West should build bridges with Russia after end of Ukrainian conflict

[Mac-7]

these days, gay jokes should be acceptable for any reasonable human being.

Wrong

Its only acceptable for libs who are steeped in the modern homosexual culture of perversion

 

[peacefan]

From:

Institute for the Study of War

This page collects ISW and CTP's updates on the conflict in Ukraine. In late February 2022, ISW began publishing daily synthetic products covering key events related to renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine.

www.understandingwar.org

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on April 27 codifying conditions for the further large-scale deportation to Russia of residents of occupied areas of Ukraine. Putin signed a decree entitled “On the Peculiarities of the Legal Status of Certain Categories of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons in the Russian Federation” that defines those who are living in Russian-occupied territories who have declared their desire to retain their current citizenship and refuse to accept Russian passports as “foreign citizens and stateless persons currently residing in the Russian Federation.”[8] The decree holds that such individuals may continue to reside in occupied territories until July 1, 2024, suggesting that these individuals may be subject to deportation following this date.[9] This decree codifies coercive methods to encourage residents of occupied areas to receive Russian passports and also sets conditions for the deportation of Ukrainians who do not agree to become Russian citizens. Russian authorities are also continuing other efforts to deport Ukrainians, particularly children, to Russia under various schemes.[10] ISW continues to assess that all lines of effort aimed at deporting Ukrainians to Russia may constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, as well as a potential deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign.

Russian and Ukranian leaders should have years ago come up with a relocation program that would amicably relocate Ukranian speakers in the contested regions to what would be left of Ukraine after the Minsk Agreement would go into effect (which it never did, courtesy of NATO and Zelensky).

 

[peacefan]

Wrong

Its only acceptable for libs who are steeped in the modern homosexual culture

well i live in a democracy and city that is gay-friendly.
i have a bi-sexual downstairs neighbor married with 1 kid so far, to a regular hotty woman.

so these days i'm a bit more lax when it comes to gay jokes.
our city literally has 9 days of gay pride festivities each summer, and it's illegal to practice homophobia.
that doesn't mean that i have gay feelings though, like you two claimed i did, the moment i dared to suggest that you two should get a room, instead of team up on me in this discussion.
you know, like Republican wolves on forums always do.. you're like f-ing hyenas licking at my heels, Republican "hawks" on forums like yourselves, not even wolves.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

i was only kidding!
man, you two took the bait quickly.. lol

sorry, ok

you are responsible for what you write, so you own it

your thread is inaccurate

you get personal when you can't argue the facts

I am fine with the mods looking at this

 

[PeterPilot]

how so? i wasn't talking about money here.
we'd be SAVING a lot of money, if we go the route of diplomacy.

For many years the US is not capable of diplomacy, which involves mutual respect and some measure of dignity.

The US holds itself above the law and practices only intimidation, swagger and military aggression.

Russia has been trying for years to find a diplomatic solution, but the US wants war, not diplomacy.

 

[gipper]

Wrong

Its only acceptable for libs who are steeped in the modern homosexual culture of perversion

The truth comes out right from the mouth of the beast.

 

[JohnDB]

The truth comes out right from the mouth of the beast.

There is no "winning" in war....there is only losing less.

War is ugly, brutal and disgusting. It takes the young, best, and brightest and destroys them in many ways....all at the whim of politicians who will never pick up a gun and fight themselves. PTSD is the least of the damages caused by warfare....and that's a serious issue.

Yes Russia has superior strength. It is growing in military manpower. Which is very disturbing. It is the same as when Germany started WW1.
I see this ending with international peacekeepers keeping Russian aggression at bay.

 

[gipper]

There is no "winning" in war....there is only losing less.

War is ugly, brutal and disgusting. It takes the young, best, and brightest and destroys them in many ways....all at the whim of politicians who will never pick up a gun and fight themselves. PTSD is the least of the damages caused by warfare....and that's a serious issue.

Yes Russia has superior strength. It is growing in military manpower. Which is very disturbing. It is the same as when Germany started WW1.
I see this ending with international peacekeepers keeping Russian aggression at bay.

Please don’t tell me Russia provoked this war. We don’t need another imbecile on this board.

This war is a horrendous, but was so easily avoided if the West wasn’t so completely corrupt.

