The *OFFICIAL* Russia Is About To Invade Ukraine Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
I see you know a lot about ignoring facts, or making them up to suit the cause. But it's silly of you to do this kind of pointing and name-calling. You're everything to decry in others.l
In my little dictionary , a NAZi is an authoritarian socialist like Hitler, who may or may not be marginalizing and systematically suppressing an ethnic, religious or other group that seems to be a problem to the regime. It might often involve some brand of supremacist or notion that one's own group is superior to others. In Hitler's case the term is an extreme of the genre. Mussolini was generally regarded as a "Fascist", the Japanese in WWII and before had some elements of supremacist ideals. I would call them "fascist" but not specifically "NAZI"
Today's Xi in China is a racist who believes the Han ethnic Chinese are the greatest people with the natural destiny to rule the world. Ou Hollywood and business elites seem OK with that as long as the cash flow is good. But in truth, our elites are fascist, and perhaps the worst sort. It's not just a few smaller groups they believe are a problem that needs a solution, but the whole damn world, everyone........ The unwashed masses who can't be left to mind their own business because they don't vote right, work hard enough, ask for too much pay, and want to drive cars anywhere the wind blows.
There are conservative socialists who love Government as their favorite tool, their plan A as it were, for building monopolies and cartels and eliminating nuisance competition. They donate to political candidates with big cheesy smiles, and keep in touch when their man is elected. They make politicians out of comedians and actors who can dance to hot music.
Trump has a deranged syndrome of believing "America" is great, and that we can make great deals with anyone.
He came so close to getting Zelensky to turn on his oligarchic TV network owner, it scared Washington *****ess. And that's a lot of ****. He might have got Biden indicted for taking bribes that might have gotten us into useless foreign wars.
Last edited:
In 1898 the United States went to war with Spain over a ship called "The Maine". We had headlines in NY rags "Remember the Maine". Teddy Roosevelt did a sort of Zelensky PR show, the Rough Riders. The Port of Stockton has a historic monument about it or something.
I was reading the tales of Utah soldiers who went to the Philippines. We "helped" the filipino freedom fighters, then we fought them until the place was ours. We took Cuba and then we set up Fidel Castro for no good reason.
In 1970 we had a stooge Ferdinand Marcos sitting as our Man in Manila pretty much like we want Zelensky to be our Man in Kiev. We always pick losers, then we fight stupid wars for no good reason, and lose the wars. In Afghanistan we left our people behind in the ditches, more or less.
When you hear our Press braying for war, don't listen. Run. Fight the stupidity if you can. But don't go and try to be a hero. It's not your war.
I was reading the tales of Utah soldiers who went to the Philippines. We "helped" the filipino freedom fighters, then we fought them until the place was ours. We took Cuba and then we set up Fidel Castro for no good reason.
In 1970 we had a stooge Ferdinand Marcos sitting as our Man in Manila pretty much like we want Zelensky to be our Man in Kiev. We always pick losers, then we fight stupid wars for no good reason, and lose the wars. In Afghanistan we left our people behind in the ditches, more or less.
When you hear our Press braying for war, don't listen. Run. Fight the stupidity if you can. But don't go and try to be a hero. It's not your war.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
There’s a lot of space between America doing nothing and America going to war in Russia. Haven’t seen anyone in our media advocate for war with Russia. I have seen plenty advocate for aid to Ukraine.
Then again, if you have an end already set then I can see you maintaining your argument no matter how absurd it is.
Then again, if you have an end already set then I can see you maintaining your argument no matter how absurd it is.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
We haven't done any declared war in years. Not Korea, Not Vietnam, Not Iraq, Not Afghanistan, Not Ukraine.
Deep State agencies, including armed services, operate on general permissive grants nobody checks.
Within that system, we can and do actually have personnel, maybe not in uniform, on the ground where ever they are sent. We move weapons in a lot of different ways, without advertisement.
In this case, most of the world sees Ukraine as a US/Russia proxy war. Most of the world sees us that way, unless we bribe them or somehow influence them to smile and be nice.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Some really good articles by people who actually know what they’re talking about
newsletters.theatlantic.com
One interesting point to keep in mind
Putin’s Unholy War
Putin, the Patriarch, and the corruption of Orthodox Christianity
newsletters.theatlantic.com
One interesting point to keep in mind
Red
Well-Known Member
View: https://twitter.com/StratcomCentre/status/1505224829494046725
Meet Patron, a bomb-sniffing Jack Russell terrier who has become a Ukrainian hero
Two-year-old Patron works with rescuers in the northern city of Chernihiv, where he sniffs out Russian bombs (in addition to warming laps, nipping sleeves and generally being a good boy).
