Ukraine

1…2122242627…220

Comments

  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,257
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I think our administration/intelligence played this one as well as they could have played it.  They loudly and accurately called out every Russian move and bullshit before it happened.  Were proven right every time.  As a result, Putin's attempt at PR and any chance of any flimsy justification of this has been shot to shit.
    I would rather we have influence to stop a war rather than to predict one. We don’t have influence anymore.
    Gee, I wonder why?
    The US leadership over the last 30 years has deteriorated.  Republicans are crazy and the left doesn’t want to fund the military and would rather our military be politically correct over being prepared.
  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,537
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I think our administration/intelligence played this one as well as they could have played it.  They loudly and accurately called out every Russian move and bullshit before it happened.  Were proven right every time.  As a result, Putin's attempt at PR and any chance of any flimsy justification of this has been shot to shit.
    I would rather we have influence to stop a war rather than to predict one. We don’t have influence anymore.
    Gee, I wonder why?
    The US leadership over the last 30 years has deteriorated.  Republicans are crazy and the left doesn’t want to fund the military and would rather our military be politically correct over being prepared.
    The military here has more than enough money.
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,598
    Jearlpam0925 said:
    The Juggler said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    Putin has lost his marbles.  Can we just drone him?
    It's a violation of international law to assassinate a head of state. 
    What does international law say about maliciously invading a sovereign country?
    That it's illegal, hence the sanctions and providing Ukraine with weapons.  Russia violating international law doesn't give us the right to do so.  
    If we are engaged with a rule breaking lunatic the fastest way to end the conflict is to break the rules.I don't think history or the international community will look unfavorably on something like that.  If this turns into a protracted conflict and we (US Military) don't put boots on the ground, well then we may as well just give the guy Ukraine. Once he has been emboldened by taking Ukraine where will he stop?  I mean what do we do, go into WWIII because we can't assassinate one lunatic?  I am pretty sure he doesn't give a shit about sanctions at this point.  It sounds like they are trying to take Chernobyl and potentially destabilize it which would likely spread nuclear material all over again.  Is there a line that he crosses that will invite a swift and decisive move that would end this quickly?  
    The line is invading a NATO country. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they aren't in NATO. I think the greater fear is that Putin does not want to stop here and will, eventually, try to push further west into NATO countries. But I don't see how any of this ends quickly. 
    Outside of completely dropping the hammer - which should definitely not be ruled out here - they just have to make haste with making Russia an isolated country.
    What's the hammer to you, here? 
    www.myspace.com
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,482
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I think our administration/intelligence played this one as well as they could have played it.  They loudly and accurately called out every Russian move and bullshit before it happened.  Were proven right every time.  As a result, Putin's attempt at PR and any chance of any flimsy justification of this has been shot to shit.
    I would rather we have influence to stop a war rather than to predict one. We don’t have influence anymore.
    Gee, I wonder why?
    The US leadership over the last 30 years has deteriorated.  Republicans are crazy and the left doesn’t want to fund the military and would rather our military be politically correct over being prepared.
    Yikes.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • bootlegger10
    bootlegger10 Posts: 16,257
    edited February 2022
    josevolution said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    China and Russia are the biggest problems the world faces.  I have said it over and over and over.  The left wonders why we spend so much on military.  It is because these other countries are and when the time comes have no interest in playing nice.

    The US is getting weaker and weaker.
    Well how did we do when Trumpolinni was in charge wasn’t he the one to give the car keys to Putin in regards to Ukraine? Remember Helsinki who looked weak then? 
    So, somehow this is all Trump’s fault that Russia attacked?  My comment was focusing on the countries that are the aggressors.  We need to remember who the ones are that are doing the attacking, first.

    Trump was part of the weakening of the US, for sure.  My anger is with China and Russia, my disappointment is with the US and the West.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,675
    So at what border will he stop at? 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • The Juggler
    The Juggler Posts: 49,598
    bootlegger10 said:
    Halifax2TheMax said:
    bootlegger10 said:
    MayDay10 said:
    I think our administration/intelligence played this one as well as they could have played it.  They loudly and accurately called out every Russian move and bullshit before it happened.  Were proven right every time.  As a result, Putin's attempt at PR and any chance of any flimsy justification of this has been shot to shit.
    I would rather we have influence to stop a war rather than to predict one. We don’t have influence anymore.
    Gee, I wonder why?
    The US leadership over the last 30 years has deteriorated.  Republicans are crazy and the left doesn’t want to fund the military and would rather our military be politically correct over being prepared.
    So you want us to go back to Obama era military spending?
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/272473/us-military-spending-from-2000-to-2012/

    www.myspace.com
  • 23scidoo
    23scidoo Thessaloniki,Greece Posts: 19,989

    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015.
    Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.

