• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

UA-RU-NATO | DISCUSSIONS

Status
Not open for further replies.
JPod said:
You mean the government successfully duped it's population into believing it. No different than what it is claimed Putin is doing right now. For western governments our cause seems righteous at first like a pristine apple. Only decades later do we find out that apple was rotten and contaminated with the lies of those elites in power. Never is any justice brought upon those who lie in western governments. Only a mansion and healthy pension.
Click to expand...
Well Iraq did possess chemical weapons of mass destruction, and in fact used them on his own people, as well as Iranian troops during the Iran -Iraq war. He was a mass MurderEr, of his own, killing and torturing thousands if not tens of thousands of iraqis. As I said, chem weapons were there, and once the west’s intentions were made known, they were moved to Syria, I will never be convinced otherwise. The man was pure evil and deserved to be taken down.
Americas problem always has been, and is to this day, they don’t know how to get the hell out once the mission is completed. No distinct end game, so yes, nation building was one stupid policy.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
So just let Russia gobble up any country they want because Russia threatens with a nuke. Where does it stop?
Click to expand...
Silly question. With nukes of course. As I see it he has what say 3 choices left?
1. End Ukraine attacks and claim victory on annexed areas.
In all honesty that won't be allowed to happen by Ukraine or west. So he could simply retire handing over to next leader who may well be worse.
2. He continues on current path dwindling military resources leaving him with the option of calling western bluff on response and uses tactical nukes for Western deterrence of future military supply. While having his nuclear forces on standby should the west intervene with a military response. In which strategic nukes are launched in defence of RUSSIA.
3. He may realise the risk of losing and risk of using tactical nukes is not worth it. And simply admits Russian doom facilitated by Western support is unavoidable and launches strategic nukes with no warning as a we go you all go.
Oops that's right he has continuesly warned or threatened, my apologies I take that back. Atleast he has , not like the first and only time in history where similar weapons were used . 🙄🤔🤫😉
Now in saying all that if my memory serves correct. Americans dropped those 2 atomic bombs , one of which was targeted at a garrison in saying that having full well knowledge of civilian deaths being much higher in the hope to a.end war
b. Save millions of Americans and Japanese lives.
Imagine Putin having a similar theory using a nuke on Ukraine.? No no no. That is ridiculous and unacceptable. 😉👍🤝🙄🤷🏻‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Ruffinput said:
This is what I’m so confused about with some people. They’d prefer we just simply don’t support Ukraine, give it all to Russia and hope that that’s the end of possible conflict between the United States and Russia forever. What happens if they’re given the space and ability to build an effective military over the next 20 years and decide to team up with China ? There will most certainly be no sitting that one out. We need to as a world stand up to communist dictators and end this now. How many times has appeasement worked?
Click to expand...
End it now is simply your answer. Or end it in 20yrs.
If your satisfied with risking now than now is the time= highly possible ww3. Or enjoy 20yrs more and than risk it = ww3. Simply put die now or die later.
Personally I vote ww3 now but I'm just being selfish.
 
Saguenay said:
Same discourse as during the USA intervention in IRAQ.
Click to expand...
The fact is that this is Putin’s war of aggression, and I don’t think anyone doubts that he has weapons of mass destruction. If he is allowed to use them, without robust response, then he will be emboldened to use them again.
 
Last edited:
Dissident Elephant said:
The fact is that this is Putin’s war of aggression, and I don’t think anyone doubts that he has weapons of mass destruction. If he is allowed to use them, without robust response, then he will be emboldened to use them again.
Click to expand...
Actually America did it and haven't since, even though they did consider it for Vietnam. And please enlighten me on this constant referral to Putins war of aggression remarks. As this is a ridiculous statement to make. Unless you can name wars that didn't include aggression? 🙄🤭😤
 
Yingyang said:
Actually America did it and haven't since, even though they did consider it for Vietnam. And please enlighten me on this constant referral to Putins war of aggression remarks. As this is a ridiculous statement to make. Unless you can name wars that didn't include aggression? 🙄🤭😤
Click to expand...
It was in the Korean conflict McArthur requested Nukes, Neither the Korean or ww2 ( against Japan ) was an aggresive move to take lands ( thats what Russia would do so there is a BIG difference )
 
