12 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

How does that grant Russia the right to invade Ukraine? Was Assad democratically elected as well? Kim Jong Un? Do you see the pattern here?

Putin warned the US, they kept poking the bear, if you are from a western county that has been involved in any of the illegal  conflicts in recent history then you have no moral highground over Russia.

The US, UK views any election that is not won by Pro western party and illegitimate and un Democratic.

 

27 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

Putin warned the US, they kept poking the bear, if you are from a western county that has been involved in any of the illegal  conflicts in recent history then you have no moral highground over Russia.

The US, UK views any election that is not won by Pro western party and illegitimate and un Democratic.

 

Poking the bear that turned out to be a poodle!

3 hours ago, mdr224 said:

I would think the anti Americans of this forum would take a more reserved approach after trump got elected. At least for the next four years, there will be nothing but losses for you

Yes, unbelievably, Trump will accelerate America’s decline even more than Biden did.

4 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Putin warned the US

How is that the fault of Ukraine, the ones who suffer? They don't deserve to get invaded due to US actions.

 

If US warns Russia to back off from Belarus, and Russia keeps propping up Lukashenko, are you trying to tell me it's fair game for US to launch an invasion of Belarus because of the actions of Russia?

 

4 hours ago, frank83628 said:

they kept poking the bear, if you are from a western county that has been involved in any of the illegal  conflicts in recent history then you have no moral highground over Russia.

I'm not claiming the moral high ground, I denounce the Iraq invasion as well. Should I defend what happened in Iraq because groups in that region kept 'poking the bear'? What kind of precedent are you trying to set here?

3 hours ago, jacob29 said:

How is that the fault of Ukraine, the ones who suffer? They don't deserve to get invaded due to US actions.

 

If US warns Russia to back off from Belarus, and Russia keeps propping up Lukashenko, are you trying to tell me it's fair game for US to launch an invasion of Belarus because of the actions of Russia?

 

I'm not claiming the moral high ground, I denounce the Iraq invasion as well. Should I defend what happened in Iraq because groups in that region kept 'poking the bear'? What kind of precedent are you trying to set here?

The us orchestrated the 2014 coup and installed a pro western president, if the US hadn't interferred and allowed the ethnic Russians in the east to be murdered by neo Nazi from Azov I doubt it would have happened at all, but it did, due to USA cancer interference.

Also the constant threat of NATO missiles on Russia border, look how the USA cried at  Russia/Cuban missiles.

3 hours ago, jacob29 said:

How is that the fault of Ukraine, the ones who suffer? They don't deserve to get invaded due to US actions.

 

If US warns Russia to back off from Belarus, and Russia keeps propping up Lukashenko, are you trying to tell me it's fair game for US to launch an invasion of Belarus because of the actions of Russia?

 

I'm not claiming the moral high ground, I denounce the Iraq invasion as well. Should I defend what happened in Iraq because groups in that region kept 'poking the bear'? What kind of precedent are you trying to set here?

I am highlighting the double standards and hypocrisy of the West and AN members

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

The us orchestrated the 2014 coup and installed a pro western president, if the US hadn't interferred

 

That doesn't answer my question, I did not ask why it happened. I asked if you believe it's acceptable for a country to invade another country, on the basis of being provoked by a third party state.

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

Also the constant threat of NATO missiles on Russia border, look how the USA cried at  Russia/Cuban missiles.

Would you be ok with US invading Cuba? I would not, but it seems to me you would be ok with that, and to hell with what Cuba wanted.

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

I am highlighting the double standards and hypocrisy of the West and AN members

No you're not, you're trying to whitewash the actions of Russia. It doesn't matter what Russia's red lines were, as it's not their call to make and demand what can or cannot happen inside Ukraine. 

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

 

That doesn't answer my question, I did not ask why it happened. I asked if you believe it's acceptable for a country to invade another country, on the basis of being provoked by a third party state.

Would you be ok with US invading Cuba? I would not, but it seems to me you would be ok with that, and to hell with what Cuba wanted.

No you're not, you're trying to whitewash the actions of Russia. It doesn't matter what Russia's red lines were, as it's not their call to make and demand what can or cannot happen inside Ukraine. 

Ukrainian neo Nazi were attacking and killing ethnic Russian in donbass and other Eastern areas.  the US were in part to blame for their interference in Ukraines domestic  politics. So 

14 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

What a certain western country has been/is doing around the whole world is a crime.

Be specific.  

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

Ukrainian neo Nazi were attacking and killing ethnic Russian in donbass and other Eastern areas.  the US were in part to blame for their interference in Ukraines domestic  politics. So 

Are you still pushing this dumb narrative?

13 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Putin warned the US, they kept poking the bear, if you are from a western county that has been involved in any of the illegal  conflicts in recent history then you have no moral highground over Russia.

