France sends combat troops to Ukraine

[Orangecat]

Irregardless isn't a word...

Sadly, they have made it legitimate.

 

[Vastator]

Sadly, they have made it legitimate.
View attachment 946321

No they just dumbed down the English language so idiots can feel smarter than they are...

 

[Orangecat]

No they just dumbed down the English language so idiots can feel smarter than they are...

Idiocracy has become reality.

 

[Vastator]

Idiocracy has become reality.

Ain't that the truth...

 

[Kruska]

Do you know the difference?

Yes I do, - but you don't
Kosovo held free elections under EU and UN/NATO led observation teams - Crimea never had a "free" election supervised by e.g. the UN

In Crimea, the absolute majority of the population voted in favor of joining Russia.

Again - an election that is not supervised by e.g. the UN (Russia is a member) might not behold international validity - especially not in regards to a forcefully occupied territory, such as Crimea in 2014.
Furthermore before Russia's attack and occupation of Crimea - there was AFAIK never a referendum requested by Crimean's towards Kiev.

 

[Persuader]

Sadly, they have made it legitimate.
View attachment 946321

 

[Persuader]

Idiocracy has become reality.

When i began posting on message boards I discovered that liberals and other assorted stoopids hated the word irregardless.

I think because they were taught that in junior high school.

Anyhow and irregardless as well....i still use it occasionally just to see who it will provoke...hehheh I am so bad......bad to da bone dats me. bwaaaaaaaaaa

https://www.cnet.com/culture/off-topic-in-defense-of-irregardless/#
Not only is "irregardless" a word, but it's probably the best word of all time. Here's why.


awhile back one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.
In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.
But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.

Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.

It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.

It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.

If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

 

[Kruska]

UN Assembly has nothing to do about international law. The permanent members of SC UN were.

Wrong again, the entire UN setup is about "guarding" and thus ensuring international law. aka the UN Charter.
The UN Assembly however doesn't have the power to enforce "binding" resolutions - The UNSC has. And it is the latter where the VETO always comes in.

1999 agression against Serbia and 2003 agression against Iraq added the forth one: "F#ck you, that's why". And therefore, the post-WWII world order was ended,and pre-WWIII order was started. Thats why Russia (as well as many other countries) saw this "order based on rules" or "post-cold war order" as unacceptable. So, there are two possible ways to establish the better, i.e. acceptable for non-Western countries world order. To win Cold War 2.0 or to win WWIII. Sad, but true.

I had stated to you already - the UN has become a joke, due to those "VETO" nations - having corrupted aka "bypassing" the process.
However it doesn't change the fact that ALL nations, constantly call onto International Law - especially if they deem it to be in their favor.

A classic example is Israel - though living in constant defiance of around 70 UN resolutions - they however will cite International law to "justify" their attack onto e.g. Gaza - whilst murdering tens of thousands of civilians. And any resolution by the UNSC is in general Vetoed by the USA.

The issue therefore is as how to reform the UN - instead about propagating WWIII.

 

[Vastator]

When i began posting on message boards I discovered that liberals and other assorted stoopids hated the word irregardless.

I think because they were taught that in junior high school.

Anyhow and irregardless as well....i still use it occasionally just to see who it will provoke...hehheh I am so bad......bad to da bone dats me. bwaaaaaaaaaa

Off topic: In defense of 'irregardless'
Not only is "irregardless" a word, but it's probably the best word of all time. Here's why.


awhile back one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.
In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.
But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.

Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.

It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.

It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.

If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

No
It's just a word that was accepted by people who wish to pull uneducated negros into thier fold. Any port in a storm, one might say...

 

[TheParser]

Many will be suprised by this...perhaps even shocked?

Irregardless.....it is good France has committed itself to opposing Putin....perhaps other european leaders will be emboldened by this when they see Russia not attacking France with nukes....putins nuclear bluster is being seen for what it is....desperate talk from a walking dead man...i give putin another year.

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront - Asia Times

France has sent its first troops officially to Ukraine. They have been deployed in support of the Ukrainian 54th Independent Mechanized Brigade in

asiatimes.com

which nations have special forces in ukraine - Google Search

Maybe France today regrets that it did not do more earlier to stop World War Two.

So this time it is trying to prevent World War Three.

 

[Zavulon]

Wrong again, the entire UN setup is about "guarding" and thus ensuring international law. aka the UN Charter.
The UN Assembly however doesn't have the power to enforce "binding" resolutions - The UNSC has. And it is the latter where the VETO always comes in.

I had stated to you already - the UN has become a joke, due to those "VETO" nations - having corrupted aka "bypassing" the process.
However it doesn't change the fact that ALL nations, constantly call onto International Law - especially if they deem it to be in their favor.

A classic example is Israel - though living in constant defiance of around 70 UN resolutions - they however will cite International law to "justify" their attack onto e.g. Gaza - whilst murdering tens of thousands of civilians. And any resolution by the UNSC is in general Vetoed by the USA.

The issue therefore is as how to reform the UN - instead about propagating WWIII.

