2 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Considering the money that is involved you are not even a teeny bit skeptical about what you are being told?  I have no doubt that Russia decided to be aggressive but the only involvement the west should have is to impose sanctions, de-escalate and negotiate peace, not funnel money into the second most corrupt country in Europe (second only to Russia).   The only winners in wars are those that sell the weapons, and I don't really want my tax money being spent on this quite frankly.   

 

Anyway this report from CNN is quite amusing.   

 

 

 

I always try to be skeptical, which is why I take the reports from Ukrainian news services with a grain of salt, and completely disregard Russia Today.  However when credible news services that aren't under the thumb of their governments (and frequently criticize their governments without consequences) agree that there is an actual war going on, I have no trouble believing it.

 

Why is it amusing that Kiev went five days without being bombed? 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While I believe that a conflict is going on "over there", I think it is being spun out by sending defensive rather than offensive weapons, which will keep the war going and the profits rolling in for western arms makers.

Follow the money.

Right.  We'll put you with those who want to give Ukraine offensive weapons and take the fight to Russia.  Welcome to the club.

 

I agree that the US and the rest of NATO are being too cautious in their support.  Ukraine should be given longer range artillery and the option of striking legitimate military targets in Russia before these targets further support attacks on Ukraine.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

If it is true that the Kremlin thought that the USA was weak and wouldn't push back, then the calamitous exit from Afghanistan would be far more likely to be the real reason.

Except that it was Putin's pal who decided to withdraw and set the timeline to do so. I guess Putin actually did have reason to believe America was weak judging by how easily he apparently organised that to happen. He misjudged Biden's resolve though. Biden rallied NATO tot he cause of freedom and democracy and here we are now.

Not fake or staged.....but certainly being orchestrated from afar!

1 minute ago, LennyW said:

Not fake or staged.....but certainly being orchestrated from afar!

Moscow isn't that far from Kyiv.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

You might be able to make a case for skepticism about some things. But skeptical that there's an actual war going on in Ukraine? Really?

Can you point out where in my post I questioned whether there is an actual war going on rather than what you imagined I posted.  

1 minute ago, James105 said:

Can you point out where in my post I questioned whether there is an actual war going on rather than what you imagined I posted.  

You used this nonsense as a launching point to promote skepticism.  Why shouldn't one assume that you are at best uncertain about the claim? Or do you agree that it's nonsense?

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Right.  We'll put you with those who want to give Ukraine offensive weapons and take the fight to Russia.  Welcome to the club.

 

I agree that the US and the rest of NATO are being too cautious in their support.  Ukraine should be given longer range artillery and the option of striking legitimate military targets in Russia before these targets further support attacks on Ukraine.

Why stop there?  USA and the west have soldiers and pilots that aren't doing much just now.   Lets send them in too.   Also, we have all these nukes doing nothing as well, so why stop at foot soldiers?  Russia only has 6000 nukes, the rest of the world has the other half.   This could be over in a day!   

Just now, placeholder said:

You used this nonsense as a launching point to promote skepticism.  Why shouldn't one assume that you are at best uncertain about the claim? Or do you agree that it's nonsense?

Sigh, once again I will have to remind you what I posted.   Read carefully:

 

I have no doubt that Russia decided to be aggressive but the only involvement the west should have is to impose sanctions, de-escalate and negotiate peace, not funnel money into the second most corrupt country in Europe (second only to Russia).   The only winners in wars are those that sell the weapons, and I don't really want my tax money being spent on this quite frankly.   

Just now, James105 said:

Sigh, once again I will have to remind you what I posted.   Read carefully:

 

I have no doubt that Russia decided to be aggressive but the only involvement the west should have is to impose sanctions, de-escalate and negotiate peace, not funnel money into the second most corrupt country in Europe (second only to Russia).   The only winners in wars are those that sell the weapons, and I don't really want my tax money being spent on this quite frankly.   

So you agree that there's a war going on in Ukraine? And that claims to the contrary are nonsense? You seem very coy about actually condemning that claim.

