foul like a cunt because you got punched.
You asked for it.
I actually work in a busy emergency where we get spit on occasionally. We've got restraints and hoods we put on them, but we don't go beating the shit out of them - least of all gutting them with a knife.
I'll ask you when's the last time you got spat on and what did you do? And where did it get you?
I really can't say I remember ever being spit on. I simply won't tolerate it.
But that's not the point.
The point is, we just aren't going to agree.
I said from the beginning your only real argument is that "Putin is a megalomaniac cartoon supervillain bent on world domination" and after several pages of debating it, the best you can come up with is,
"Authoritarian dictator trying to expand his territory into Ukraine" is quite different from "megalomaniac cartoon supervillain bent on world domination."
No, it's not really different. It's the same childish argument anyway you slice it. And it's not original. Every DNC propoganda consumer on Twitter and Tok or anywhere else going around with ukranian flags, blue waves, hearts and rainbows and shit says exactly the same thing when faced with the observation that this could have easily been prevented by simple low cost diplomacy on the part of the US/NATO/Ukraine alliance.
It's the same old Boogeyman bullshit the propoganda networks pull Everytime they want to screw somebody they make them into a Boogeyman "facist" "dictator" "Nazi" and all the other trigger words they've drilled into your psyche during your lifetime.
So here ya go..
@Hughinn I'm certainly willing to say he's not a "megalomaniac cartoon supervillain bent on world domination." He's not a fictional character you see in movies. He's not trying to rule the world. He's not as bad as Stalin, not even Kruschev. But how is he not dictator for life and not trying to spread his territory into Ukraine, and other former Soviet republics?
You're putting words in my mouth, and using weasel words, because the facts don't support your view so you want to convey something else than the facts.
It reminds me of Godwin's law. Usually whenever someone invokes Hitler and the Nazi's the discussion is over, because they've gone to the extreme end of the conversation and you can go no further. No one and nothing is more evil than that:
en.wikipedia.org
You're putting words in my mouth, and using weasel words, because the facts don't support your view so you want to convey something else than the facts.
It's you and Putin using the word Nazi, not me. Not to mention Zelenski is a Jew who had family members die in the holocaust.
It reminds me of Godwin's law. Usually whenever someone invokes Hitler and the Nazi's the discussion is over, because they've gone to the extreme end of the conversation and you can go no further. No one and nothing is more evil than that:
Godwin's law - Wikipedia
Last edited:
@Hughinn I'm certainly willing to say he's not a "megalomaniac cartoon supervillain bent on world domination." He's not a fictional character you see in movies. He's not trying to rule the world. He's not as bad as Stalin, not even Kruschev. But how is he not dictator for life and not trying to spread his territory into Ukraine, and other former Soviet republics?
You're putting words in my mouth, and using weasel words, because the facts don't support your view so you want to convey something else than the facts.
It's you and Putin using the word Nazi, not me. Not to mention Zelenski is a Jew who had family members die in the holocaust.
It reminds me of Godwin's law. Usually whenever someone invokes Hitler and the Nazi's the discussion is over, because they've gone to the extreme end of the conversation and you can go no further. No one and nothing is more evil than that:
Godwin's law - Wikipedia
We'll, I can agree that Putin is something like a dictator.
And I believe he's a ruthless dude. Because if you know anything about what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union and the massive looting of the state by the West, especially the US, then you'd know that for a guy to wrestle control of the country from the gangsters that ran it, had to be a guy that could instill fear into people.
I've researched this subject extensively and I've read several books on the subject.
Yes, Russia is a problematic backwater geopolitical rival. But Russia is not the Soviet Union.
Yes, Putin is a rough individual. But he's not Satan.
Russia is a nation state with it's own interests and concerns. Security of course being one of them. I respect that, but I'm an American.
And I want my own leadership to stop stirring up shit all over the world and I don't care if liberals don't like Putin. I want my leadership to do whatever they can to bring an end to this and stop the ridiculous posturing and escalation.
I don't care about who runs Ukraine and I don't want my leadership spending billions of our money so they can launch coups to decide who gets to be in charge in Ukraine, all so they can have a personal piggy banks and their crackhead , degenerate children can accept bribes in their behalf. And gain a foreward operations base in their long game war against Russia.
I see no reason for my leadership to provoke Russia, nor meddle in everyone else's affairs while our country goes to shit
Enough of it already.
There is not one single legitimate national security concern in this entire mess for the United States of America.
We should butt the fuck out and let Russia and Europe figure out how their going to trade energy and develop relationships. Time to stop playing masters of the universe
Last edited:
Lol I get that you have a non-interventionist view on foreign policy, but the the mistake you're making is framing foreign policy as a partisan thing when it's a bipartisan thing. I don't know how old you are but I'm in my 40s and as long as I can remember the opposition party has been crying about our aid and interventions in other countries and it sounds good for votes but then they only expand it themselves when they get in power.
So, I mean, to say the democrats are responsible for 30+ years of foreign intervention is to forget the times when Democrats have been screaming bloody murder over the Republican's interventions: Iran-Contra, Panama, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, etc.
In Syria Obama was actually pressured to aid favorable separatist groups and he declined, and then ISIS came out on top, and we had to fight a war to get rid of them because Obama did what you wanted him to do. And John McCain was as big a Putin critic as anybody.
So what you're doing is getting caught up in the moment of criticizing the current party in power without realizing it doesn't matter what party is in power. In the case of Russia vs Ukraine the US and NATO comes out on top here no matter how it plays out. So this is actually been one to the interventions you should be criticizing least, if you're an American. And now we don't have to worry about an anti-West dictator being one of our rivals.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 123722
Guest
Hightower
Member
I wouldn't be so sure about it. Russia has been and will be dangerous, possessing large natural resources, high technologies. Or does the history of wars tell you nothing?
