If Mexico invaded the US to help Hispanic separatists in CA and Texas (people who believe Mexico should either withdraw from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or they should be allowed to form a new country) you'd advocate the US surrender? And agree the surrender agreement should involve the US ceding large tracts of land to Mexico? Surely this is a course of action that would save many lives.
I'm not the anti-war Left that fought for universal disarmament and use of the resulting "peace dividend" to expand social spending. I believe Americans have a cultural life worth fighting to maintain. I'm a nationalist.
Quote: In a report three days after the leak of the [Nuland] recording, BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus noted that the disclosure was embarrassing because it showed that "the US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on". But that's hardly the same as engineering a coup, a charge that not only paints the Americans as malignant puppeteers but denies agency to the Ukrainians who revolted.
The US wasn't behind the "coup", Ukranians unhappy with being ruled by a Putin puppet were.
Nobody has agency but America. Anyone that doesn't blame or give credit to America for everything that has ever happened in the world is an unpatriotic douchebag.
Oliver Stone: "Although the United States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn't justify Mr. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. A dozen wrongs don't make a right. Russia was wrong to invade".
cont...But we must wonder, how could Putin have saved the Russian-speaking people of Donetsk and Luhansk? No doubt his Government could’ve done a better job of showing the world the eight years of suffering of those people and their refugees — as well as highlighting the Ukrainian buildup of 110,000 soldiers on the Donetsk-Luhansk borders, which was occurring essentially before the Russian buildup. But the West has far stronger public relations than the Russians.
Or perhaps Putin should’ve surrendered the two holdout provinces and offered 1-3 million people help to relocate in Russia. The world might’ve understood better the aggression of the Ukrainian Government. But then again, I’m not sure.
But now, it’s too late. Putin has allowed himself to be baited and fallen into the trap set by the U.S. and has committed his military, empowering the worst conclusions the West can make. He probably, I think, has given up on the West, and this brings us closer than ever to a Final Confrontation. There seems to be no road back. The only ones happy about this are Russian nationalists and the legion of Russian haters, who finally got what they’ve been dreaming of for years, i.e. Biden, Pentagon, CIA, EU, NATO, mainstream media — and don’t overlook Nuland and her sinister neocon gang in D.C. This will significantly vindicate the uber hawks in public eyes. Pointing out the toxicity of their policies (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, NATO expansion, breaking nuclear treaties, censoring and omitting crucial facts from the news, etc.) will be next to impossible. Pointing out Western double standards, including Kyiv and Zelenskyy’s bad behavior, will likewise fall on deaf ears as we again draw the wrong conclusions.
No, by experts. I quoted one (Pavel Shekhtman) in the thread attached to the post you linked to.
LOL = you laughing at me because I claimed to be an expert on Ukraine. Except I didn't. Because I'm not. Many of your "LOL"s are you laughing due to your delusions.
If posting on Facebook makes someone a terrorist, then Steve Bannon is a terrorist and should be arrested, put on a list of American terrorists and extremists and placed on house arrest, as Pavel Shekhtman was.
It would be cheaper to supply Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank rockets if the the US mass produced them and made them commercially available to gunowners and collectors.
You will trust a foreign national with a free anti-tank rocket launcher but not an American citizen who would use it to counter-protest a trucker convoy?
Political positions of Rand Paul ... Paul identifies as both a "constitutional conservative" and a "libertarian conservative". https://m.youtube.com › watch
Rand Paul: Libertarianism Is A "Badge Of Honor". ... Not every Libertarian is the same. Video.
I was talking about Randall Paul. Rad Paul (whoever that is) might be a federalist. Or he might not exist. Randall Paul says he is a "Libertarian Republican".
No, I am believing Randall Paul when he says he is (and acts like he is) a Libertarian. He bigly wants to cut taxes and government spending. Do you think those are things Libertarians oppose?
Randal Paul: "I've always described myself as Libertarian-ish".