19 minutes ago, James105 said:

Sigh, once again I will have to remind you what I posted.   Read carefully:

 

I have no doubt that Russia decided to be aggressive but the only involvement the west should have is to impose sanctions, de-escalate and negotiate peace, not funnel money into the second most corrupt country in Europe (second only to Russia).   The only winners in wars are those that sell the weapons, and I don't really want my tax money being spent on this quite frankly.   

So one side is allowed to start a war with a smaller country which has no hope of winning with its own resources and other countries shouldn't intervene to prevent war crimes? Should that also have happened in WW2 when Germany attacked Czechoslovakia? Should the UN not have bombed Belgrade either? Should Britain and Australia not have helped the US defeat Japan?

1 hour ago, James105 said:

Why stop there?  USA and the west have soldiers and pilots that aren't doing much just now.   Lets send them in too.   Also, we have all these nukes doing nothing as well, so why stop at foot soldiers?  Russia only has 6000 nukes, the rest of the world has the other half.   This could be over in a day!   

"Why stop there?"

 

Seriously?  You don't know?

 

Attacking legitimate military targets in Russia before the targets' assets (whatever they might be) could be used to attack Ukraine is legal response in kind.  It's also essential for Ukraine to win without having to outlast a devastating war of attrition.

58 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So one side is allowed to start a war with a smaller country which has no hope of winning with its own resources and other countries shouldn't intervene to prevent war crimes? Should that also have happened in WW2 when Germany attacked Czechoslovakia? Should the UN not have bombed Belgrade either? Should Britain and Australia not have helped the US defeat Japan?

It's all very simple in your world isn't it?  Good vs evil, good guys vs bad guys, almost like a Marvel comic that requires a happy ending and the good guys always win.  The real world is a teeny bit more complex than this and the weapons of today have the capabilities of literally ending the human race.   The "bad guys" have 6000 thermonuclear weapons so at some point, a compromise is going to have to be made as escalation cannot continue indefinitely.   The question is, how many more people do you want to lose their lives before this inevitable point is reached?   How many is enough for you? 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

There was time to reset the Afghan exit timeline, sequencing and method of exit, the date of which Biden altered, anyway.

 

Biden was relying on threats of sanctions last year, more than "rallying NATO", which has been more of a call of his only recently.

He altered the date until the last day allowed in the agreement signed by the Trump administration. Delaying more would have likely meant starting the fight again, bringing back the troops Trump withdraw, etc...

 

It was not a popular option in the public opinion, and I am certain that the same people who are criticizing him now would have accused him of making war again, after Trump signed a perfect peace treaty.

30 minutes ago, candide said:

He altered the date until the last day allowed in the agreement signed by the Trump administration. Delaying more would have likely meant starting the fight again, bringing back the troops Trump withdraw, etc...

 

It was not a popular option in the public opinion, and I am certain that the same people who are criticizing him now would have accused him of making war again, after Trump signed a perfect peace treaty.

You can show me the agreement with this last day allowed?

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You can show me the agreement with this last day allowed?

Here you go.

Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

2 hours ago, James105 said:

It's all very simple in your world isn't it?  Good vs evil, good guys vs bad guys, almost like a Marvel comic that requires a happy ending and the good guys always win.  The real world is a teeny bit more complex than this and the weapons of today have the capabilities of literally ending the human race.   The "bad guys" have 6000 thermonuclear weapons so at some point, a compromise is going to have to be made as escalation cannot continue indefinitely.   The question is, how many more people do you want to lose their lives before this inevitable point is reached?   How many is enough for you? 

It's simple enough that most of us understand it's a war going on over there and, unlike you,  don't evade that issue. 

3 hours ago, James105 said:

It's all very simple in your world isn't it?  Good vs evil, good guys vs bad guys, almost like a Marvel comic that requires a happy ending and the good guys always win.  The real world is a teeny bit more complex than this and the weapons of today have the capabilities of literally ending the human race.   The "bad guys" have 6000 thermonuclear weapons so at some point, a compromise is going to have to be made as escalation cannot continue indefinitely.   The question is, how many more people do you want to lose their lives before this inevitable point is reached?   How many is enough for you? 

We can discuss this philosophy of war after Russia withdraw back to its border. Right now it's paramount for the Biden leaded coalition of allies provide all the necessary military aids to Ukraine to beat back the Russian invasion. 

