Homelander Posted yesterday at 05:01 AM Posted yesterday at 05:01 AM (edited) 39 minutes ago, Motorin' said: But Starmer said he's sending the troops! I guess you Googled. Edited yesterday at 05:26 AM by Homelander
Coffeesforclosers Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago 6 hours ago, Motorin' said: That's the spirit! But honestly, this just the pompous, long winded version of a much shorter article from 2023. The tensions between Moscow and the West can only be resolved by talking with the Ukrainian president’s foreign masters, Russia’s FM has said The West and Russia will eventually sit down to discuss their differences, but this dialogue should be held not with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky but with those using him as a stooge, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Friday. So what if Russia Today is the government funded propaganda organ of the Russian state. We NeEd NuAnCe!
All_Pro_Bills Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago 5 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: So what if Russia Today is the government funded propaganda organ of the Russian state. True and media like the Washington Post and NY Times, and networks such as ABC and CBS have been propaganda organs for the Washington establishment. So who to believe and why expect either is giving you the complete truth?
Coffeesforclosers Posted 21 hours ago Posted 21 hours ago (edited) 5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: True and media like the Washington Post and NY Times, and networks such as ABC and CBS have been propaganda organs for the Washington establishment. So who to believe and why expect either is giving you the complete truth? I get all my facts from a massive media conglomerate completely aligned with the current President of the United States. It's called X. Edited 21 hours ago by Coffeesforclosers 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 27 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: I get all my facts from a massive media conglomerate completely aligned with the current President of the United States. It's called X. All I know for sure is after Biden's regime was removed from the equation everybody is suddenly talking about an end to hostilities and peace. While we're only in the posturing phase expect it to happen with a deal acceptable to all.
Coffeesforclosers Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said: All I know for sure is after Biden's regime was removed from the equation everybody is suddenly talking about an end to hostilities and peace. While we're only in the posturing phase expect it to happen with a deal acceptable to all. Who's all? There's only two parties negotiating? 1
4th&long Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 6 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said: Who's all? There's only two parties negotiating? He means when Trump is done bending over for Putin, who is the equivalent of Osama binladen, and gives him the whole country of Ukraine. The guy who ran multiple business into the ground and filled for bankruptcy 6 times is the perfect guy to negotiate world peace. I would just like to know how much the KGB paid trump when they recruited him and how long he had been on the payroll for?
BillsFanNC Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago Last I checked WaPo, NYT, Politico etc. are allowed to post their reliable coverage on X unfettered. But Coffestain can't get any reliable news on X. Waaaahhhh. 1
Motorin' Posted 15 hours ago Posted 15 hours ago 5 hours ago, Coffeesforclosers said: That's the spirit! But honestly, this just the pompous, long winded version of a much shorter article from 2023. The tensions between Moscow and the West can only be resolved by talking with the Ukrainian president’s foreign masters, Russia’s FM has said The West and Russia will eventually sit down to discuss their differences, but this dialogue should be held not with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky but with those using him as a stooge, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Friday. So what if Russia Today is the government funded propaganda organ of the Russian state. We NeEd NuAnCe! There's some truth to the idea that this war is about border security, not about grand plans to reinstate the Soviet Union. Let's look at Putin's goals for the war. 1. Denazify Ukraine. Is that has any meaning at all, it means stripping Ukraine of its nationalism and desire to be it's own country. Objective Failed. 2. Demilitarize Ukraine. Epic fail. Ukraine is now armed to the teeth, and has most of Europe's weapons. 3. Prevent Ukraine for joining NATO. Here's the bargaining chip to end this war. Let Ukraine join the EU but not NATO... All this talk about appeasement has no resemblance to historical reality. In 1938 the world just let Hitler walk into Czechoslovakia and take the whole thing. It didn't lift a finger out of fear of retribution. Whereas the world in 2022 armed Ukraine to the teeth and sanctioned the ***** out of Russia. In 3 years Russia has been able to gain 20% of Ukraine, they already had Crimea. And a large portion of Donetsk an Luhansk were already "autonomous" zones. Freeze the conflict or keep fighting. Ukraine may slowly lose more and more land, and Russia may continue to turn more and more cities into dust. The only way Ukraine outright wins is if NATO goes to war inside of Ukraine. But no NATO country is going to be willing to put boots on the ground despite tough talk from Macron and Starmer. The main reason to keep fighting is ideological, not practical or realistic. And if this doesn't end sooner than later, Ukraine, Russia and all of Europe will be worse off.
sherpa Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 4 minutes ago, Homelander said: See anything that says "US" in this post? The issue is that there are people who have a valid claim that we shouldn't be the underpinning factor in this, both financially and logistically. It is a valid point. My view is that we should support them within reason, but Biden was never able to tip the scales, thought that was possible, but it needs to end.
Homelander Posted 10 hours ago Posted 10 hours ago 6 minutes ago, sherpa said: See anything that says "US" in this post? The issue is that there are people who have a valid claim that we shouldn't be the underpinning factor in this, both financially and logistically. It is a valid point. My view is that we should support them within reason, but Biden was never able to tip the scales, thought that was possible, but it needs to end. At what point should the US care?
sherpa Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 13 minutes ago, Homelander said: At what point should the US care? My view of your contribution is not favorable, and this is a classic example. The US should and does "care." Caring is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the US taxpayer should fund an endless, infinitely expensive war. We either commit sources to it to determine the outcome, or we don't. What Biden was doing was useless, Vietnamesque,but he has never gotten anything right re foreign policy or the use of our military, so no surprise.
Homelander Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 16 minutes ago, sherpa said: My view of your contribution is not favorable, and this is a classic example. The US should and does "care." Caring is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the US taxpayer should fund an endless, infinitely expensive war. We either commit sources to it to determine the outcome, or we don't. What Biden was doing was useless, Vietnamesque,but he has never gotten anything right re foreign policy or the use of our military, so no surprise. I agree with you. Biden should have provided Ukraine with all the necessary resources to defeat Putin decisively. However, this approach risked escalating tensions and potentially triggering World War III with significant US casualties. While I firmly believe the war must end, I worry about Trump handling Ukraine as he did Afghanistan; essentially surrendering it to the Taliban. This wouldn't solve anything but postpone future conflicts, leaving the region more unstable and vulnerable. Any resolution to this conflict must address both Ukraine's and Russia's concerns, not Russia's alone.
sherpa Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 15 minutes ago, Homelander said: I agree with you. Biden should have provided Ukraine with all the necessary resources to defeat Putin decisively. However, this approach risked escalating tensions and potentially triggering World War III with significant US casualties. Sure. Biden has never done anything worthwhile regarding the US military. He was a useless president. Get in or get out, and I'm not advocating he committed US troops to this, but if he was any kind of leader, he could have ended this. He isn't, and he never has been. A tepid approach never works.
Homelander Posted 8 hours ago Posted 8 hours ago 4 minutes ago, sherpa said: Sure. Biden has never done anything worthwhile regarding the US military. He was a useless president. Get in or get out, and I'm not advocating he committed US troops to this, but if he was any kind of leader, he could have ended this. He isn't, and he never has been. A tepid approach never works. Putin was never going to hand Biden a win; you know that.
Recommended Posts