We just want you (and other Yanks on this board) to admit that USA has killed more innocent people worldwide than Russia could even imagine. Then this discussion can go on, otherwise - 🤡
And what bearing does that have Russia's current actions? If "the Yanks on this board" admit that the USA has killed more innocent people worldwide than Russia "could even imagine," does that make Russia's current actions okay? If not, then what's the point? How many innocent people have died from the inaction of your country?
No bearing at all. Just absolutely odd to to listen to a prostitute preaching about virginity. Of course no war and especially no war crime is ok. But to snooze through a dozen of wars and a few hunded war crimes only to get your panties bunched up about Russia is just wrong.
Most definitely less people died from inaction of my country, than from the action of yours and that speaks volumes. I really hope for the future, where no war is legal and no innocent civilian death will go unpunished, whether it be Russia, the US or some other country.
Well maybe he will just throw 2 nuclear bombs on Helsinki and Oslo.
You know, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Before you start blabbering about Pearl Harbor, don't forget to mention how every single person that died in Japan during and after nuclear blasts deserved it. That's a REAL war crime right there, yet nobody got prosecuted for it, did they?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved MILLIONS of lives most of them Japanese.
That's what Putin is saying too. He is there to end the war (genocide in East Ukraine since 2014), not to start one. Either you accept both statements, or none.
Well maybe he will just throw 2 nuclear bombs on Helsinki and Oslo.
You know, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Before you start blabbering about Pearl Harbor, don't forget to mention how every single person that died in Japan during and after nuclear blasts deserved it. That's a REAL war crime right there, yet nobody got prosecuted for it, did they?
I think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, but you haven't depicted a parallel situation. Japan was actively at war with the United States and had initiated the war with an attack on American soil. Neither Norway nor Finland have attacked Russian and are not reasonably likely to do so whether they are in NATO or not.
Thank you. At least someone on this board thinks it was wrong. Japan was at war, but at least 200.000 civilians died in that nuclear attack.
Norway nor Finland have not done anything yet, but if I was Putin, I would consider sending military aid to Ukraine an active act of war. The only reason Selenskys government is still fighting, cause they're being fed hundreds of millions worth of weapons.
I wonder what the US would do if Russia start building military bases in Mexico.
I think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, but you haven't depicted a parallel situation. Japan was actively at war with the United States and had initiated the war with an attack on American soil. Neither Norway nor Finland have attacked Russian and are not reasonably likely to do so whether they are in NATO or not.
Thank you. At least someone on this board thinks it was wrong. Japan was at war, but at least 200.000 civilians died in that nuclear attack.
Norway nor Finland have not done anything yet, but if I was Putin, I would consider sending military aid to Ukraine an active act of war. The only reason Selenskys government is still fighting, cause they're being fed hundreds of millions worth of weapons.
I wonder what the US would do if Russia start building military bases in Mexico.
That's a worthless rabbit trail. Putin doesn't want war with all of NATO (especially in light of his military's performance -- even if Russia prevails Putin must be shaken at the sloppy performance). And dropping a nuke on Helsinki or Oslo results in a vaporized Russia, as well as a large number of cities elsewhere.
I wonder what the US would do if Russia start building military bases in Mexico.
Not sure what your point is, since neither the United States nor NATO have any military bases in Ukraine. And Russia still invaded.
Once they do, it's too late. You do know, that they have been negotiating joining NATO since 2014? The only reason Russia took Crimea is not to lose Sevatsopol Naval Base to NATO.
Thank you. At least someone on this board thinks it was wrong. Japan was at war, but at least 200.000 civilians died in that nuclear attack.
Norway nor Finland have not done anything yet, but if I was Putin, I would consider sending military aid to Ukraine an active act of war. The only reason Selenskys government is still fighting, cause they're being fed hundreds of millions worth of weapons.
I wonder what the US would do if Russia start building military bases in Mexico.
That's a worthless rabbit trail. Putin doesn't want war with all of NATO (especially in light of his military's performance -- even if Russia prevails Putin must be shaken at the sloppy performance). And dropping a nuke on Helsinki or Oslo results in a vaporized Russia, as well as a large number of cities elsewhere.
