i've re-considered the entire Ukraine case.. enter *your* opinions please..

OK the 2nd Iraq war is what he is speaking of

Well then it is a pity that the US and UK did not hear the UN saying that it was an illegal war. I heard nothing about Iraq violating 9 UN resolutions but I do know that we in the UK were told that Iraq had WMD's which could reach the UK in 45 minutes and so we must go to war with them to stop this and I do know that one of our intelligence officers said that when they told the British Government that they could find no evidence of Iraq being a danger to us - that Iran was very definitely more of a danger, they were told to create information which could be used to justify a war. So lets be clear the Iraq war was fought because the UK and US wanted to fight. Chomsky is talking of misusing the word Genocide. He says
Look it up. A simple google search or a look at WIKKI will show you. There were more than nine that he violated, but those nine were directly related to the cease-fire.
 
Any white supremacy in their national Ukrainian state?
The US has enough home grown racists to bother with any corrupt, foreign-born master race loons.
seven-decades-of-nazi-collaboration-americas-dir.jpeg

"Yaroslav Stetsko with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush"

Ukraine: The CIA’s 75-year-old Proxy | MR Online

"Looking back, the U.S. under Truman began the policy of turning enemies (Germany, Japan) into friends and friends (the important war-time alliance with the USSR) into enemies.

"The CIA, established in 1947, was the main clandestine instrument of this policy, working closely with the neo-Nazi Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) to carry out acts to sabotage, divide and destabilize the Soviet state.

"The OUN, in particular the faction led by the German ally Stepan Bandera and his second in command, Yaroslav Stetsko, OUN-B, was a violently anti-semitic, anti-communist, and anti-Russian organization, which collaborated with the Nazi occupation and actively participated in the slaughter of millions of Poles, Ukrainian Jews, and ethnically Russian and Ukrainian communists in the region.

"Nonetheless, The Washington Post treated Stetsko as a national hero, a 'lonely patriot.'"
The USSR was NEVER a friend of the west, nor an actual ally. Stalin was only in the war because he had no choice and spent the war blackmailing FDR and Churchill for ever larger amounts of support. The USSR fought its own war and almost never cooperated with the WAllies, and then reluctantly while treating their personnel on Russian soil like prisoners and pariahs.
 
I think that whatever the EU does on the economic front, NATO will always include Poland and Romania and the Balts. Poland will be the military powerhouse, and it is all NATO (or NATO pattern) kit. Ukraine is already moving that direction as far as becoming NATO compliant.

So some time in the future, the US has abandoned Europe as much as possible, there remains a revitalized NATO that includes Ukraine. If not, then Ukraine has the regional alliance with Poland and the Balts and Romania and Moldova, and everyone but Moldova is armed to the teeth.

And really, NATO does not want another security alliance in Europe, especially when there would be member states that are also NATO member states. They would much rather have Ukraine in NATO, where they would have more influence over Ukraine.

Security-wise, Ukraine is safe from another invasion from the east. Economy-wise, is it safe from Germany?

A rebuilt Ukraine, with all the industry and energy and raw materials (and cheap labor) is a direct industrial competitor to Germany. How that plays out is anyone's guess, but I can certainly imagine German companies squalling and bawling about having to compete with Ukrainian steel mills and heavy industry. I think about Turkey, and it seems like full EU membership on an equal footing is probably a heavier lift for Ukraine than joining NATO...
Ukraine in no way can be an industrial competitor to Germany. Raw materials and cheap labour aren't the only things the industrial might is based upon.

Foe me it is understandable that some sort of anti-Russia military alliance will be formed in Europe. What countries it will be comprised of in a long run is a point of debate. And question still stands whether say Germany and France will want to be in it.

For Eastern Europe it is better to be a part of united Europe. And that is not only about a common economy.
 
Lol. It’s an opinion piece in an establishment publication that has merit. Only dumb people like you always support war.
Every poll conducted since the invasion began shows this.

You are just grasping at straws. Denial is all you've got dummy.
 
They aren’t going do that and you know it. So you’re cool with lots of dead Ukrainians, who you want to fight to the last man. Chicken hawk!
Russia will leave because it has no other choice, and you are pushing for a peace treaty because you understand Russia cannot win without one. Putin's last desperate hope is that the EU will break over the lack of Russian gas over the winter, but this struggle will only bring the European countries closer and more determined to see Russia defeated.

Putin is now looking at the prospect of leaving office in disgrace and leaving Russia much worse off than when he rose to power, so with every Russian defeat he will talk tougher, destroy more civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and kill more Ukrainian civilians, but he cannot win the war and Russia cannot afford to continue it indefinitely, so they will leave Ukraine.
 
Nope! What we lack is the stupidity to belive such ludecrous propaganda.

Not in the wildest dreams did US forsee Putin's regime expanding NATO, crippling Russian exports to EU, and destroying itself in the way that it's doing now with this insane, half-assed invasion.

It's pure self-ejection for Putin.
NATO expansion and an illegal coup spearheaded by Nazis inn 2014 are responsible for the 20,000 casualties a month on the Ukrainian side today.

When Zelensky arrives in Texas to meet with US defense contractors' CEOs, will you be there?

Who’s winning the war in Ukraine? | The Strategist

"Since the late 1990s, America’s major defence contractors have advocated expanding NATO, despite a near-universal consensus among high-level US security officials that enlargement was unnecessarily provocative and would likely trigger the resurgence of Russian revisionist nationalism.

"Enlargement, it turned out, was driven mainly by domestic political considerations.