 

[JohnDB]

Please don’t tell me Russia provoked this war. We don’t need another imbecile on this board.

This war is a horrendous, but was so easily avoided if the West wasn’t so completely corrupt.

Russia was the one who invaded....
The USA has more real Justifications to invade Mexico or Canada than Russia did to invade Ukraine. But the USA isn't invading either of those two countries.

So to claim that the USA started this war or caused it is a whopper of a lie.

Russia planned this war 15 years ago. And has been working on it since.

 

[Silver Cat]

Russia was the one who invaded....
The USA has more real Justifications to invade Mexico or Canada than Russia did to invade Ukraine. But the USA isn't invading either of those two countries.

Actually, the USA invaded Mexico and took 2/3s of "their" land. Back in 1846. And, of course, the USA invaded Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Argentina and many, many other countries.
And, if Canada trying to join Shanghai block or starting discrimination or genocide of English-speaking Canadians - the USA won't have other option rather then invade them, too.

 

[JohnDB]

Actually, the USA invaded Mexico and took 2/3s of "their" land. Back in 1846. And, of course, the USA invaded Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Argentina and many, many other countries.
And, if Canada trying to join Shanghai block or starting discrimination or genocide of English-speaking Canadians - the USA won't have other option rather then invade them, too.

19th century vx 21st century.....if only I could send you back to 200 years ago. See if you survived 10 minutes telling lies like you do today.....ROFL.

 

[Silver Cat]

19th century vx 21st century.....if only I could send you back to 200 years ago. See if you survived 10 minutes telling lies like you do today.....ROFL.

The USA invaded Iraq and Syria in 21st century. Anyway, let's play the game.
In Mexico, cartels overthroned democratically elected President, declared that they are going to join Shanghai block, and can establish Russian IRBM-bases there. Also, they declared "¡Los gringos no son americanos!¡Váyanse a Europa! ", demanded return to 1831 year borders and started officially approved mass murders of white, english-speaking Americans.

Do you really believe, that there is even 1% chance, that the USA won't invade in Mexico in this scenario, and if necessary, won't use nuclear weapons against them?

 

[Mushroom]

Gerald Hyman, the senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, suggested persuading the Russian leaders "to negotiate a tolerable resolution, and to provide clear benefits for doing so"

Uhhh, no.

We have tried that before, look where it got us. And if there is one thing that history has shown, appeasement is never the right answer.

And I notice you seem to make a big deal he is an advisor with the CSIS. Tell me, what is their policy in regards to Russia?

Because I can guarantee it is not appeasement and "negotiating a tolerable resolution".

 

[Mushroom]

19th century vx 21st century.....if only I could send you back to 200 years ago. See if you survived 10 minutes telling lies like you do today.....ROFL.

That is all he ever does.

Like the one he has been called out on multiple times. That in 1845 when the US annexed Texas, it was at their request and Texas had already been an independent nation for 10 years. Mexico is the one that then attacked and invaded, not the US. And just like in 1936 much of Mexico was already in revolt over General President Santa Anna. Regions like Alta California, where even the Mexican Governor supported the revolt to leave Mexico.

The US did not "take" the northern half of the country, a big chunk of that area had already left Mexico a decade earlier. And the rest (like much of the southern half) wanted out also. One thing that every Santa Anna Administration had in common, most of the nation rose up in revolt each time he returned to power.

Hell, a great example of how bad Mexico was led can be seen in how the US-Texas gained El Paso. A regiment of volunteer cavalry was moving to Chihuahua when they stopped for the evening outside of El Paso. Even though the US force was 850 mounted cavalry and the the Mexican force was only 500, the Mexican commander ordered them to surrender. The American commander however had already prepared defensive positions, and refused the offer to surrender. And when the Mexican infantry charged, they held fire until they were within 50 yards and absolutely destroyed them.

Then the Mexican lancers had a go at attacking the baggage train, and the teamsters devastated them in turn. The Major commanding the Mexican forces, and in the withdrawal they left their artillery behind which the Americans captured. They then proceeded to move into and occupy El Paso, capturing the almost abandoned fort as well as even more artillery as well as guns and powder. The capture of El Paso was not even part of the plan, the American forces were simply passing by when they were attacked. And there was no way they were leaving that much ordinance behind them so they held until they were relieved a month later.