Who do you think is gonna vaporize Russia if they nuke Sweden or Finland? Neither are NATO members, just like Ukraine isn't.
I mean, I know they're not gonna do it, but even hypthetically speaking. NATO doesn't have to protect non-members.
Not sure what your point is, since neither the United States nor NATO have any military bases in Ukraine. And Russia still invaded.
Once they do, it's too late. You do know, that they have been negotiating joining NATO since 2014? The only reason Russia took Crimea is not to lose Sevatsopol Naval Base to NATO.
So, what you really meant to say originally was "I wonder what the US would do if possibly, maybe, at some unspecified time in the future, Mexico might enter in to some relationship with Russia"? And not what you actually said ("I wonder what the US would do if Russia start building military bases in Mexico.")?
That's a worthless rabbit trail. Putin doesn't want war with all of NATO (especially in light of his military's performance -- even if Russia prevails Putin must be shaken at the sloppy performance). And dropping a nuke on Helsinki or Oslo results in a vaporized Russia, as well as a large number of cities elsewhere.
Who do you think is gonna vaporize Russia if they nuke Sweden or Finland? Neither are NATO members, just like Ukraine isn't.
I mean, I know they're not gonna do it, but even hypthetically speaking. NATO doesn't have to protect non-members.
In your first post to which you responded you referenced Oslo and Helsinki. In the second post to which I responded you mentioned Norway and Finland. Oslo is in Norway, and Norway is in NATO. You didn't reference Sweden. I can be forgiven thinking you were describing an attack on a NATO country.
It also wasn't clear whether you were postulating an attack on Helsinki before or after they join NATO.
Once they do, it's too late. You do know, that they have been negotiating joining NATO since 2014? The only reason Russia took Crimea is not to lose Sevatsopol Naval Base to NATO.
So, what you really meant to say originally was "I wonder what the US would do if possibly, maybe, at some unspecified time in the future, Mexico might enter in to some relationship with Russia"? And not what you actually said ("I wonder what the US would do if Russia start building military bases in Mexico.")?
Yes. Imagine Putin being invited to Mexico to discuss possible military cooperation and stationing of mid-range missiles on the boarder with the US.
Don't you think that would be alarming? Just as it is to Russians, when NATO starts talking with Ukraine about membership.
Ex-CIA/State Dept./Special Forces Larry Johnson debunks "virulent" anti-Russia hysteria
Larry Johnson of The Son of the New American Revolution blog is a well-informed and eloquent critic of the official US government and media line on Ukraine. In this interview, Larry Johnson casts severe doubts on much of what we’re hearing from the media, including the claims that “Ukraine is winning”:
“What you would expect to see if the Ukrainians functioned as an effective army: number one, in the east, they would have broken out. They would have actually launched a counterattack against the Russians and pushed the Russians back to the border. That hasn't happened. In fact, the reports show steady progress by these Russian backed forces in Donetsk and Luhansk in pushing back the Ukrainian military.
“Number two, the Russians have basically they have sealed, completely shut down, the southern coast of Ukraine and their access to the Black Sea. Again, if the Ukraine had a viable, capable army that could fight against that, they would be launching counterattacks to push the Russians out and to open those ports. They haven't done that. What we're seeing is that this group of neo-Nazis that are in the steel plant area of Mariupol are slowly being encircled and killed. So again, if Ukraine had a functioning army, you'd expect to see artillery strikes coming in to try to push back the Russians. We're not seeing that. You'd expect to see air strikes, some sort of air operation, whether with fixed wing or rotary wing. We're not seeing that. Cruise missiles. We're not seeing that. So do they not have it or are they just incapable of using it in an effective manner? And I think it's the latter. Because it's irrational for them not to use it if it's still viable. I do know that their ability to conduct air to air intercept with fixed wing combat aircraft was curtailed the first 24 hours of the war on February 24th because the ground radars were blown up and those ground radars were what the pilots needed in order to vector themselves in on a target.”
