heybruce

Seriously? Read the above.

It seems Russia Today found a year old (Sep 26, 2022) Facebook post and edited it to mislead gullible viewers. Obviously a lot of posters here not only took the bait but also refuse to let it go. There's a term for people like that, but I'm not sure I'm allowed to use it. "A Russian state-run media outlet used recent remarks by President Joe Biden to further the false claim that he is a pedophile. " ....... "The claim, shared by Russian state media, baselessly implied that Biden’s comments acknowledging a longstanding friendship with an audience member amounted to him admitting to an inappropriate relationship with a minor. The claim referenced other, debunked claims that Biden is a pedophile. " https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/sep/30/facebook-posts/no-biden-did-not-admit-he-had-inappropriate-relati/

What is upsetting about this? "Based on our research, we rate MISSING CONTEXT the implication that Joe Biden said, "She was 12, I was 30," in reference to his wife. The comment was directed to an audience member during a recent speech. Joe and Jill Biden met when they were 32 and 23 years old, respectively." https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/10/10/fact-check-joe-biden-quote-age-wrongly-associated-his-wife/8178528001/ "About three minutes into the speech, Biden appeared to recognize someone in the audience, who is not shown on camera. He abruptly trailed off and pointed to the person. "You got to say hi to me. We go back a long way," he says, as the audience chuckled in response. "She was 12, and I was 30. But anyway, this woman helped me get an awful lot done."" https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/sep/30/facebook-posts/no-biden-did-not-admit-he-had-inappropriate-relati/

Very selective memory. Iran was in penury before Trump pulled out of the JCPOA, but it was allowing nuclear inspectors in and limiting uranium enrichment. Now it is approaching weapons grade enrichment. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/01/middleeast/iran-uranium-enrichment-iaea-intl/index.html What protests are you referring to? Do you think Iranians never protested before or after Trump? Iran definitely responded to the killing of Soleimani: "Within days of the assassination, Iran launched Operation Martyr Soleimani, which included a number of missile attacks mainly against the Al Asad base in western Iraq. Iraq had been warned of that attack in advance by Tehran, and there were no U.S. casualties, although eventually the Pentagon said more than a hundred military personnel had suffered traumatic brain injuries." https://www.npr.org/2021/01/01/952716680/a-look-back-at-what-happened-after-the-killing-of-iranian-gen-qassem-soleimani There was no response from the US on this attack on US positions. Iran oil sales were 2MBPD before and after Trump pulling out of the JCPOA. https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/countries_long/Iran/pdf/iran_exe.pdf What are your sources for you numbers? The Middle East was no more or less peaceful after the Abraham accords, however the total neglect of Palestinian interest contributed to increasing violence in Israel and led to the current situation. Trump was a disaster on MidEast policy and many other things.

Let's try it this way: Ukraine wanted to join a defensive alliance that only took military action if one of its members were attacked. How did this justify Russia invading Ukraine? The only answer I can think of is that Putin wanted to expand the Russian empire and saw Ukraine joining NATO as an impediment to that expansion. That's why Putin's invasion has caused so many nations to urgently seek membership in NATO. Countries join defensive alliances in hopes of avoiding war. Putin opposes defensive alliances because he sees aggression and war as a means to accomplish his ends. Yet you insist the defensive alliance is somehow responsible for Russia invading Ukraine.

If Trump says it it's probably a lie. Definitely a lie in this case.

What you posted regarding the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine was nonsense. Russia has been threatening, invading or co-opting corrupt leaders along its borders since shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, all in an attempt to recreate the Russian empire as it existed under the USSR. That was the reason for the invasion of Ukraine. That and a need for Putin to create an external enemy to distract the Russian people from the stagnant economy and corrupt government he was leading.

And I like the nuclear codes in the hands of someone who understands nuclear war and international politics.

The US was training soldiers in Ukraine after 2014 because Ukraine feared further Russian aggression. Do you think the US was training these soldiers so they could invade Russia? Regarding your "proof" of western assurance, you bring up things said during negotiations. Many things are said, retracted, contradicted, repeated, etc. during negotiations. What matters is the final signed agreement. There was never an agreement that NATO would not expand. "There is an ongoing historical debate over comments that Western leaders, including Baker, made during post-Cold War negotiations, and whether what they said amounted to assurances that NATO would refrain from welcoming in countries closer to modern-day Russia. But NATO as an organization made no such pledge, and the formal agreement signed at the end of those negotiations said nothing about the alliance not expanding eastward." https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/28/candace-owens/fact-checking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/ Some of Russia's neighbors want to join NATO because Russia threatens its neighbors. If Russia would stop threatening its neighbors, NATO expansion would stop. However this would prevent Putin from expanding the Russian empire. He doesn't want that to happen.

