Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
Three party is better I believe.
Less stagnation/more accomplished
Should the US shed blood for Ukraine
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
Less stagnation/more accomplished
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-syria-islamic-state-group-middle-east-international-news-96701a254c5a448cb253f14ab697419bLet me give you an example,
what is your stance on US invasion on Syria and not recognize otherwise internationally recognized ruler of the country, while at the same time supporting ISIS backed rebels?
If you dissociate from it, I'll eat my words.
Please, don't request any links
Aug. 21, 2013: Hundreds of people suffocate in rebel-held suburbs of the Syrian capital. U.N. investigators visit the sites and determine that ground-to-ground missiles loaded with sarin were fired on civilian areas while residents slept. The U.S. and others blame the Syrian government.
what is your stance on that? and i'll be glad to provide further links if one of the most trusted news services in the world isn't enough for you
Kassiopeija
Well-Known Member
donno but I thought they'd mostly look to secure "separatist" lands... and maybe secure a landbridge to Krim (as these have problems with supply)but i wouldn't count on it in your case, comrade kassi
but now they are going for Kiew?!! looks severe really severe and may need more than just sanctions...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
yep, I put it out there as clearly as I could. I formed my belief based upon a false assumption.
It's how I learn. Hypothesis, test, analyze, form new hypothesis
Repeat
Drives the people around me crazy though.
This was a safe place to test my understanding of humanity. I've known about this blind side of mine for a long time.
The null hypothesis was that Putin would not invade Ukraine. My reason for this is Ukraine wasn't/isn't worth the cost.
So, let me ask you and anyone who reads this. Is that assumption wrong too?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
no.
They can speak as much as they want as far as I care. I put them on ignore. Getting ready to do that to you too. They are boring. Say the same shit day after day. Boring is the worst. The mods do the same thing except they ban.
Do better.
Kerowacked
Well-Known Member
Where’s all the flags, we always have flags.
Kerowacked
Well-Known Member
Bet they’re better at withdrawing
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i have no problem with more parties forcing a coalition government down both the republicans AND the democrats throats. it would be good to see them all forced to cooperate to get ANYTHING done...
Mr_X
Well-Known Member
you forgot to include the observe part. you should observe before you hypothesize.
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
There isn't a word of truth in what that idiot uttered.
Good with Putin?
The USA didn't need him to be good with Putin, they needed him to stop Putin.
He didn't/he failed
Instead of pressuring Putin, he did fucking NOTHING!!!!
And you're saying that the reason Russia invaded/attacked Ukraine was because they felt threated by NATO?
How the fuck do you come up with that conclusion.
Oh, that's right Putin said it, so it must be true.
You're getting tedious.
I'm highly sceptical about any media, I tend not to trust any, AP, RT, BBC, AJ...
But I've been to Syria shortly before the war, and twice to Lebanon (during the war). General consensus there that majority of population privately supported Assad. Boy did the people there live in abundance and piece! The war changed that. I've also been to Iran twice during the youth protests, and it's completely different story there. People are generally ready for overthrowing Khamenei and transition to democracy
Exactly, Putin's reasoning is that he must stop Ukraine from getting close to NATO by all means
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
on the surface i think you made a valid assumption, based on the available facts and history of putin, and the area.
i think putin has some kind of plan that we in the west aren't aware of. it's the only thing that justifies his seemingly insane behavior.
this will extend his troops as far as they can be extended. he won't have the man power to both hold the area against the surely coming attacks from rebel forces, and engage in any kind of large scale offensive OR defensive actions...
this all makes me think he has an ally we aren't aware of...and the only candidate that fits that bill is Xi Jinping.
Ukraine has a lot of resources sitting under it, and russia and china both wouldn't mind getting their hands on all of it they can, and really, who else does russia have left to trade with? are they going to trade lng for crude oil with arabia?
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
Please clarify
Who was supporting the ISIS backed rebels & exactly who were the rebels.
You can attack a Sovereign country; you can't change its borders though..everyone in geo-political knows this.Let me give you an example,
what is your stance on US invasion on Syria and not recognize otherwise internationally recognized ruler of the country, while at the same time supporting ISIS backed rebels?
If you dissociate from it, I'll eat my words.
Please, don't request any links
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
So you are brainwashed (at best) to not accepts fact based reporting and to use the 'media' bullshit troll tagline.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Well, Putin did put a bounty on US troops and Trump was OK with that, so, not hard to figure out who backed ISIS until Trump and Putin didn't need them any more.
Sucked for the families of US troops to have a president like that.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
then there will be no free world, ever
Jimdamick
Well-Known Member
I'm getting here late
Are you talking about the US invading Syria?