JDHillFan Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Peace? Awful. Why can’t we just continue with the killing?
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 2 minutes ago, wnyguy said: If the government of Ukraine agree to give up some territory in order to stop the destruction of their country and the deaths of thousands who are you to criticize? Substitute "any country" for Ukraine, and you have your answer. You don't reward naked aggression.
wnyguy Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Just now, daz28 said: Substitute "any country" for Ukraine, and you have your answer. You don't reward naked aggression. It is not our decision to make, Ukraine is a sovereign nation able to negotiate their own terms. The fact that Trump had a role in the decisions being made is your problem, agree?
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Just now, wnyguy said: It is not our decision to make, Ukraine is a sovereign nation able to negotiate their own terms. The fact that Trump had a role in the decisions being made is your problem, agree? You don't think that the support, or lack of, from the USA has any bearing on this???
wnyguy Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Just now, daz28 said: You don't think that the support, or lack of, from the USA has any bearing on this??? Lack of support? We have given Ukraine hundreds of billions of dollars, supplied them with weapons and intelligence. Throwing money at a corrupt institution hand over fist with no vetting is just insanity. End this war.
RkFast Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 31 minutes ago, daz28 said: I don't remember George Bush telling Sadaam, how about this nice chunk of Kuwait? Will that keep you happy? Putin might be trump's buddy, but I'd NEVER show weakness to him and ceding territory is doing just that. A reward for naked aggression. Plus a promise to not let them join NATO, and likely other concessions. Rolling over for Putin. Psht!!! Apples and Oranges. Kuwait and Iraq were two completely seperate countries thoughtout history. Not so with Ukraine and the RU and even the biggest Ukrainan partisan admits this. Plus, Crimea is home to the RU's only warm water port. Them giving up Crimea and Sevastopol is like the US giving up Diego Garcia or Okinawa. Not going to happen. A negotiated settlement where new borders were established was ALWAYS where this was going to wind up. Edited February 12 by RkFast
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 4 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Lack of support? We have given Ukraine hundreds of billions of dollars, supplied them with weapons and intelligence. Throwing money at a corrupt institution hand over fist with no vetting is just insanity. End this war. Of course I mean support going forward. I get your opinion is end it, and give them something. I don't agree, because I feel it's appeasement. What's Russia's guarantee they don't do it again, and why should we trust that? What measures could we take to ensure it? 1 minute ago, RkFast said: Apples and Oranges. Kuwait and Iraq were two completely seperate countries thoughtout history. Not so with Ukraine and the RU and even the biggest Ukrainan partisan admits this. Plus, Crimea is home to the RU's only warm water port. Them giving up Crimea and Sevastopol is like the US giving up Diego Garcia or Okinawa. Not going to happen. A negotiated settlement where new borders were established was ALWAYS where this was going to wind up. Sorry, I'm not buying Putin's Soviet defense. Have you guys forgotten Ukraine already got burned bad?? Edited February 12 by daz28
wnyguy Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Just now, daz28 said: Of course I mean support going forward. I get your opinion is end it, and give them something. I don't agree, because I feel it's appeasement. What's Russia's guarantee they don't do it again, and why should we trust that? What measures could we take to ensure it? That's a good question and I would suspect that if a peace agreement was made and then Russia violated it somehow there would have to be very serious repercussions.
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 1 minute ago, wnyguy said: That's a good question and I would suspect that if a peace agreement was made and then Russia violated it somehow there would have to be very serious repercussions. Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia. They should already be balls deep in sanctions, too. Edited February 12 by daz28
RkFast Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 7 minutes ago, daz28 said: Sorry, I'm not buying Putin's Soviet defense. Have you guys forgotten Ukraine already got burned bad?? They got "burned bad" when they were fed Victoria Nuland's cookies and fell for the canard that the US and EU was there to help them. "NYET MEANS NYET" https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/ Edited February 12 by RkFast
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Just now, RkFast said: They got "burned bad" when they were fed Victoria Nuland's cookies and fell for the canard that the US and EU was there to help them. Yeah, blame everyone but Russia. LOL Is that you Vlad?
wnyguy Posted February 12 Posted February 12 1 minute ago, daz28 said: Thirty years ago, on 5 December 1994, at a ceremony in Budapest, Ukraine joined Belarus and Kazakhstan in giving up their nuclear arsenals in return for security guarantees from the United States, the UK, France, China and Russia. They should already be balls deep in sanctions, too. Then where is the UK, France, and China in aiding the Ukraine? Have they stepped up? Have they supplied aid and/or admonished Russia in any capacity?