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

We can discuss this philosophy of war after Russia withdraw back to its border. Right now it's paramount for the Biden leaded coalition of allies provide all the necessary military aids to Ukraine to beat back the Russian invasion. 

You're replying to someone who won't even commit to saying that there's a war going on there.

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

There was time to reset the Afghan exit timeline, sequencing and method of exit, the date of which Biden altered, anyway.

 

Biden was relying on threats of sanctions last year, more than "rallying NATO", which has been more of a call of his only recently.

So you're in agreement that Trump erred in ordering troops out in a tight timeline?

4 hours ago, James105 said:

It's all very simple in your world isn't it?  Good vs evil, good guys vs bad guys, almost like a Marvel comic that requires a happy ending and the good guys always win.  The real world is a teeny bit more complex than this and the weapons of today have the capabilities of literally ending the human race.   The "bad guys" have 6000 thermonuclear weapons so at some point, a compromise is going to have to be made as escalation cannot continue indefinitely.   The question is, how many more people do you want to lose their lives before this inevitable point is reached?   How many is enough for you? 

I didn't imply that my world is simple at all. If Russia is going to use nuclear weapons nothing short of Ukrainian capitulation is going to stop them. Some things are worth dying for. You disrespect all the soldiers who died fighting Germany and Japan in WW2 with that attitude.

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

More likely someone has been trimming the trees to keep the branches away from the power lines in the pictures.

Yeah, I bet Ukraine's first concern at the moment is sending arbourists to trim trees ???????? Who types this stuff? 

I am the only one who read the catturd bleat that Flynn was commenting on? 

 

Seems to me like he thinks every country's media covers events the same as billion-dollar funded US media. What a larf.

 

All that embedded US media never once reported anything real or significant in a timely manner. They broadcast what the Defence Department wanted you to see. 

 

Think other countries may do something similar? 

If Mr Flynn isn't getting the news coverage, photos, film footage and info who has control of what land, that he wants from the sources he currently accesses, he should look beyond them. There is plenty out there. 

4 minutes ago, asf6 said:

If Mr Flynn isn't getting the news coverage, photos, film footage and info who has control of what land, that he wants from the sources he currently accesses, he should look beyond them. There is plenty out there. 

Yes, RT will give him all the airtime he wants.

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, RT will give him all the airtime he wants.

He's not looking for airtime, is he? It's information, video, photos, maps, etc, the stuff that is readily available on the internet for anyone who wants to view it. 

Just now, placeholder said:

I suppose you also don't believe that Trump held up a to the Ukraine for months. That he ignored there please for aid that they were legally entitled to under the terms of legislation passed by Congress and signed by Trump himself.

The Ukraine was only began when Biden was President and Putin only invade when Trump left his position as President 

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The Ukraine was only began when Biden was President and Putin only invade when Trump left his position as President 

False. The Ukraine war certainly began in 2014 when the Russians began providing armaments and Little Green Men, as they were called, to aid the separatists in the Donbas. Congress passed 2  aid packages to aid Ukraine. It was the second one that Trump failed to transfer to Ukraine for several months. I do wonder why you bother to have an opinion about something you clearly know nothing about.

17 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I am was talking about the latest Russian invasion of Ukraine which began  when Biden was President  , had Trump remined Presdient, Russia  would nt have invaded Ukraine 

Didn't anyone ever teach you about the inanity of making contrary-to-fact statements?

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Show us this timeline so we can see if Biden changed it. All on you.

Here's the relevant text from the agreement between the trump administration and the taliban

The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) monthsfollowing announcement of this agreement, and will take the following measures in this regard:

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf

The agreement is dated feb 29, 2020.

14 months from that date would be may 31, 2021.

 

Here's when the withdrawal actually occurred:

Biden Announces Full U.S. Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan by Sept. 11

President Joe Biden said the war in Afghanistan was never meant to be multi-generational, as he officially announced the drawdown of all 2,500 U.S. troops in that country beginning May 1 and concluding by Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the war.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2573268/biden-announces-full-us-troop-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-by-sept-11/