www.npr.org
We would do better to discuss the problems in the psychology of The City of London.Some really good articles by people who actually know what they’re talking about
Putin’s Unholy War
Putin, the Patriarch, and the corruption of Orthodox Christianity
One interesting point to keep in mind
Russia has never been "secure" in any sense. The vast Siberian wilderness is hardly the best habitable land, and the mountains to the south have been notoriously where Empires go to die. But then, Ghengis Khan and others have swept across Russia from there, anyway. The West is hardly a defensible frontier, mostly plains . Ukraine has probably had the worst of all that. Britain and the Ottoman Empire united against Russia to push territorial gains. Kiev, Odessa, even Mariupol and many other Ukrainian city centers were actually founded as Russian outposts across an area very similar in some basics with Russia, but highly tribalistic or perhaps, better said, wanting local autonomy, Slavic nature, really. No settled agreements on who's the boss of whom. For a thousand years.
Britain could hardly be called "secure" either. Lots of highly localized populations.
One thing both have in common is the Vikings. Moscow was settled by Vikings as a portage location between rivers flowing to both the Baltic and the Black seas.
Of course any good Brit will call any nuisance fact "poppycock".
18 Mar 2022
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has blamed NATO for the war in Ukraine and said he would resist calls to condemn Russia, in comments that cast doubt over whether he would be accepted by Ukraine or the West as a mediator.
Ramaphosa, who was speaking on Thursday in parliament, said: “The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region.”
S Africa’s Ramaphosa: NATO to blame for Russia’s war in Ukraine
Ramaphosa had previously said he had been approached to mediate in the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
The Donbas region was settled Russian, with control challenged by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) in alliance with Britain in the 1800s. Russia has a better territorial claim there than China has over Formosa (Taiwan). Joe Biden knew that when he said, ala Madelaine Albright re Kuwait, that it would be alright if Russia took a "little piece" of "Ukraine".
I think that during the breakup of the USSR, it would have been better to have made Luhansk and Donbas separate countries then. It was Khrushchev who in 1954 moved those Oblasts into Ukraine administration. Even so, there are huge ethnic populations of "Ukrainians" who went into Russia for work or other reasons, and it's a huge disappointment to me to see a war like this between people who do share so much in common. It might be painted like the USA and Britain, where even after two hundred years there's more in common than different. They would be natural allies in many cases if attacked from outside.
But in the present time, foreign interests have bought off and partitioned the region through corrupt deals. I don't know if Trump can really read faces when he's talking to people, but lets just say it was a good idea to negotiate the problems then. Zelensky owes his place in history to his corruption in the service of Ukranian billionaires with ties to the West.
People used to say it was the Devil who divides humanity and causes wars. Maybe we can now start bringing it more into reality, and say it's money. Maybe money with names on it like Zuckerberg, Soros, Biden, Clinton, a bunch of Brits. Well, sure. Putin too.
Putin rose in Russian politics precisely because he loved the USSR and considered it a catastrophe that it broke up. Humpty Dumpty and all that. Without a Federal notion like our "sovereign" States, I don't think it can ever really be pieced back together. A "Mother Russia" with vassal states is not anything people could love. Local governance is the best way to address most issues in life.
But a UN governance is no better.
Last edited:
We would do better to discuss the problems in the psychology of The City of London.
Russia has never been "secure" in any sense. The vast Siberian wilderness is hardly the best habitable land, and the mountains to the south have been notoriously where Empires go to die. But then, Ghengis Khan and others have swept across Russia from there, anyway. The West is hardly a defensible frontier, mostly plains . Ukraine has probably had the worst of all that. Britain and the Ottoman Empire united against Russia to push territorial gains. Kiev, Odessa, even Mariupol and many other Ukrainian city centers were actually founded as Russian outposts across an area very similar in some basics with Russia, but highly tribalistic or perhaps, better said, wanting local autonomy, Slavic nature, really. No settled agreements on who's the boss of whom. For a thousand years.
Britain could hardly be called "secure" either. Lots of highly localized populations.
One thing both have in common is the Vikings. Moscow was settled by Vikings as a portage location between rivers flowing to both the Baltic and the Black seas.
Of course any good Brit will call any nuisance fact "poppycock".
18 Mar 2022
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has blamed NATO for the war in Ukraine and said he would resist calls to condemn Russia, in comments that cast doubt over whether he would be accepted by Ukraine or the West as a mediator.
Ramaphosa, who was speaking on Thursday in parliament, said: “The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region.”
