US votes against the free world at UN

[Harrisfan]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The poster you are responding to likes cherry-picking history.

Some people look at facts, some people ignore facts. 

[theblether]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Off topic, but deserving clarification: You're misinterpreting. What the other poster said was USA joined in with Russia to defeat the Nazis in WW11 which is not correct. US only declared war on Germany after Hitler had declared war on the US. Thankfully the Russians, with US material help,  did the most of the hard fighting in Europe to defeat the Nazis.

 

I know exactly what happened. FDR worried that Congress would only declare war on Japan but Hitler shortcircuited that by unilaterally declaring war on the USA. 

 

I do know the history. These word games are wilful. 

[theblether]

What a lot of Americans don't know is that the Irish contingent in Congress were quite happy to see Hitler defeat the UK. 

 

Thet believed underhanded neutrality would result in Germany handing them the dream - a United Ireland. 

 

Didn't work out well for them - and the embarrassment of Ireland being the only country in the world to send condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler was the icing on the cake. 

 

Know the history. 

[Harrisfan]

1 hour ago, theblether said:

What a lot of Americans don't know is that the Irish contingent in Congress were quite happy to see Hitler defeat the UK. 

 

Thet believed underhanded neutrality would result in Germany handing them the dream - a United Ireland. 

 

Didn't work out well for them - and the embarrassment of Ireland being the only country in the world to send condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler was the icing on the cake. 

 

Know the history. 

Best poster on here by a mile.

[simple1]

19 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Best poster on here by a mile.

 

No, Deflection and Off Topic

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/27/2025 at 4:09 PM, BritManToo said:

There is no free world, except in some peoples imagination!

 

In a free world I'd be able to move from country to country without a passport or VISA and still keep my pension, healthcare and bank accounts with no risk of losing them. 

 

In a free world, my government wouldn't take money from me to give to wealthier countries as foreign aid.

Agree 100%. In a free world I'd be typing this in Thailand with my pension. It's my pension, but the government won't give it to me in LOS, so I'm not able to live there now. Sucks.

[MicroB]

On 2/27/2025 at 2:50 AM, Lacessit said:

That statement was probably correct prior to the second invasion of Ukraine.

 

The Russian army has been exposed as utterly incompetent in logistics. Its military equipment has been so inferior it has lost 4000 tanks. It does not even have air supremacy over Ukraine. Its Black Sea fleet has been forced to retreat from Sevastopol by a country with no navy.

 

Russian GDP is about $4 trillion. The combined EU GDP is $20 trillion. Russia population 144 million, combined EU population 450 million. God is on the side of the big battalions.

 

It depends on whether EU leaders can be cohesive enough to put boots on the ground in Ukraine. If they do, Russia is toast. Its only hope then would be tactical nukes.

 

Plus a difference in how to fight a war. NATO uses combined arms approach, which makes full use of accurate weapons. The Ukrainian and Russian Armies are both former Soviet Armies, lead by Soviet Generals. Sure, the Ukrainians have received training in Western weapons, but they are using them in a Soviet manner. Soviet tactics are based on having lots of really cheap weapons; not accurate, but you have lots of them. So there have been complaints that the Ukrainians have been using Javelins like they are RPGs. I expect that the Russian Army would find a Western military pretty devastating. The spoiler is.  nuclear weapons. But Soviet doctrine is based around strategic weapons, because their tactical weapons aren't very tactical. So they would take out, say, Gdansk, and the war is over.

 

[MicroB]

On 2/27/2025 at 8:04 AM, theblether said:

What a lot of Americans don't know is that the Irish contingent in Congress were quite happy to see Hitler defeat the UK. 

 

Thet believed underhanded neutrality would result in Germany handing them the dream - a United Ireland. 

 

Didn't work out well for them - and the embarrassment of Ireland being the only country in the world to send condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler was the icing on the cake. 

 

Know the history. 

 

50,000 Irish citizens fought for Britain in WW2, and the Irish Defence Forces saw 5000 desert to join the allies. The population certainly supported neutrality, though I suspect that was through an expectation that Britain would be out of the war soon enough, rather than expecting the new occupying powers would unify Ireland. Parts of the IRA, and certainly the Blue Shirts, backed Germany politically. Britain actually offered Ireland unification if it abandoned neutrality. The Irish didn't believe the British, so turned it down. Irish neutrality meant the USSR veto'd Ireland;s application to join the UN.

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, MicroB said:

The Irish didn't believe the British, so turned it down.

Quite rightly too. The British in WW1 offered home rule or something like that if the Irish fought for Britain. Post war they gave Ireland the Black and Tans and Percival. Not to be ever trusted again.

[retayl]

On 2/25/2025 at 4:16 PM, TedG said:

 

Is that grandstanding member of congess willing to put on boots and fight for Ukraine? 

Did Trump put boots on to fight for his own country?

[transam]

On 2/25/2025 at 9:20 PM, Cryingdick said:

 

Didn't half of Europe get split up and ceded to Russian control to end WW2? Are you saying the war was a clean victory and no countries got screwed over to bring it to an end? 

Is your half of Europe East Germany.........🤭

 

 

[JulesMad]

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, JulesMad said:

Not the Machurian candidate but rather the Muscovite President. 

[transam]

8 minutes ago, JulesMad said:

Yep, the embarrassment to the USA, spurs and all.........

[Thingamabob]

At least there is currently talk about peace rather than, up to now, talk about an endless supply of weapons to keep the war going.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Thingamabob said:

At least there is currently talk about peace rather than, up to now, talk about an endless supply of weapons to keep the war going.

But peace between whom, brokered by whom and on what terms.

 

If both sides that are at war are NOT included in the peace talks, how can there be any peace talks, or peace for that matter?

 

Talk is cheap, peace always comes with a price tag to one side or the other.

[The Old Bull]

On 2/25/2025 at 2:59 PM, theblether said:

The Allies decided the price to pay for freeing said countries was too high. So they walked. Bizarrely they walked when the USA was the only country in world history that had a dominant weapon of mass destruction. 

 

They could have obliterated Moscow with no fear of retribution.

 

But here we go again with the brigade of clowns that don't understand a simple truth. 

 

US and NATO politicians will avoid war with Russia at virtually all costs. That's why Saint Obama did nothing, that's why Trump is pursuing peace. 

 

We in the West owe Ukraine nothing. It's long been a vipers nest of Russian nationalists operating a 5th Column. 

 

Peace at the price of land looks to be the only viable option. 

A vipers nest of CIA and other US operatives.

[Cryingdick]

6 hours ago, transam said:

Is your half of Europe East Germany.........🤭

 

 

 

Sorry I don't have somebody to translate it into numptynese for you.

[thaipo7]

When has there ever been a free world at the UN?

[MicroB]

1 hour ago, thaipo7 said:

When has there ever been a free world at the UN?

 

 

The United Nations is a forum for all countries, not just the "free world". The 50 founding members (after the big 4) first had to declare war on the Axis powers. De facto, the United Nations was an alternative term for the Allied Powers.