Three weeks ago, Johnson said that Russia had all but won the war and had decimated Ukraine forces. Then, Russia had to retreat from Kyiv. And now Johnson is saying that Ukraine has all these great military assets that they could be using to push back Russian forces but aren't able to use them because they are a bunch of dumb Nazis.
Russia's annual military budget is somewhere in the ballpark of $60 billion USD a year. Some think that the real number is closer to $150-200 billion a year because market exchange rates conceal the real purchasing power of the Russian military. Ukraine's military budget is about $5 bil USD for 2021. Prior to that, it was in the $2-3 bil range from 2014 to 2020. On paper, a Russian war with Ukraine should be a total walkover. On paper, Russian should have superior weaponry, air power, and naval power. But 50 days into the conflict, Russia has had to retreat from Kyiv, just lost its flagship battle cruiser to a missile strike and has probably had up to 1/3 of its forces killed, injured or captured. Supply chain failures have forced Russian soldiers to loot civilians for food and supplies.
Who do you think is gonna vaporize Russia if they nuke Sweden or Finland? Neither are NATO members, just like Ukraine isn't.
I mean, I know they're not gonna do it, but even hypthetically speaking. NATO doesn't have to protect non-members.
In your first post to which you responded you referenced Oslo and Helsinki. In the second post to which I responded you mentioned Norway and Finland. Oslo is in Norway, and Norway is in NATO. You didn't reference Sweden. I can be forgiven thinking you were describing an attack on a NATO country.
It also wasn't clear whether you were postulating an attack on Helsinki before or after they join NATO.
My bad, I meant Stockholm.
Once they enter NATO, it's too late. If anything, Russia has a short window to do something about it. The only way I see Russia winning in this situation is if Putin stars slurping on Xi's di*k real good to get China active.
So, what you really meant to say originally was "I wonder what the US would do if possibly, maybe, at some unspecified time in the future, Mexico might enter in to some relationship with Russia"? And not what you actually said ("I wonder what the US would do if Russia start building military bases in Mexico.")?
Yes. Imagine Putin being invited to Mexico to discuss possible military cooperation and stationing of mid-range missiles on the boarder with the US.
Don't you think that would be alarming? Just as it is to Russians, when NATO starts talking with Ukraine about membership.
OK, so it's not about Russia actually building military bases in Mexico anymore?
Doesn't the fact that Mexico has apparently never felt the need to have such discussions with Russia, while Ukraine has at least considered the possibility of joining NATO, say a lot about both Russia and NATO/US?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved MILLIONS of lives most of them Japanese.
That's what Putin is saying too. He is there to end the war (genocide in East Ukraine since 2014), not to start one. Either you accept both statements, or none.
Putin is an immoral actor. What he says is moral means nothing.
The US saved MILLIONS of Japanese lives by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No one who knows the first thing about WW2 disputes this.
There were 110,000 Japanese soldiers and conscripts on Okinawa and the US had to kill every one of them. THOUSANDS of Japanese civilians killed their families and committed suicide rather than surrender.
Without the atomic bombs the US has to invade the mainland and MILLIONS would have died.
Yes. Imagine Putin being invited to Mexico to discuss possible military cooperation and stationing of mid-range missiles on the boarder with the US.
Don't you think that would be alarming? Just as it is to Russians, when NATO starts talking with Ukraine about membership.
OK, so it's not about Russia actually building military bases in Mexico anymore?
Doesn't the fact that Mexico has apparently never felt the need to have such discussions with Russia, while Ukraine has at least considered the possibility of joining NATO, say a lot about both Russia and NATO/US?
Yes, this is - for the umpteenth time on this thread - the MAIN point: Don't scare your neighbors, and they won't band together in opposition to you. And when they do, we don't want to hear your whining.
But it's ALSO true that if we DID get really upset at Mexico for some POSSIBLE alliance, we wouldn't conduct a full-scale invasion of Mexico AND be shelling-to-rubble Mexican villages right now.
Yes. Imagine Putin being invited to Mexico to discuss possible military cooperation and stationing of mid-range missiles on the boarder with the US.
Don't you think that would be alarming? Just as it is to Russians, when NATO starts talking with Ukraine about membership.