RkFast Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 15 minutes ago, daz28 said: Yeah, blame everyone but Russia. LOL Is that you Vlad? "NYET MEANS NYET" https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/ Very simple to understand rationale here. Yeah yeah...its Rogan. But Dave Smith knows his stuff. Edited February 12 by RkFast
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 (edited) 21 minutes ago, RkFast said: "NYET MEANS NYET" https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/ What other countries might they have said the same thing about? Here's what I found for the rest of it: The truth We had a feeling that folks repeating the claim missed important context from Nuland’s speech. Wasn’t Nuland talking about money given since Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union? The State Department said yes. "The insinuation that the United States incited the people of Ukraine to riot or rebel is patently false," said Nicole Thompson, a State Department spokeswoman. Since 1992, the government has spent about $5.1 billion to support democracy-building programs in Ukraine, Thompson said, with money flowing mostly from the Department of State via U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as the departments of Defense, Energy, Agriculture and others. The United States does this with hundreds of other countries. About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million). The descriptions are a bit vague, which could lead people to think the money was used for some clandestine purpose. But even if it that were so, the money in question was spent over more than 20 years. Yanukovych was elected in 2010. So any connection between the protests and the $5 billion is inaccurate. And Obama was elected in 2008, so any connection between $5 billion and Obama also is inaccurate. Edited February 12 by daz28
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 Oh look, a rino that understands aggression like an actual conservative republican should. You want some of Ukrane Vlad? How bout some of Deez nuts instead. get em Mike: Speaking on X about Trump's comments on how Ukraine "may be Russia some day," his former vice president said: "If Ukraine falls, it will only be a matter of time until Russia invades a NATO ally our troops will be required to defend."
daz28 Posted February 12 Posted February 12 1 hour ago, wnyguy said: Then where is the UK, France, and China in aiding the Ukraine? Have they stepped up? Have they supplied aid and/or admonished Russia in any capacity? That's kinda the point. Why should Ukraine take a hose job now, from the same people who screwed them before, just to "save lives", with little respect to those who already lost theirs. It really sounds more like a conditional surrender. If they balk at this, I would be fine with it. Russia has to pay a MUCH bigger price, and I don't think trump's the guy who's gonna pressure them that hard. In fact, the pal talk is kind of aggravating. We really weren't "pals" at all, and trumpty's history is faulty. Most people agree the Cold War started in 1945.
Homelander Posted February 13 Posted February 13 Trump will sacrifice Ukraine and its people just as he did in Afghanistan all to benefit Putin.
Coffeesforclosers Posted February 13 Posted February 13 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Homelander said: Trump will sacrifice Ukraine and its people just as he did in Afghanistan all to benefit Putin. Well, he's not going to sacrifice Ukraine, he's going to sacrifice most of Ukraine. Probably because he believes some degree of Russian appeasement will scare Europe into rearming, and provide a foundation for splitting Russia away from China. This is silly for a number of reasons, but it sounds hard headed and realist and that's what matters. Edited February 13 by Coffeesforclosers
SectionC3 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 4 hours ago, JDHillFan said: Peace? Awful. Why can’t we just continue with the killing? It was supposed to have stopped on day one. Promises made, promises broken.
JDHillFan Posted February 13 Posted February 13 3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said: It was supposed to have stopped on day one. Promises made, promises broken. Many people have observed the guy long enough to know what he’s about. Then there’s your type. I’m sure “day one” is fun for you as a talking point, no matter how vapid. You are morphing into a Tiberius. That’s something no one can, nor would want to, take from you. Well done.
Recommended Posts