The US, UK views any election that is not won by Pro western party and illegitimate and un Democratic.

 

 

What did Putin say when he warned the USA? 

2 hours ago, frank83628 said:

Ukrainian neo Nazi were attacking and killing ethnic Russian in donbass and other Eastern areas.  the US were in part to blame for their interference in Ukraines domestic  politics. So 

So.. you didn't finish your sentence. Acceptable or not? Are you on the fence, is that why you can't give a straight answer?

 

Russia is no stranger to ethnic cleansing, maybe they should lead by example in future? There are many ways to tackle that issue, without unilaterally invading and annexing territory.

10 hours ago, jacob29 said:

If US warns Russia to back off from Belarus, and Russia keeps propping up Lukashenko, are you trying to tell me it's fair game for US to launch an invasion of Belarus because of the actions of Russia?

The US public likely isn't going to tolerate any more "invasions" by US forces without a real reason.

Far as I know Belarus doesn't have any resources that would interest the US anyway, unlike Ukraine.

22 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

So.. you didn't finish your sentence. Acceptable or not? Are you on the fence, is that why you can't give a straight answer?

 

Russia is no stranger to ethnic cleansing, maybe they should lead by example in future? There are many ways to tackle that issue, without unilaterally invading and annexing territory.

Indeed there are, such as negotiations, which Zelensky refused to do.

4 hours ago, jacob29 said:

That doesn't answer my question, I did not ask why it happened. I asked if you believe it's acceptable for a country to invade another country, on the basis of being provoked by a third party state.

If you believe it is not, why have I not seen you on a different subforum complaining about a different country invading another country? You know the country I'm talking about.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Indeed there are, such as negotiations, which Zelensky refused to do.

Do you sincerely believe that was the only other alternative?

 

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If you believe it is not, why have I not seen you on a different subforum complaining about a different country invading another country? You know the country I'm talking about.

If someone asks me whether I condemn it, I'll gladly say yes. This is what I don't understand. The problem is with governments and unchecked power. Not western governments, not authoritarian governments, governments in general. When they lack effective checks and balances they go rogue.

 

Also there is a whole lot of pushback over that other invasion. When I see apologists over Iraq, or Snowden, I'll similarly complain.

11 hours ago, jacob29 said:

Do you sincerely believe that was the only other alternative?

Far as I know there was only negotiation or invasion on offer. I'm agog to know what other solutions were on offer that you know about.

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Far as I know there was only negotiation or invasion on offer. I'm agog to know what other solutions were on offer that you know about.

Getting other countries involved with a peacekeeping coalition. Iraq didn't acquiesce to all of the demands of the US, so the invasion was the only alternative - right?

5 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

Getting other countries involved with a peacekeeping coalition. Iraq didn't acquiesce to all of the demands of the US, so the invasion was the only alternative - right?

Any NATO country would be excluded as it could lead to WW3, and nuclear winter, so which countries would be left- Australia, NZ, Pitcairn Island, Papua perhaps? No way would any Asian country be getting involved with a Euro squabble- far too sensible for that.

So, what would the terms of engagement be- like in the former Yugoslavia when it was reduced to turning up after the slaughter ended and saying "oh dear me, isn't this just awful", or full on shooting war with Russia?

 

Iraq? LOL. It was a tin pot dictatorship with an army only good for suppressing the mob, and as effective as the Syrian army that gave up after 10 days.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Any NATO country would be excluded as it could lead to WW3

You don't think the present course could lead to WW3?

 

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So, what would the terms of engagement be- like in the former Yugoslavia when it was reduced to turning up after the slaughter ended and saying "oh dear me, isn't this just awful", or full on shooting war with Russia?

Do you believe Serbia had no alternative but to invade Srebrenica? That it was acceptable to annex that territory if they wouldn't accept their demands?

 

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Iraq? LOL. It was a tin pot dictatorship with an army only good for suppressing the mob, and as effective as the Syrian army that gave up after 10 days.

Was the invasion justified though? Is that the sort of behaviour we should be apologists for?

33 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

You don't think the present course could lead to WW3?

 

Do you believe Serbia had no alternative but to invade Srebrenica? That it was acceptable to annex that territory if they wouldn't accept their demands?

 

Was the invasion justified though? Is that the sort of behaviour we should be apologists for?

It's a rotten world and bad things happen all the time. Wishin' and hopin' for a decent world just isn't realistic. The Sudanese war has killed way more people than Gaza and Ukraine combined and it's basically ignored by western media.

 

It's not a question of if there was justification for any of it, it just is, a product of vile humans that want war, and plenty of them on both sides. It's in our nature.

 

You don't think the present course could lead to WW3?

No. WW3 is The End, and even dictators don't want to eke out their last days in a hole in the ground.

It's a convenient boogieman though.