OK, so it's not about Russia actually building military bases in Mexico anymore?
Doesn't the fact that Mexico has apparently never felt the need to have such discussions with Russia, while Ukraine has at least considered the possibility of joining NATO, say a lot about both Russia and NATO/US?
You talking about it as if there would be a huge difference. Alone such speculations would cause the US to sponsor the opposition, call the acting president a terrorist and overthrow him, since this seems to be a working pattern for the Middle East.
Mexico doesn't have the need, but Cuba sure did.
Ukrainian government was put in power through a Western sponsored coup, So they naturally have to pay their dues and do what Uncle Sam says. If you ever heard a term "s*ithole country", that's about Ukraine. Insane levels of corruption.
OK, so it's not about Russia actually building military bases in Mexico anymore?
Doesn't the fact that Mexico has apparently never felt the need to have such discussions with Russia, while Ukraine has at least considered the possibility of joining NATO, say a lot about both Russia and NATO/US?
Yes, this is - for the umpteenth time on this thread - the MAIN point: Don't scare your neighbors, and they won't band together in opposition to you. And when they do, we don't want to hear your whining.
But it's ALSO true that if we DID get really upset at Mexico for some POSSIBLE alliance, we wouldn't conduct a full-scale invasion of Mexico AND be shelling-to-rubble Mexican villages right now.
But yeah, the U.S. and Russia are the same.
My god, the dumb-assery.
Oh, and continuing on the dumb equivalencies theme, I'm curious what the Cuban Missile Crisis VS Ukraine Invasion tally board is looking like?
On the one side (which included Russian nuclear missiles), you have the U.S. killing exactly ZERO Cuban service members or civilians.
And on the OTHER side (with no foreign nukes, and not even a protective membership in sight).....how many Ukrainians has Putin killed by now? And how many to come?
Almost seems like the situations and behavior might be a LOT different.
OK, so it's not about Russia actually building military bases in Mexico anymore?
Doesn't the fact that Mexico has apparently never felt the need to have such discussions with Russia, while Ukraine has at least considered the possibility of joining NATO, say a lot about both Russia and NATO/US?
Yes, this is - for the umpteenth time on this thread - the MAIN point: Don't scare your neighbors, and they won't band together in opposition to you. And when they do, we don't want to hear your whining.
But it's ALSO true that if we DID get really upset at Mexico for some POSSIBLE alliance, we wouldn't conduct a full-scale invasion of Mexico AND be shelling-to-rubble Mexican villages right now.
But yeah, the U.S. and Russia are the same.
My god, the dumb-assery.
Thank you. You're absolutely right - don't scare your neighbours. Once the Western sponsored coup with unidentified snipers on the roof shooting at both sides of protesters was finished in Ukraine and immediate and uncalled talks about NATO began, Russia felt threatened and decided to do something about it.
Don't be mistaken about the causality here.
Ukraine did just fine with Russia untill 2014. The US wants to sit in Sevastopol badly, so Russia decided to take it away before Ukraine gets a chance to join NATO.
In your first post to which you responded you referenced Oslo and Helsinki. In the second post to which I responded you mentioned Norway and Finland. Oslo is in Norway, and Norway is in NATO. You didn't reference Sweden. I can be forgiven thinking you were describing an attack on a NATO country.
It also wasn't clear whether you were postulating an attack on Helsinki before or after they join NATO.
My bad, I meant Stockholm.
Once they enter NATO, it's too late. If anything, Russia has a short window to do something about it. The only way I see Russia winning in this situation is if Putin stars slurping on Xi's di*k real good to get China active.
I don't think China wants any part of this war. In fact I'd be surprised if China wasn't rethinking their time line for reclaiming Taiwan. It's either strike now while the west is preoccupied with Ukraine. Which might be a smart move. Or to take a look at what Russian mistakes were and learn hard lessons without having to do it the hard way. China/Taiwan is now probably pushed down the road another 5/10 years. China's military is also conscript. Does anyone think they will be more motivated than their Russian counterparts? Who thinks Taiwan will fold like the Afgans, or will they fight tooth and nail like Ukraine to keep their Nation?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.