    I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
  • Jearlpam0925
    Jearlpam0925 Deep South Philly Posts: 17,537
    The Juggler said:
    Jearlpam0925 said:
    The Juggler said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    Putin has lost his marbles.  Can we just drone him?
    It's a violation of international law to assassinate a head of state. 
    What does international law say about maliciously invading a sovereign country?
    That it's illegal, hence the sanctions and providing Ukraine with weapons.  Russia violating international law doesn't give us the right to do so.  
    If we are engaged with a rule breaking lunatic the fastest way to end the conflict is to break the rules.I don't think history or the international community will look unfavorably on something like that.  If this turns into a protracted conflict and we (US Military) don't put boots on the ground, well then we may as well just give the guy Ukraine. Once he has been emboldened by taking Ukraine where will he stop?  I mean what do we do, go into WWIII because we can't assassinate one lunatic?  I am pretty sure he doesn't give a shit about sanctions at this point.  It sounds like they are trying to take Chernobyl and potentially destabilize it which would likely spread nuclear material all over again.  Is there a line that he crosses that will invite a swift and decisive move that would end this quickly?  
    The line is invading a NATO country. Unfortunately for Ukraine, they aren't in NATO. I think the greater fear is that Putin does not want to stop here and will, eventually, try to push further west into NATO countries. But I don't see how any of this ends quickly. 
    Outside of completely dropping the hammer - which should definitely not be ruled out here - they just have to make haste with making Russia an isolated country.
    What's the hammer to you, here? 
    Bringing in soldiers that are not just Ukees. Having NATO command a no-fly zone over Ukraine, direct combat with which Russia cannot have the manpower or artillery to counteract.

    And if they're actually fighting in Chernobyl right now then fuck it we're all going up in chem trails at that point.

    Just saw a picture of a couple Russian soldiers (kids) captured. The one looks like a fucking child.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,883
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    Putin has lost his marbles.  Can we just drone him?
    It's a violation of international law to assassinate a head of state. 
    What does international law say about maliciously invading a sovereign country?
    That it's illegal, hence the sanctions and providing Ukraine with weapons.  Russia violating international law doesn't give us the right to do so.  
    If we are engaged with a rule breaking lunatic the fastest way to end the conflict is to break the rules.I don't think history or the international community will look unfavorably on something like that.  If this turns into a protracted conflict and we (US Military) don't put boots on the ground, well then we may as well just give the guy Ukraine. Once he has been emboldened by taking Ukraine where will he stop?  I mean what do we do, go into WWIII because we can't assassinate one lunatic?  I am pretty sure he doesn't give a shit about sanctions at this point.  It sounds like they are trying to take Chernobyl and potentially destabilize it which would likely spread nuclear material all over again.  Is there a line that he crosses that will invite a swift and decisive move that would end this quickly?  
    De-stabilize Chernobyl?  Why would they do that?  That would pollute the air and water supply not just for Ukraine but for Belorussia and other allies of Russia. 

    Regarding an assassination, I just think it's way too soon to do something like that.  That has major, major implications.  It's too early to call this WWIII.  Yes it's the biggest invasion since 45, but it's not a world war.  That's overhyped rhetoric I think. 
  • 23scidoo
    23scidoo Thessaloniki,Greece Posts: 19,989
    https://instagram.com/p/CaC3cqcOjWV/embed/

    Athens 2006. Dusseldorf 2007. Berlin 2009. Venice 2010. Amsterdam 1 2012. Amsterdam 1+2 2014. Buenos Aires 2015.
    Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
    EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.

