ChicagoExpat

Yes of course he does. As does Cameroni, etc. But they will never admit it. They only want peace, you see. They only want to avoid WORLD WAR 3!

But when he gives up: their country is annihilated, the gulags are set up, a puppet is installed, the FSB runs the country, the economy and political system are destroyed, thousands will be killed and the rest "re-educated." When Russia gives up, it goes back to its own internationally recognized borders and the killing stops. See how that works? The peace of the slaughterhouse isn't much of a peace, for Ukrainians. EDIT: You can downvote this, but you know it's true.

If you can't argue honestly, then please shut up.

Absolute nonsense. Literally the ONLY PEOPLE who ever talk about nukes and WW3 are Russia and their Western simps. THE ONLY PEOPLE. This thread demonstrates it in spades. Anytime Russia wants to end its third invasion of Ukraine, it can.

When WW3 starts let us know. And it'll be Russia that starts it.

Again, the U.S. has not intention to go to war against Russia for a lot of reasons. The main one, no casus belli. It sounds like you're trying to create some "THE WEST IS SO AFRAID OF RUSSIA" but Russia can't even beat Ukraine. I suppose there are Venezuelans, and North Koreans, and Iranians, etc from all the most depraved and broken countries strutting around saying "The fact that America hasn't invaded is proof of their fear of us!!!"... if that makes them (and you) feel better... ok feel good then. You realize that this puts you at odds with the rest of the body of Russoprop? The talking points are that "NATO IS AT WAR WITH RUSSIA RIGHT NOW" and "THAT KINDERGARTEN WE BLEW UP WAS BEING USED AS A UKRO TRAINING CAMP." I'd avoid standing near windows and accepting tea from strangers. if I were you.

Let's make it clear: Russia is the aggressor and along with its Western apologists, is sore that it can't destroy other countries at will. Sooooooo.... the time Russia funded and armed America's opponents... that was OK? Or was that bad too?

It's NOT a felony to lie on these self-sworn affidavits. Period. Only on passport applications and the like. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. I'm not going to bother reading or responding to the rest. Enjoy your day.

Attacking military targets in time of war isn't terrorism. It's war. Only an idiot would say otherwise. Now, attacking civilians with thousands of drones, missiles and bombs IS terrorism. And only one side is doing that.

The reason that "Biden put no boots on the ground in Russia" is because... the U.S. is not at war with Russia. Literally the only people who say otherwise are the eager Western consumers of Russian agitprop. They swallow it in spurts and then beg for more.

Anytime Russia is getting its ass kicked in some spectacular way the Putin simps always come out the same way: "EsCaLaTiON! Ww3!!! TeRroRiSM!" And the rest of us just laugh and laugh at the prospect that Russia can do whatever it wants to Ukraine in this, its third invasion, but when Ukraine fights back it's somehow impermissible. There is a 100% guarantee that the "bright fireworks" you gleefully anticipate will be 100% against civilian targets. Prove me wrong after it happens. A reminder that the only one who EVER threatens nukes is the guy who started this, and that he can end it at any time by simply... ending his third invasion.

Good points, all

I don't know, but neither do you. If it didn't happen then it's just Trump being Trump. If it did happen, then it turns the assumptions in your posts on their heads. Of course America does not have the right to make decisions on Canada's behalf, and of course Trump is being his usual bloviating self with all of this. That said, you WON'T "do just fine without the U.S." and it's foolish to say so. It would be better to get back to a more levelheaded relationship, for everyone's sake. There are probably things (from both sides) that are long overdue to talk about, and if we did maybe we wouldn't resent each other so much.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it's the entire premise of the thread (seems you never read the OP). That's actually what we're debating. If you want to shift the grounds of the debate, maybe start a new thread.

Except it seems the Canadians were the ones who asked to be a part of it, so there's that.

Sounds like a plan! 🙂

This is 100% true.

LEt me add some facts to your narrative: Yes, taking Canada etc away from an inveterate enemy was a reasonable goal but poorly executed. But in the end we won, just like the first time.

Pretty silly for us all to put any time into a U.S.-Canada war hypothetical. And there's no way any of these countries would supply anything to Canada.

That's an incredibly naive, inaccurate statement. Here, I fixed it for you: No need for a ginormous army or defence spending in peace times, if your defense is taken care of by others at no expense to yourself.

He would call it the Big Beautiful Golden Trump Bridge.

You're missing the point. You repeatedly accuse the Embassy of corruption and ignoring the little guy, and yet here they are saying they DON'T want your money -- and you're the epitome of the little guy. What a mystery! The bottom line is -- more bureaucracy is you enemy, not your friend. The fact that you WANT to pay $50/travel to the Embassy several times per year at the whim of a Thai bureaucrat is just bizarre. Now you don't have to get a fake authentication of your state documents at $50 each -- thanks to the Embassy. Now you don't have to pay $50 to get a fake authentication of your bank accounts -- thanks to the Embassy. And soon you won't have to pay $50 to do a fake affirmation that you are single so you can marry your local call girl -- thanks to the Embassy.

No, notarizing documents is a terrible workaround. It's not a felony and there is no scenario in which U.S. law enforcement and the judiciary system is going to prosecute chuckleheads telling a foreign government they had "X" amount in the bank when they didn't. It's 100% NOT The US Govt's job to jump through whatever stupid hoops some corrupt Thai immigration officer decides. And yes it IS the Embassy's job to conduct intelligence. You have it all backwards, amigo. The Embassy isn't here to wipe your arse and meet the ever-increasing demands of it's often mentally ill, entitled citizens.

Efficient use of time and staff is definitely one of the big reasons. I went to an Embassy town hall, and the guy said a few years ago they were doing 25000(!) notary services per year -- nearly all of them unique to the stupid demands of the Thai bureaucracy. Income letters, passport letters, marriage affidavits, fake authentications of U.S. documents... that is nonsense! Not only for the time it takes from doing their real work but because it's nearly all fake ("I, John Smith, promise I'm not married/my diploma is real/I really have money...") So they have told the Thais they're not going to do them anymore (I hear the marriage affidavit is next.) Good on them! And good for us -- no more $50 wasted along with a trip to the Embassy from all parts of Thailand.

Sorry but I disagree. It's not the U.S. Government's job to tailor services to whatever absurd requirements 200+ countries come up with, or whatever stupid demands expats make (as you can imagine, the demands get crazier and more rage-filled every year).