If the USA ignore 'current UNSC order' and attacked Serbia and Iraq without any reason or the legimate excuse - it means that the USA will not follow any orders of the 'reformed UNSC', either. And there is no any reason (for all other members) in reforming UNSC in the way, that will allow them to use agressive force.
That's why it is necessary to show America's regimes their place and put them back in the line with undoing as much damage as it possible, (including returning of NATO to its 1997 borders and returning Kosovo to Serbia). They may recognize their defeat after the series of the local proxy-wars or after a big one.

 

[Kruska]

If the USA ignore 'current UNSC order' and attacked Serbia and Iraq without any reason or the legimate excuse

The USA did NOT ignore a UNSC resolution - in regards to Serbia nor Iraq, and there is no such thing as a USNC "order"
IF the UNSC would have tried to pass a resolution - the USA would have simply Vetoed it.

- it means that the USA will not follow any orders of the 'reformed UNSC', either. And there is no any reason (for all other members) in reforming UNSC in the way, that will allow them to use agressive force.
That's why it is necessary to show America's regimes their place and put them back in the line with undoing as much damage as it possible, (including returning of NATO to its 1997 borders and returning Kosovo to Serbia). They may recognize their defeat after the series of the local proxy-wars or after a big one.

None of these VETO buggers follows UNSC resolutions - since all of them are bound to veto it. (if such a resolution isn't in their favor).
Since the USA is still by far the number one military power on the planet - anyone would be stupid/suicidal to oppose US policy via a military confrontation aka war. Especially a military underdog like the Russian Federation.

And as stated before - any SOVEREIGN country has the right to make it's own choices (within the framework of International Law) as to e.g. joining NATO, the EU, etc.

However I agree that if one knows about a person such as Putin - it would be unwise to extend NATO into e.g. Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine. or any other former Soviet Republic, that shares an immediate border with the Russian Federation.

 

[Zavulon]

The USA did NOT ignore a UNSC resolution - in regards to Serbia nor Iraq, and there is no such thing as a USNC "order"
IF the UNSC would have tried to pass a resolution - the USA would have simply Vetoed it.

No. I mean, that in post-WWII order no one state can use military force against other sovereign state without permission from UNSC (aka agreement of all five permanent members of UNSC). De jure, there were only three possible reasons to attack another country: self-defense, invitation by the legal government, permission of UNSC. By adding the fourth one - "f#ck you, that's why" during unprovoked, unjustful and illegal aggressions agaisnt Serbia and Iraq, the United States totally destroyed post-WWII peace order and turned it into pre-WWIII (aka "rules-based order").

None of these VETO buggers follows UNSC resolutions - since all of them are bound to veto it. (if such a resolution isn't in their favor).
Since the USA is still by far the number one military power on the planet - anyone would be stupid/suicidal to oppose US policy via a military confrontation aka war. Especially a military underdog like the Russian Federation.

It depends on how you count "military strength". Talking about nuclear forces (which is the most important part of the modern military strength) the USA is only number two.

And as stated before - any SOVEREIGN country has the right to make it's own choices (within the framework of International Law) as to e.g. joining NATO, the EU, etc.

Yes. Including joining Russian Federation as it was chosen by Crimean Republic and, later by DPR and LPR.

However I agree that if one knows about a person such as Putin - it would be unwise to extend NATO into e.g. Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine. or any other former Soviet Republic, that shares an immediate border with the Russian Federation.

You do unwise things - you get unpleasant consequences.

 

[Kruska]

No. I mean, that in post-WWII order no one state can use military force against other sovereign state without permission from UNSC (aka agreement of all five permanent members of UNSC). De jure, there were only three possible reasons to attack another country: self-defense, invitation by the legal government, permission of UNSC. By adding the fourth one - "f#ck you, that's why" during unprovoked, unjustful and illegal aggressions agaisnt Serbia and Iraq, the United States totally destroyed post-WWII peace order and turned it into pre-WWIII (aka "rules-based order").

Yes - it is understood that the USA took their chances to further their influence - aka global hegemonic policy upon the dissolution of the USSR. And it's NATO serfs willingly followed suit.
As for the issue of Serbia - I view upon this Serbian issue as having been very different, (since I had served in the previous period with the German Armed forces in e.g. Bosnia and etc.) then upon attacking Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan or later even Libya.

It depends on how you count "military strength". Talking about nuclear forces (which is the most important part of the modern military strength) the USA is only number two.

Nuke capabilities are irrelevant if it comes to the two main nuke possessing nations, since each one has the capability to erase mankind multiple times. And none of these two is willing to commit suicide.
So it is and always have been the conventional forces that decide - and Russia's conventional forces are - mediocre.

Yes. Including joining Russian Federation as it was chosen by Crimean Republic and, later by DPR and LPR.

Territories forcefully occupied by Russian forces, and elections not supervised by the UN - as such an election outcome is totally irrelevant.

You do unwise things - you get unpleasant consequences.

Exactly - something that Putin is learning now, respectively all these dead and crippled Russian soldiers and the Russian population that has lost all previously gained economic gains. (even incl. these Oligarchs).
It was plain stupid of Putin, to attack Ukraine with his mediocre Russian Armed Forces - even though he had roughly 20 years to shape an "effective" Russian armed forces.