"Dan Rostenkowski, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee until 1994 and an outspoken member of the Polish lobby in Congress, threatened to obstruct budget and other legislation unless NATO enlargement included Poland.

"The arms lobby cheered. Following the end of the Cold War, defence contractors hoped enlargement would offset shrinking demand by creating a new market for their products.

"The US Committee to Expand NATO—an advocacy organisation founded in 1996 by Bruce L. Jackson, then the director of strategic planning at Lockheed Martin—was practically a creation of the defence industry."
 
Russia will leave because it has no other choice, and you are pushing for a peace treaty because you understand Russia cannot win without one. Putin's last desperate hope is that the EU will break over the lack of Russian gas over the winter, but this struggle will only bring the European countries closer and more determined to see Russia defeated.

Putin is now looking at the prospect of leaving office in disgrace and leaving Russia much worse off than when he rose to power, so with every Russian defeat he will talk tougher, destroy more civilian infrastructure in Ukraine and kill more Ukrainian civilians, but he cannot win the war and Russia cannot afford to continue it indefinitely, so they will leave Ukraine.
Lol. You actually believe that? Lol
 
Nope. Entirely beside the point.

This isn’t a dissertation on your miscomprehension of history and Vietnam.
So, explain to us exactly when troops of the RVN invaded the PRVN. I'll give you a clue, it never happened. On the other hand, organized troops of the NVA invaded the RVN as early as 1964 and continued to operate there in division strength or larger until the Tet offensive in 1968. In 1972 a retrained and re-equipped NVA launched a massive invasion called the Easter Offensive that first gained ground and then was decisively defeated by a combination of American air power and ARVN attacks on the ground. The NVA lost half of the two hundred thousand men it committed to the Easter Offensive. That loss and the success of the Linebacker bombing campaign to isolate the PRVN from its Communist Chinese and Soviet supplies resulted in the peace treaty signed at the Paris Peace talks. That ended the Vietnam War after nearly a decade of active combat. The Soviets then rebuilt the NVA into a modern, armor heavy combined arms army and the NVA launched its first and final offensive in a new war on 4 March 1975. Many people combine the two wars into one, but the existence of a signed peace treaty makes that a stupid position. If you hold that position, you have to hold the position that there was never a WWII, it weas merely a continuation of WWI.
 
So, explain to us exactly when troops of the RVN invaded the PRVN. I'll give you a clue, it never happened. On the other hand, organized troops of the NVA invaded the RVN as early as 1964 and continued to operate there in division strength or larger until the Tet offensive in 1968. In 1972 a retrained and re-equipped NVA launched a massive invasion called the Easter Offensive that first gained ground and then was decisively defeated by a combination of American air power and ARVN attacks on the ground. The NVA lost half of the two hundred thousand men it committed to the Easter Offensive. That loss and the success of the Linebacker bombing campaign to isolate the PRVN from its Communist Chinese and Soviet supplies resulted in the peace treaty signed at the Paris Peace talks. That ended the Vietnam War after nearly a decade of active combat. The Soviets then rebuilt the NVA into a modern, armor heavy combined arms army and the NVA launched its first and final offensive in a new war on 4 March 1975. Many people combine the two wars into one, but the existence of a signed peace treaty makes that a stupid position. If you hold that position, you have to hold the position that there was never a WWII, it weas merely a continuation of WWI.
I think all your posting efforts belong in a Vietnam thread. Or a history thread. But they have zero applicability here.
 
US Ambassador April Glaspie's Interview with Pres. Saddam Hussein, July 25 1990
April Glaspie tells Saddam the US will take no position on border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait; what happens next?
highway-of-death-iraq-116.jpg

Highway of Death - Wikipedia

No country on this planet kills, rapes, mutilates, and displaces civilians as efficiently as the USA.
Yes she said that. She said NOTHING about allowing Iraq to invade Kuwait. And your last sentence is nonsense. The US goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian deaths. The photo you posted is of the "road of death" where US airpower destroyed the retreating Iraqi army. That was a perfectly legal and legitimate act of war. The Iraqis were the ones killing and raping civilians in Kuwait, as well as stealing everything not solidly set in concrete, not the US forces.
 
US Ambassador April Glaspie's Interview with Pres. Saddam Hussein, July 25 1990
April Glaspie tells Saddam the US will take no position on border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait; what happens next?
highway-of-death-iraq-116.jpg

Highway of Death - Wikipedia

No country on this planet kills, rapes, mutilates, and displaces civilians as efficiently as the USA.
If you had bother to actually read the article you linked to, it clearly says that was a military convoy and the people killed were Saddam's SOLDIERS.
 
Let’s stop this stupid war that only stupid people support.

Nearly 90 Percent of the World Isn't Following Us on Ukraine | Opinion​

Nearly 90 percent of the world isn't following us on Ukraine | Opinion
That's a OPINION PIECE. The author can say anything he wants. If "nearly 90 percent" of the world is against the economic sanctions, why haven't they done anything about them? They haven't gone to the U.N., they haven't levied sanctions against the countries sanctioning Russia.
 
That's a OPINION PIECE. The author can say anything he wants. If "nearly 90 percent" of the world is against the economic sanctions, why haven't they done anything about them? They haven't gone to the U.N., they haven't levied sanctions against the countries sanctioning Russia.
Yeah I know and it’s accurate.
Post in thread 'i've re-considered the entire Ukraine case.. enter *your* opinions please..'
i've re-considered the entire Ukraine case.. enter *your* opinions please..
 

Forum List

Back
Top