Why do the U.S. support Ukraine which has Nazi laws?

[Rigby5]

Well, what we have and what most countries have is a combination of capitalism and socialism. The debate is where the ideal balance is. I personally prefer that we shift more towards an actual free market.

Socialism in its purest form doesn't tend to work well, as demonstrated by Venezuela.

The best that can be expected in that direction is a country like Norway, which is still very capitalist in most markets but heavily socializes certain amenities and oil & gas.

Communism is a non-starter, since it has killed more people than fascism.

Wrong.
Socialism requires some coordination through government, but not capitalism.
Capitalism has nothing at all to do with government in a democratic republic.
And Venezuela was nothing at all like socialism.
It was a corruption by the wealthy elite, which is an oligarchy, not socialism.
And since it was profit motivated, that is more capitalism.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Wrong.
Russia could easily have hung onto the Ukraine.
That is the whole point.
Gorbachev clearly had to have negotiated with the Ukraine, and from all accounts, the Ukraine agreed to never join any alliance hostile to Russia.

Then instead of burying us in more of your Rhetorical Diarrhea produce a copy of such an agreement.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Wrong.
Socialism requires some coordination through government, but not capitalism.
Capitalism has nothing at all to do with government in a democratic republic.
And Venezuela was nothing at all like socialism.
It was a corruption by the wealthy elite, which is an oligarchy, not socialism.
And since it was profit motivated, that is more capitalism.

Still talking out of your ass.

What Capitalist nation has no gov't regulation over the economy?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes there is.
When the US created the UN in 1945, Congress ratified the UN charter in to US law, and it makes all war illegal unless attacked first, or if the UN votes for it.

Wrong.

The UN does not supercede the constitution and we reserve the right to make war as we see fit,

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nonsense. If Stalin was any sort of politico, he would not have had Trotsky murdered, or any of the real communists.
Communism is the means under which all families live, so can't be theft.
A dictator can't be a member of the proletariat,
That is a linguistic contradiction.

Yes he would have because he was the true communist.

COmmunisk is not a voluntary agreement such as how families live.

Yes a dictator can be a member of the proletariate as Marx stated.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And Venezuela was nothing at all like socialism.

You are absolutely talking out of your ass here.

Until the socialists took over it was one of the richest and most successful countries in the Western Hemisphere then just like Cuba as soon as "La Revolution" removed the rightful gov't things went to shit for them economically.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

They are always public.

No it is not obvious. There was no issue with missiles nor any belligerent actions from Ukraine.

Oh, for example, for example, when Reagan sent Oliver North to exchange weapons for money to sent to the Contras in Nicaragua, that was all PUBLIC?

 

[AntonToo]

So like America where whites are inferior citizens that can be gunned down and arrested without charge for protesting?

Whites? Inferior citizens?

Man, you must've gotten dropped real hard on your head.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Communism is the means under which all families live, so can't be theft.

Then why were so many of them starved to death, murdered outright or consigned to slow death in the gulags?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Profit comes from having currency.
And stealing it is a time honored tradition among imperial colonialists like the US.

And your diatribe against Marx is silly.
He was a proponent of the French Revolution to democracy from the monarchy.
Marx never preached tyranny, but actually Libertarian Anarchy, where the "state would whither away".
He wanted no coercive government at all.
An idealist, but not racist or tyrant.
You are just totally wrong.

Wrong I am totally right and you are lying.

Profit comes from a return on an investment.

Having currency in and of it self is not a profit.

My statements about marx are spot on accurate.


Marx preached tyranny and universal slavery.

Those are facts and you are proven wrong

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Oh, for example, for example, when Reagan sent Oliver North to exchange weapons for money to sent to the Contras in Nicaragua, that was all PUBLIC?

Neither of those operations had anything to do with a treaty.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Teaching a language does not make Nazis, but having varying levels of rights based on what language is native to you, IS NAZI.

The "varying level of rights" had only to do with being taught in your native language in school.

 

[Uriel]

Wrong.
Socialism requires some coordination through government, but not capitalism.
Capitalism has nothing at all to do with government in a democratic republic.
And Venezuela was nothing at all like socialism.
It was a corruption by the wealthy elite, which is an oligarchy, not socialism.
And since it was profit motivated, that is more capitalism.

Every system beyond the commune level has an elite. In fact, socialist systems tend to have far less economic mobility, which results in an elite that is much harder to join than in a capitalist one. Wealth disparity is sometimes much lower, but that doesn't mean much when economic mobility is also lower.