Are you aware that it was in fact a German Defense contractor and military hardware producer that "trained" and developed the "Crimea-Occupation" plan and it's involved forces of 2014 ?? And Russia aka Putin lost all that kind of "vital support" - due to having attacked Ukraine in 2022.

 

[Zavulon]

As I said, France is not going to send troops into Ukraine or Russia. They are going to send their troops to New Caledonia (which is, formally, territory of France itself).

https://thetimeson.ru/2024/05/16/macron-sent-troops-to-new-caledonia-due-to-pogroms-taking-place-there/

Corsica, highly likely, is going to be next.

 

[Zavulon]

Yes - it is understood that the USA took their chances to further their influence - aka global hegemonic policy upon the dissolution of the USSR. And it's NATO serfs willingly followed suit.
As for the issue of Serbia - I view upon this Serbian issue as having been very different, (since I had served in the previous period with the German Armed forces in e.g. Bosnia and etc.) then upon attacking Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan or later even Libya.

Nuke capabilities are irrelevant if it comes to the two main nuke possessing nations, since each one has the capability to erase mankind multiple times. And none of these two is willing to commit suicide.
So it is and always have been the conventional forces that decide - and Russia's conventional forces are - mediocre.

Territories forcefully occupied by Russian forces, and elections not supervised by the UN - as such an election outcome is totally irrelevant.

Exactly - something that Putin is learning now, respectively all these dead and crippled Russian soldiers and the Russian population that has lost all previously gained economic gains. (even incl. these Oligarchs).
It was plain stupid of Putin, to attack Ukraine with his mediocre Russian Armed Forces - even though he had roughly 20 years to shape an "effective" Russian armed forces.

Are you aware that it was in fact a German Defense contractor and military hardware producer that "trained" and developed the "Crimea-Occupation" plan and it's involved forces of 2014 ?? And Russia aka Putin lost all that kind of "vital support" - due to having attacked Ukraine in 2022.

There is your main mistake. Neither Russia, nor the USA, nor even both of them combined, posses the ability of "erasing mankind".
The nuclear war isn't "unthinkable" because it is survivable and winnable.
Russia do not have even an official conception of "conventional war", because small wars are fought with such unconventional means as espionage, sabotage, terrorism, political and economic influence and so on, and big wars are to be fought with nuclear weapons (if we are talking about a regional war) or with all kinds of weapons (if we are talking about a large-scale conflict). I served in NCB-forces, I know.

 

[luiza]

Off topic: In defense of 'irregardless'
Not only is "irregardless" a word, but it's probably the best word of all time. Here's why.

It is not even a meaningful word as it contains a double negative.
End Of .

To help you :-
What extra meaning do you imagine the made-up word , irregardless , has which , regardless , does not ?
QED

 

[Kruska]

There is your main mistake. Neither Russia, nor the USA, nor even both of them combined, posses the ability of "erasing mankind".
The nuclear war isn't "unthinkable" because it is survivable and winnable.
Russia do not have even an official conception of "conventional war", because small wars are fought with such unconventional means as espionage, sabotage, terrorism, political and economic influence and so on, and big wars are to be fought with nuclear weapons (if we are talking about a regional war) or with all kinds of weapons (if we are talking about a large-scale conflict). I served in NCB-forces, I know.

No, that is where YOU are absolutely wrong and obviously misinformed.

BTW, I did serve in a NATO nuke deterrent force - in FKG-1, one of the German Luftwaffe's ex. two Pershing units.

 

[Kruska]

To help you :-
What extra meaning do you imagine the made-up word , irregardless , has which , regardless , does not ?
QED

Well... as you know, these Angles-Saxon-Jutes dialects ain't as sophisticated nor as eloquent, as e.g. the German language

Regardless - in reference to the German word (trotzdem), stands for describing e.g.: nevertheless / nonetheless

The 2nd goal in 1966 for England - wasn't a goal !! -trotzdem (regardless of this) England was awarded the title in the end - aka a very negative comment - factually disputing/rejecting England having been awarded the title.

Irregardless - in reference to the German word (unabhängig), stands for describing e.g.: independent off / independently from something

Unabhängig (irregardless) of England having won the title in 1966 - the 2nd goal for England wasn't a goal - aka a positive comment - factually acquitting towards England having received the title.

Essentially two different words and as such two very different meanings

 

[Zavulon]

No, that is where YOU are absolutely wrong and obviously misinformed.

Ok. Let's calculate. It's important to be numerical. How many American nukes will survive the first Russian counter-force attack? How many of them will came through ABD? How many Russian civilians will be killed, if they had both tactical and strategical alert (even in the case of Mad Butcher response)?
What else? Fallouts? Nuclear winter? Waking up Ctulhu? It's ridiculous.

BTW, I did serve in a NATO nuke deterrent force - in FKG-1, one of the German Luftwaffe's ex. two Pershing units.

And what was your rank? Anyway, it's not a big deal. You guys don't even know your targets. You just maintain your equipment, push the button and then run into a shelter. It's barely more than a work of a civilian car mechanic. And we, NBC units deal with all that mess that you do. We do understand consequences.