Almost anybody that has ever lived in El Paso knows of the "accidental capture" of the town, and how the Army had to rush in a replacement to occupy it so they could continue on with their actual mission. And the Mexican survivors? Less than half of them made it back to their own lines. After their defeat the Apache attacked them almost nonstop all the way to Chihuahua. But if not for that battle which is essentially what set the ultimate border at the Rio Grande, Texas would not be anywhere near as large as it is today.

New Mexico they had already essentially lost, as when Texas revolted they had their own revolt known as the Chimayo Rebellion. It was short lived however, as that revolt was just as brutally put down by Mexico as they had tried in Texas New Mexico was simmering on the edge of revolt from then 1836 until 1847, when the majority of the citizens welcomed in the US.

Arizona was mostly empty land, Mexico only let it go because they did not give a damn about a territory that was mostly occupied by Indians and it was easier to simply make the new border a straight line from roughly El Paso to the Pacific. But that does result in some strange areas of the map, like part of New Mexico sitting south of El Paso. Even the US did not care much about Arizona, it would not become a state until 1912. Both it and New Mexico were territories for 62 years. That only technically beats Alaska at 92 years from acquisition and statehood because it was a Department then District before it became a territory.

 

[Silver Cat]

That is all he ever does.

Like the one he has been called out on multiple times. That in 1845 when the US annexed Texas, it was at their request and Texas had already been an independent nation for 10 years. Mexico is the one that then attacked and invaded, not the US. And just like in 1936 much of Mexico was already in revolt over General President Santa Anna. Regions like Alta California, where even the Mexican Governor supported the revolt to leave Mexico.

The US did not "take" the northern half of the country, a big chunk of that area had already left Mexico a decade earlier. And the rest (like much of the southern half) wanted out also. One thing that every Santa Anna Administration had in common, most of the nation rose up in revolt each time he returned to power.

Hell, a great example of how bad Mexico was led can be seen in how the US-Texas gained El Paso. A regiment of volunteer cavalry was moving to Chihuahua when they stopped for the evening outside of El Paso. Even though the US force was 850 mounted cavalry and the the Mexican force was only 500, the Mexican commander ordered them to surrender. The American commander however had already prepared defensive positions, and refused the offer to surrender. And when the Mexican infantry charged, they held fire until they were within 50 yards and absolutely destroyed them.

Then the Mexican lancers had a go at attacking the baggage train, and the teamsters devastated them in turn. The Major commanding the Mexican forces, and in the withdrawal they left their artillery behind which the Americans captured. They then proceeded to move into and occupy El Paso, capturing the almost abandoned fort as well as even more artillery as well as guns and powder. The capture of El Paso was not even part of the plan, the American forces were simply passing by when they were attacked. And there was no way they were leaving that much ordinance behind them so they held until they were relieved a month later.

Almost anybody that has ever lived in El Paso knows of the "accidental capture" of the town, and how the Army had to rush in a replacement to occupy it so they could continue on with their actual mission. And the Mexican survivors? Less than half of them made it back to their own lines. After their defeat the Apache attacked them almost nonstop all the way to Chihuahua. But if not for that battle which is essentially what set the ultimate border at the Rio Grande, Texas would not be anywhere near as large as it is today.

New Mexico they had already essentially lost, as when Texas revolted they had their own revolt known as the Chimayo Rebellion. It was short lived however, as that revolt was just as brutally put down by Mexico as they had tried in Texas New Mexico was simmering on the edge of revolt from then 1836 until 1847, when the majority of the citizens welcomed in the US.

Arizona was mostly empty land, Mexico only let it go because they did not give a damn about a territory that was mostly occupied by Indians and it was easier to simply make the new border a straight line from roughly El Paso to the Pacific. But that does result in some strange areas of the map, like part of New Mexico sitting south of El Paso. Even the US did not care much about Arizona, it would not become a state until 1912. Both it and New Mexico were territories for 62 years. That only technically beats Alaska at 92 years from acquisition and statehood because it was a Department then District before it became a territory.

Sure. Same thing with Ukrainian "Revolution of dignity" and corrupted incompetent regime of Kievan Junta (hated by the majority of the Ukrainian population) and Crimea and Donbass declared independence back in 2014.