Note the ALWAYS. He didn't say, "I've always described myself as a Federalist". Not even "I sometimes describe myself as a Federalist". If he has ALWAYS described himself as "Libertarian-ish", it stands to reason he has NEVER described himself as a Federalist.
Randal says that, while he is a bigly fan of Ayn Rand, it was his wife who decided to call him "Rand" and the shortening of his name has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Not sure I believe that.
In any case, Randal currently firmly allies himself with donald tRump. donald tRump ran up the debt bigly and that makes Randal proud. donald tRump lied about not supporting gwb's wars, and that also makes Randal proud. He isn't really Libertarian-ish or a Federalist. He's a trumpturd and a hypocrite.
If Mexico invaded the US to help Hispanic separatists in CA and Texas (people who believe Mexico should either withdraw from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or they should be allowed to form a new country) you'd advocate the US surrender? And agree the surrender agreement should involve the US ceding large tracts of land to Mexico? Surely this is a course of action that would save many lives.
ReplyDeleteI'm not the anti-war Left that fought for universal disarmament and use of the resulting "peace dividend" to expand social spending. I believe Americans have a cultural life worth fighting to maintain. I'm a nationalist.
ReplyDeleteThat said, F*CK Ukraine!
ReplyDeleteF*ck Putin, Russian soldiers who follow orders to commit war crimes, and all Putin puppets (democracy haters like you).
ReplyDeletePutin not's the one that was behind Ukraine's 2014 coup, Dervy, we were. THAT is your love for "democracy" in practice.
ReplyDeleteQuote: In a report three days after the leak of the [Nuland] recording, BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus noted that the disclosure was embarrassing because it showed that "the US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on". But that's hardly the same as engineering a coup, a charge that not only paints the Americans as malignant puppeteers but denies agency to the Ukrainians who revolted.
ReplyDeleteThe US wasn't behind the "coup", Ukranians unhappy with being ruled by a Putin puppet were.
Maybe you should try convincing Oliver Stone...
ReplyDeleteNobody has agency but America. Anyone that doesn't blame or give credit to America for everything that has ever happened in the world is an unpatriotic douchebag.
ReplyDeleteOliver Stone: "Although the United States has many wars of aggression on its conscience, it doesn't justify Mr. Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. A dozen wrongs don't make a right. Russia was wrong to invade".
ReplyDeletecont...But we must wonder, how could Putin have saved the Russian-speaking people of Donetsk and Luhansk? No doubt his Government could’ve done a better job of showing the world the eight years of suffering of those people and their refugees — as well as highlighting the Ukrainian buildup of 110,000 soldiers on the Donetsk-Luhansk borders, which was occurring essentially before the Russian buildup. But the West has far stronger public relations than the Russians.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps Putin should’ve surrendered the two holdout provinces and offered 1-3 million people help to relocate in Russia. The world might’ve understood better the aggression of the Ukrainian Government. But then again, I’m not sure.
But now, it’s too late. Putin has allowed himself to be baited and fallen into the trap set by the U.S. and has committed his military, empowering the worst conclusions the West can make. He probably, I think, has given up on the West, and this brings us closer than ever to a Final Confrontation. There seems to be no road back. The only ones happy about this are Russian nationalists and the legion of Russian haters, who finally got what they’ve been dreaming of for years, i.e. Biden, Pentagon, CIA, EU, NATO, mainstream media — and don’t overlook Nuland and her sinister neocon gang in D.C. This will significantly vindicate the uber hawks in public eyes. Pointing out the toxicity of their policies (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, NATO expansion, breaking nuclear treaties, censoring and omitting crucial facts from the news, etc.) will be next to impossible. Pointing out Western double standards, including Kyiv and Zelenskyy’s bad behavior, will likewise fall on deaf ears as we again draw the wrong conclusions.
He's wrong. That has already been established.
ReplyDeleteBy who, you? lol!
ReplyDeletePutin can't do anything the American orbital mind control laser network doesn't allow.
ReplyDeleteBy who, you? lol!