Once again, I initially replied to you in response to your claim: "I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence." Now it appears that you have changed your position to "Russia has invaded Ukraine for arguable reasons". I suppose that's progress. How has expanding NATO forced war upon Russia? You make much of the fact that in 2008 Ukraine was invited to join NATO. You neglect the fact that as of 2022, when the invasion began, Ukraine had not joined NATO and had no timeline for doing so. That's because the invitation to join was highly conditional and had no projected time for membership. I never said that NATO expansion was necessary for Europe or NATO. I posted that some of Russia's neighbors felt in necessary to join a defensive alliance to protect themselves from Russia. Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are example of these countries. Do I need to post links to sources showing Russian support for separatists in these countries? Do you doubt that they are threatened by Russia? You present NATO expansion as if it resulted from a recruiting drive by NATO. It didn't. NATO doesn't recruit members, other countries lobby long and hard to join NATO. The only country that "recruits" for NATO (inadvertently) is Russia. NATO's most recent expansion is evidence of that. Do I need to post links showing that Finland joined NATO after Russia invaded Ukraine? "Assurances against NATO expansion were given to the Russians 1990" I provided a source showing that was not true. Here it is again: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ Yet you repeat the lie. Where is your source showing it is true? You provided unconvincing and in one case untrue reasons why you think Russia was forced to start this war. I've refuted them. You have not provided any valid arguments against what I have posted.

How has the country been destroyed? Ridiculous statements like your discredit you as a poster.

First, I and others have been getting into back and forth debates with pro-Russian posters who ignore all requests to post credible sources for their claims. I hadn't seen you post for a while. I acknowledged that you posted links to sources, but these links aren't necessarily pertinent to the current situation. Second, what has your source above got to do with your argument that the US somehow caused this war? The war was well established at the time the your source. Finally, what "opinions" have I posted without links that you consider in need of support? Do you dispute that Russia invaded Ukraine? That Ukraine has a right to choose allies? That Russia has been motivating its neighbors to seek allies against Russian aggression? I've already posted a link discrediting your claim about a promise of no eastern expansion of NATO, what more do you want?

Now you've descended into classic trolling--state a lie, have it refuted, go quiet for a while then repeat the lie. The lie that Russia was promised there would be no eastern expansion has been refuted repeatedly. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Your insulting the "vast majority" of people on ASEAN Now is on topic how? I have learned that the vast majority of people who can't support their views with facts and logic accuse others of being dumb or brainwashed.

Your initial point was: "I have methodically , advanced the theory that Russia was forced in this war by NATO expansion, that warning were given to the west that if the USA persist in trying to bring Ukraine in it's sphere of influence." I pointed out that Ukraine is an independent nation and has every right to seek allies when it feels threatened by Russia. I could have further pointed out that NATO was ambivalent about admitting Ukraine before Russia's invasion. The commitments made in 2008 were intentionally vague and conditional, with no timeline for membership. You have not explained how Russia was "forced' into this war. I can only conclude that you think Russia has a right to engage in an aggressive war of imperial expansion. Russia chose to invade Ukraine. Now Russia is suffering the consequences. As it should.

One out of context sentence is all that you can reply to? Why not address the fact that Ukraine is an independent nation that can choose its own allies and alliances? Why not address the fact that Russia keeps driving its neighbors into seeking a defensive alliance?

I give you credit for providing links to written sources. Many posters are reluctant to do so. However I'm not sure what your links are supposed to accomplish. The first and last ones were informed opinions on a controversial topic over 20 years ago. The last one was someone speculating 15 years ago about the consequences of the distant and uncertain prospect of Ukraine's possible entry into NATO. Events of these times have little to do with the current reality: Some countries that border on Russia feel threatened, with good reasons. If Russia hadn't been a threat, they wouldn't have been as eager in joining NATO. Perhaps they would have been completely uninterested. Ukraine doesn't appear to want to be in Russia's "sphere of influence". Ukraine has the right to make that choice.

People posting in favor of Russia either don't provide links or attempt to distract with irrelevant links. I'll leave it up to them to explain why that is.

High calorie, low nutrient fast food is cheap and everywhere. Fresh fruits and vegetables---not so much. The government should stop grain subsidies and start subsidizing fruits and vegetables.

Your reply is totally irrelevant to the question asked: What is your source for your claim "There was a military target at the Reikartz hotel some +/-100m of the house of the family." Also, once again, you gave YouTube videos for your source. There is nothing to read. This in spite of the fact that you claim to read many varied sources for your information. Your posts indicate otherwise.

Right. Youtube as a source. I should have specified a credible source. I usually don't do this, but I watched enough of the video to hear "Hroza itself, that village that was hit, has got no military significance at all." What is your source for your claim "There was a military target at the Reikartz hotel some +/-100m of the house of the family."

Right. It's not like Trump has a history of mishandling classified information. Oh, wait.....

Once again, claims without sources.

No problem. He'll just fondle a flag with a goofy smirk on his face and his followers with think that means he's a patriot.

How did those protests impede routine federal government activity? How did they impede the transfer of power? Did they cause Congress to be evacuated and or delay any aspect of election certification? You resort to false equivalence because you have nothing else.