While capitalism doesn't technically require a government, no capitalism in the real world exists without one. It's like how no socialism beyond very small isolated groups is without an elite that is somewhat corrupt. To be fair, capitalist systems have corrupt elites as well, but corruption varies by the country.

Profit alone does not define capitalism, nor does it preclude socialism. Profit is surely easier to maintain with capitalism, but profit on a personal level isn't that difficult in a socialist system if you are part of the ruling elite.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's not forget that Cocaine Mitch had his daughter on the Burisma board too. The Swamp has used Ukraine to embezzle foreign aid for decades. Hillary set the scheme up back when she was SOS under Barry da Fairy.

Mitch McConnell daughter??

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Wrong.
The USSR was supreme over the individual members, who were states, not separate countries.
The US states used to be separate countries, until they joined the United States federation.
Then they no longer were separate countries.
They could no longer declare war, negotiate treaties, etc.
Same with the Ukraine.
It lost it independence when it joined the USSR.

Still talking out of your ass, they were each nations under the umbrella of the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics".

The only US state to ever be an independent Nation was Texas. The original 13 states were British Colonies before joining together under first the Articles of Confederation and then later the US Constitution.

Stop being such an obvious blithering idiot.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Let's not forget that Cocaine Mitch had his daughter on the Burisma board too. The Swamp has used Ukraine to embezzle foreign aid for decades. Hillary set the scheme up back when she was SOS under Barry da Fairy.

It must have taken the world's longest sewer snake to pull that one out of your ass.

 

[Rigby5]

The terrorists land forces that were overtaking the country that were being attacked by Q'daffi's air force, the force US and coalition aircraft were there to stop.

You'd do well to shut up and quit proving to everyone just what an idiot you are.

The Forty countryes that joined us in a coalition against Saddam did so for many reasons, since it was GB's planes most frequently being targeted and shot at while enforcing the NFZ and the fact they are the 2nd Largest military power in the free world I think that question answers itself.

The invasion and removal of Saddam were authorized by numerous UN Resolutions beginning with UN Res 1441.

That is stupid because the no-fly-zones in Iraq were totally illegal.
All those who joined against Saddam were criminals.

The UN NEVER authorized the removal of Saddam.
Iraq was actually NEVER in breach of any UN resolution, and the UN was acting entirely based on US lies.
{...
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolutions 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, and 1284).[1] It provided a justification for the subsequent US invasion of Iraq.[2]

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."
...}
Iraq made no violations, had allowed all inspections for years, was not making missiles that violated anything, the UN could not legally demand compensation to Kuwait since Kuwait has caused is own invasion due to its theft of Iraqi oil, etc.
That is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard, and has long since been repudiated by all the inspectors who later proved Iraq was not in violation of anything at all. The US was simply lying and making everyone do what we wanted.

 

[AntonToo]

And isn't it true that Baghdad Bob was right that the US was lying about Iraqi WMD, the US was committing war crimes, the invasion was illegal, the US murdered half a million innocent Iraqi civilians, the US illegally tortured POWs in Bagrham, etc.?
Are you trying to imply that Baghdad Bob was wrong in some way?

The US has always been on the wrong side, deliberately starting wars to invade or install dictators, like with Chaig Kai Shek in China, Syngman Rhee in Korea, Diem in Vietnam, Samosa in Nicaragua, Pinochet in Chile, Batista in Cuba, the Shah in Iran, etc.

Yes moron, Baghdad Bob was a propaganda tool and was comically wrong in many many ways, just like you Moscow Boris.

Hilarious Quotes from Baghdad Bob

Iraq's information minister, dubbed Baghdad Bob, made many outlandish statements during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

www.liveabout.com

 

[Rigby5]

Yes he would have because he was the true communist.

COmmunisk is not a voluntary agreement such as how families live.

Yes a dictator can be a member of the proletariate as Marx stated.

That shows complete ignorance of Marx.
Marx continually said communism was voluntary, based on the inherent generous nature of man.
Marx defined the proletariat as equality among all, so then you can't have a wealthy elite, like Stalin.

 

[Rigby5]

You are absolutely talking out of your ass here.

Until the socialists took over it was one of the richest and most successful countries in the Western Hemisphere then just like Cuba as soon as "La Revolution" removed the rightful gov't things went to shit for them economically.

Wrong.
Before Chavez, Venezuela has massive poverty.
Chavez greatly improved the quality of life.
But then US economic sanctions illegal killed their oil industry.
The US is directly responsible for the current state of Venezuela entirely.