S Africa’s Ramaphosa: NATO to blame for Russia’s war in Ukraine
Ramaphosa had previously said he had been approached to mediate in the Russia-Ukraine crisis.www.aljazeera.com
The Donbas region was settled Russian, with control challenged by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) in alliance with Britain in the 1800s. Russia has a better territorial claim there than China has over Formosa (Taiwan). Joe Biden knew that when he said, ala Madelaine Albright re Kuwait, that it would be alright if Russia took a "little piece" of "Ukraine".
I think that during the breakup of the USSR, it would have been better to have made Luhansk and Donbas separate countries then. It was Khrushchev who in 1954 moved those Oblasts into Ukraine administration. Even so, there are huge ethnic populations of "Ukrainians" who went into Russia for work or other reasons, and it's a huge disappointment to me to see a war like this between people who do share so much in common. It might be painted like the USA and Britain, where even after two hundred years there's more in common than different. They would be natural allies in many cases if attacked from outside.
But in the present time, foreign interests have bought off and partitioned the region through corrupt deals. I don't know if Trump can really read faces when he's talking to people, but lets just say it was a good idea to negotiate the problems then. Zelensky owes his place in history to his corruption in the service of Ukranian billionaires with ties to the West.
People used to say it was the Devil who divides humanity and causes wars. Maybe we can now start bringing it more into reality, and say it's money. Maybe money with names on it like Zuckerberg, Soros, Biden, Clinton, a bunch of Brits. Well, sure. Putin too.
Putin rose in Russian politics precisely because he loved the USSR and considered it a catastrophe that it broke up. Humpty Dumpty and all that. Without a Federal notion like our "sovereign" States, I don't think it can ever really be pieced back together. A "Mother Russia" with vassal states is not anything people could love. Local governance is the best way to address most issues in life.
But a UN governance is no better.
Just more unspooled bull ****
baseless opinions you can't discuss on the merits. I do have the case here, you have nothing but personal attacks or such idiotic opinions without any facts, real or imagined.
Somewhere you fell off the education wagon, for whatever that could ever have been worth where educators are increasingly statist propagandist or ideological purveyors of state or partisan beliefs, without any factual base at that.
Some of the advocates for statism in here will at the least quote3 or refer to other blinded advocates for their cause.
I assert that the cause you advocate draws on the contemporary "statist" authoritarians who believe the world hangs in the balance on several asserted crises. Overpopulation. Environment or pollution, exhaustion of critical resources. impending climate catastrophes or contested claims to governance.
My post above contests the claims of the various persons for global leadership. NATO verses Russian, China vs. USA/UK.
I think this is going to be an increasing conflict all across the world. Settled leadership of Western nations such as the EU, British Commonwealth/USA is being contested, some say. Some believe it's "Chinas Turn" to take the main leadership. Some think even so, we should at least have a "containment" circle around China to deter aggression. Some think that the Ukraine War is purposed, maybe "proxy", and driven by NATO/EU/US geopolitical strategy versus Putin's own expansionist strategy.
I think Zelensky is the wrong man to be in the middle. Not even his own man, nor his people's advocate. Just a pawn dancing to Western music. With or without high heels.
If you want to discuss the issues on the merits, you could be a constructive participant.
It is entirely possible there is an issue between Russia and Ukraine that is real and has nothing to do with the Rockefellers or British banking or the UN or NATO that is the driving force behind Putin invading.
It is also possible that at the exact same time the U.S., NATO and international mega corporations have an interest in maintaining a world in which larger nations are not allowed to invade smaller nations just because they can. There doesn't need to be an altruistic motive behind it and it doesn't need to be some convoluted conspiracy. It's just bad for business.
So if Ukraine doesn't want to be conquered and the U.S./NATO/International mega corps have an interest in seeing Russia's efforts fail then you have a very simple situation in which Ukraine will get aid from those parties who would prefer Russia fail.
It isn't even very complicated, but babe can't help to see Rockefellers under every stone and behind every bush because he is old and his brain is slow and he can't comprehend the actual world he lives in anymore and desperately wants to believe he has relevant things to add to the conversation.
It is also possible that at the exact same time the U.S., NATO and international mega corporations have an interest in maintaining a world in which larger nations are not allowed to invade smaller nations just because they can. There doesn't need to be an altruistic motive behind it and it doesn't need to be some convoluted conspiracy. It's just bad for business.
So if Ukraine doesn't want to be conquered and the U.S./NATO/International mega corps have an interest in seeing Russia's efforts fail then you have a very simple situation in which Ukraine will get aid from those parties who would prefer Russia fail.
It isn't even very complicated, but babe can't help to see Rockefellers under every stone and behind every bush because he is old and his brain is slow and he can't comprehend the actual world he lives in anymore and desperately wants to believe he has relevant things to add to the conversation.