ReplyDeleteNo, by experts. I quoted one (Pavel Shekhtman) in the thread attached to the post you linked to.
LOL = you laughing at me because I claimed to be an expert on Ukraine. Except I didn't. Because I'm not. Many of your "LOL"s are you laughing due to your delusions.
$54 billion?! So not even a week's worth of the federal government's daily spending?
ReplyDeleteI thought we were talking about a lot of money.
The terrorist? LOL!
ReplyDeleteWhy not just quote Pussy Riot?
ReplyDeleteNo "bias" there. BWAH!
The terrorist? LOL!
ReplyDeleteIf posting on Facebook makes someone a terrorist, then Steve Bannon is a terrorist and should be arrested, put on a list of American terrorists and extremists and placed on house arrest, as Pavel Shekhtman was.
No doubt Steve Bannon is on their "watch-lists".
ReplyDeleteIt would be cheaper to supply Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank rockets if the the US mass produced them and made them commercially available to gunowners and collectors.
ReplyDeleteBeamishderp proves his blithering idiocy.
ReplyDeleteYou will trust a foreign national with a free anti-tank rocket launcher but not an American citizen who would use it to counter-protest a trucker convoy?
ReplyDeleteWhat's with that? lol!
ReplyDeleteI can out Rand Paul Rand Paul :P
ReplyDeleteRandall Paul is a bigly trumpturd. Why would a libertarian support tRump if he is "far Left"?
ReplyDeleteWhy would you call Rand Paul a libertarian? Lol
ReplyDeletePolitical positions of Rand Paul ... Paul identifies as both a "constitutional conservative" and a "libertarian conservative".
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com › watch
Rand Paul: Libertarianism Is A "Badge Of Honor". ... Not every Libertarian is the same. Video.
btw, his name is actually Randall Paul.
Rad Paul is a federalist of the federalist papers ilk.
ReplyDeleteI was talking about Randall Paul. Rad Paul (whoever that is) might be a federalist. Or he might not exist. Randall Paul says he is a "Libertarian Republican".
ReplyDeleteYou're displacing again, dervy. Try and keep it together.
ReplyDeleteNo, I am believing Randall Paul when he says he is (and acts like he is) a Libertarian. He bigly wants to cut taxes and government spending. Do you think those are things Libertarians oppose?
ReplyDeleteIn government? Yep. Acta non verba!
ReplyDeletedonald tRump's acta...
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump Built a National Debt So Big (Even Before the Pandemic) That It’ll Weigh Down the Economy for Years.
Which, btw, does NOT make tRump "far left". Remember it was Dick Cheney who said "deficits don't matter".
You claiming that Trump's a libertarian now? LOL!
ReplyDeletedonald tRump is definitely not a Libertarian. Randall Paul (like virtually ALL republicans) has no integrity. Why Randall is now a strong trumpturd.
ReplyDeleteHe's a federalist. Just read the federalist papers... they scream "Paulism"...
ReplyDeleteRandal Paul: "I've always described myself as Libertarian-ish".
ReplyDeleteNote the ALWAYS. He didn't say, "I've always described myself as a Federalist". Not even "I sometimes describe myself as a Federalist". If he has ALWAYS described himself as "Libertarian-ish", it stands to reason he has NEVER described himself as a Federalist.
Randal says that, while he is a bigly fan of Ayn Rand, it was his wife who decided to call him "Rand" and the shortening of his name has nothing to do with Ayn Rand. Not sure I believe that.
In any case, Randal currently firmly allies himself with donald tRump. donald tRump ran up the debt bigly and that makes Randal proud. donald tRump lied about not supporting gwb's wars, and that also makes Randal proud. He isn't really Libertarian-ish or a Federalist. He's a trumpturd and a hypocrite.
ReplyDeleteRand Paul is at best a Frank Meyer fusionist (nothing wrong with that) but none but the most pragmatic of compromisers among libertarians would give him the time of day.
ReplyDeleteWhoa... wrong link but I'll go with it lol
ReplyDelete