Erecon said:
It was in the Korean conflict McArthur requested Nukes, Neither the Korean or ww2 ( against Japan ) was an aggresive move to take lands ( thats what Russia would do so there is a BIG difference )
Click to expand...
Thankyou for your clarification and correction 🤝👍🤣. So aggression in war only exists on the reason of land grabs. Wow how stupid of me. 🤣😂🤣😉. Oh and by the way , glad you got the point. As you can be satisfied I got yours.🤝👍😏🤭🤫
 
Yingyang said:
Actually America did it and haven't since, even though they did consider it for Vietnam. And please enlighten me on this constant referral to Putins war of aggression remarks. As this is a ridiculous statement to make. Unless you can name wars that didn't include aggression? 🙄🤭😤
Click to expand...
As opposed to war of necessity or defense (as in Unkraine’s war of necessity). But if war of aggression triggers you, would “Putin’s War of Choice” be more suitable?

Re USA nukes, are you advocating a position that we don’t have to worry about Putin going beyond launching a couple of nukes, because USA was able to exercise nuclear restraint since WWII?
 
DarkNoon said:
No we thought they had WMD's and didn't want that particular tyrant to have WMD's. Better off he is dead imo he was a awful person & terrible to his people.

We went wrong when we tried to nation build. But the original plan to just take that tyrant out and his government was the right thing to do even if he didn't have WMD's. But the nation building is where we royally fucked up.
Click to expand...
If we thought they had WMDs, Russia thinks they have Nazis, and NATO is trying to put WMDs on the border?
 
JPod said:
This is basically the Russian play book. We saw this a lot prior to the invasion. A long with all the other intel and most disturbingly the emergency meeting between USA and UK defense heads. Looking dicey is where I'll leave my speculation.
Click to expand...
Well Russia couldn't use one of theirs then try and blame Ukraine. All nuclear material has a specific signature which would easily be traceable to its origin.
 
jealousmelon said:
Well Russia couldn't use one of theirs then try and blame Ukraine. All nuclear material has a specific signature which would easily be traceable to its origin.
Click to expand...
Russia took all of Ukraine's nukes in the 90's, so they could just use one of those, and then claim that Ukraine illegally held onto a few of them.
 
There will be a statement from the Minister of Defence to the House of Commons here in the UK later today. This is being reported as some sort of follow-up to the meetings he has been having with his counterpart in the US
Worth keeping an eye on that.
 
Yingyang said:
Actually America did it and haven't since, even though they did consider it for Vietnam. And please enlighten me on this constant referral to Putins war of aggression remarks. As this is a ridiculous statement to make. Unless you can name wars that didn't include aggression? 🙄🤭😤
Click to expand...
Your nuanced deflection of what exactly invading another nations and initiating a war is as always so so …. Lacking
 
Dissident Elephant said:
As opposed to war of necessity or defense (as in Unkraine’s war of necessity). But if war of aggression triggers you, would “Putin’s War of Choice” be more suitable?

Re USA nukes, are you advocating a position that we don’t have to worry about Putin going beyond launching a couple of nukes, because USA was able to exercise nuclear restraint since WWII?
Click to expand...
Love it war of choice is perfect.
🤝👍
 
So war of choice is a excellent title for ww3 . It was Ukraine choice to apply for memberships Putins choice to try and change that , and the wests choice to intervene leading to ww3 . I'll take solace in knowing results of those in support that pay the price. Especially those in the Northern hemisphere as it will be well deserved with plenty of innocents suffering on all sides.
As far as home goes I am excited about the future development and opportunities open to new possibilities for the future of humanity after such event. Because let's face it the direction society is heading , this is more humane. Best of luck to the Putin blamers. It's no secret you have it out for each other just as much as each other. 🤣😂🤣🥳 until then enjoy brainwashed thoughts, and final results which I'm sure can't come quick enough. I know I'm ready.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom