heybruce

Perhaps Thais understood the situation they were in better than you.

Provide sources for your claims. That's what credible posters do. Trolls post lots of claims and tell everyone who questions them to do their own research.

Let's keep in mind what a defensive alliance is supposed to accomplish--it is supposed to make all members of the alliance more secure. How will admitting a nation at war with Russia accomplish that?

Clearly some people can't grasp the substance of the visit so they obsess over the observance of standard cultural greetings in China.

If you seriously believe either of your posts you are seriously uninformed.

Both the US and the USSR interfered in the affairs of other nations during the cold war. Regarding the US tolerating adversarial foreign troops in the Western Hemisphere; what do you think Cuba's military is? Do you think Cuba's military was not supporting revolutionaries and socialist governments in South and Central America? Do you think China hasn't got some military in their intelligence station in Cuba? lf China stationed troop in Mexico the US would complain and impose sanctions, but there would be no military action against Mexico unless it appeared those troops were an imminent threat.

You want to use childish platitudes? Ok, Russia started it! We're not discussing child rearing, we're discussing accepted rules of war. Ukraine is already fighting with one arm tied behind its back; Russia can attack Ukraine from Russia but Ukraine is prevented from striking legitimate military targets in Russia. Now you want to tilt the field further in Russia's favor. If sufficient cluster munitions arrive in time it may result in a collapse in Russian defensive lines and serious negotiations to end the war. After that we will see which causes more civilian casualties; US cluster munitions or the cluster munitions, mines, and unexploded ordnance left behind by Russia. Care to take bets on which will prove to be more deadly to civilians?

Then you will have no problem providing a link. That's what credible posters do when they make a claim. You might also explain why anyone would trust the general who promised there would be no coup. Correction: He promised "this is not a coup". ???? https://www.vox.com/2014/5/20/5734782/thai-coup-not-coup-prayuth-video

I did. I've encountered this before. People post that Prayuth promised something but no one can find any record of it.

There is often serious fighting, or massacres by the Tatmadaw, in Myanmar. I thought things were reasonably quiet in the MaeSai area now.

What was the alternative given to the people? When did Prayuth say there would be an election in 2017 if the draft constitution did not pass? What kind of election would it have been? How could anyone trust the word of Prayuth?

The shortage of munitions on both sides has been in the news for months now.

It is a policy so well established it has its own term: collateral damage.

He's not a war criminal; use of cluster bombs by both sides, but by the Russians against purely civilian targets, has made it legal under established rules of war. I'm 65 and have participated in this crap much of my adult life. When doing the least bad thing is the best option, it is the correct thing to do. I'm not ready to abandon adult responsibilities.

1. It eliminates distracting background noise and speculation. 2. He knows much more about these matters and how to play these games than you ever will.

Countries that are invaded tend to use whatever is available to defend themselves.

When soldiers and weapons are dispersed in civilian areas, civilians get hurt. The situation would not have occurred if Ukraine had not been invaded by little green men who looked and acted very much like Russian soldiers.

Judging by the headlines to date, it appears a lot of people were speculating. Since any NATO member can veto a new applicant, any NATO member is free to clear up the issue. However when it comes from NATO's largest economy and greatest military power, it carries more weight. Why do you think it is wrong for President Biden to state the obvious?

Rebels are a military target. Russia used them against civilians.

How is helping Trump win a good thing? I can't recall ever being enthusiastic about my vote. I routinely vote for the lesser of the two evils. Until the US has rank choice voting that is the only responsible thing to do.

"So maybe keeping his mouth shut would have been the most diplomatic course of action?" Why? As I stated, some people can't grasp the obvious. What benefit is there in allowing them to speculate about something that isn't going to happen? "Some people just can't help themselves I guess." That's obvious from reading some of the posts here.

Source? Did Ukraine use this stock before or after Russia started using theirs? Did Ukraine use its stock against civilian targets?

You assume he must be a good guy because he said stuff you want to believe. Or do you have evidence no one else has that shows Luft is a reliable patriot?

It has been accepted since the end of World War II that if one side uses an illegal tactic or weapon during war that the other side can respond in kind. Germany's bombing of civilian targets in England legitimized the allied bombing of civilian targets in Germany. It's ugly but that's how war is. Russia gave the green light for Ukraine to use cluster bombs when Russia used cluster bombs on Ukraine, frequently against civilian targets. The US held off on providing them as long as possible but it now appears that a shortage of artillery shells is holding up the Ukrainian offensive. At least Ukraine will use these bombs on legitimate military targets. Unexploded ordnance does present a threat to civilians, but the threat from the US supplied cluster bombs will be minuscule compared to the threat from the Russian cluster bombs and the mines Russia has scattered over vast areas of Ukraine. It's ugly, but to beat Russia you have to fight almost as nasty as Russia.

Geez.... President Biden stated the obvious for the benefit of those who haven't grasped the obvious. No member of NATO would have gone along with accepting Ukraine as a member while it is at war with Russia.