    I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
  • Annafalk
    Annafalk Sweden Posts: 4,004
    edited February 2022
    Putin is threatening with nuclear bombs if anyone interfere with his plans. He is like a psychopath.
    Post edited by Annafalk on
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,482
    Annafalk said:
    Putin is threatening with nuclear bombs if anyone interfere with his plans. He is like a psychopath.
    And Jimmy Åkesson can't pick between him and Joe Biden. Aint that cute
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,482

    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,103
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    Putin has lost his marbles.  Can we just drone him?
    It's a violation of international law to assassinate a head of state. 
    What does international law say about maliciously invading a sovereign country?
    That it's illegal, hence the sanctions and providing Ukraine with weapons.  Russia violating international law doesn't give us the right to do so.  
    If we are engaged with a rule breaking lunatic the fastest way to end the conflict is to break the rules.I don't think history or the international community will look unfavorably on something like that.  If this turns into a protracted conflict and we (US Military) don't put boots on the ground, well then we may as well just give the guy Ukraine. Once he has been emboldened by taking Ukraine where will he stop?  I mean what do we do, go into WWIII because we can't assassinate one lunatic?  I am pretty sure he doesn't give a shit about sanctions at this point.  It sounds like they are trying to take Chernobyl and potentially destabilize it which would likely spread nuclear material all over again.  Is there a line that he crosses that will invite a swift and decisive move that would end this quickly?  
    De-stabilize Chernobyl?  Why would they do that?  That would pollute the air and water supply not just for Ukraine but for Belorussia and other allies of Russia. 

    Regarding an assassination, I just think it's way too soon to do something like that.  That has major, major implications.  It's too early to call this WWIII.  Yes it's the biggest invasion since 45, but it's not a world war.  That's overhyped rhetoric I think. 
    I'm saying it could lead to WWIII if unchecked, not that this invasion of Ukraine is itself WWIII
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,103
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    @mrussel1 Regarding Chernobyl. What other motivation does Putin have here?
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    edited February 2022
    The Juggler said:
    mace1229 said:
    josevolution said:
    mace1229 said:
    Gern Blansten said:
    Ridiculous to blame Biden for Putin's bullshit. If anything Putin is doing this to hurt Biden in hopes that puppetboy will get back in office.
    That’s also equally ridiculous. Purim’s actions aren’t Biden’s fault. And this isn’t a ploy to get Trump back. He’s power hungry and crazy.
    You can’t be certain of that! We don’t know how many talks Trumpolinni has had with Putin we just don’t know! Knowing all you know about our idiot ex-president would you put it past him? To do something as crazy as that? 
    Of course we can’t be certain on hypotheticals. Just like I’m not certain if Trump was in office Putin would still invade. But I believe that to be true. No one can b certain of that either. 
    And to suggest Trump has been planning this with Putin seems even crazier than before. For one, Biden’s polls are so low why would be do this now, even if he was up for it?
    Thats as crazy as any Qanon theory I’ve heard. 

    Did Putin help elect Trump?
    Did Trump take Putin's side regarding Crimea?
    Did Trump take Putin's side regarding interfering in our election?
    Did Trump do whatever he could to weaken NATO at every turn?
    Did Trump want to invite Russia back into the G7 as recently as 2 years ago?
    Did Trump call Putin's absurd reasoning for invading Ukraine "genius"?

    The answer is yes to all of the above but if you answered yes for even any of these questions, you'd see how your "hypothetical" scenario is yet another disingenuous argument on your behalf. If anything, it likely would've been easier for Putin to invade with Trump in office as Trump saw him as an ally instead of an adversary. And it makes even more sense for Putin to have Trump weaken NATO and divide the US further for four years. Putin was always going to invade Ukraine. 

    Stop watching Tucker Carlson. 




    I’m not sure your point. I said Putin would still invade if trump was in office. Then you go on this rant about how if Trump was in office he would have invaded and call me disingenuous. So this rant was agreeing me me? That’s why it’s confusing.
    And completely irrelevant to fox or Tucker. But I guess it makes you feel better throwing that in, even when we agree on something?
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,482
    edited February 2022
    static111 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    @mrussel1 Regarding Chernobyl. What other motivation does Putin have here?
    Look at a map. They are passing the area to get to Kyiv. 
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,883
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    static111 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    @mrussel1 Regarding Chernobyl. What other motivation does Putin have here?
    Look at a map. They are going through the area to get to Kyiv. 
    Yes. 
  • static111
    static111 Posts: 5,103
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    static111 said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:

    @mrussel1 Regarding Chernobyl. What other motivation does Putin have here?
    Look at a map. They are passing the area to get to Kyiv. 
    So they aren't trying to take control of Chernobyl? Just briskly passing by it on the way to smash the capitol? I mean obviously they are trying to take control of everything.  Why would the president make a big deal about Chernobyl if they are just passing it by?
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden

Categories