18 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

... where the "law" says you must NOT talk about obvious patterns of behavior, and the harm done as a result.  It's straight out of Orwell's 1984.

 

Granted, a "limited" version of similar is being attempted in the USA, currently - so we aren't far behind.  Once one "category" is protected, others will be added, until free-speech is dead.  But, per current court-rulings, the only "legal" limit on written-speech is making believable (vs joke / non-actionable) threats.

 

You need to be more specific. What are you suggesting that there should be absolute free speech? For example, you would be happy for a person of influence to be able to freely state, "Kill all <insert name of group here>", and to be free of all moral and legal accountability and responsibility when someone does just that?

7 hours ago, hotsun said:

Most Americans agree with what hes doing and don’t particularly care what the rest of the world thinks, because the rest of the world doesnt have free elections anymore. Do the facts bother you?

 

freedom comes at a high price, something only an American can understand

According to the most recent poll from what is widely considered the most reputable poll source, a majority of Americans do not approve of Trump's actions thus far. Personally I could care less either way, but I call bs when I see it.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-poll-tracker-march-18-2046375

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

I completely agree, Russia needs the Ukraine as a buffer to safeguard entry to the European plain so it has a chance of self defense. We need to give Russia this small gift to assuage their justifiably irritated nerves.

Now factor in the unilateral withdrawal from the INF.  The question is, why would the Europeans be nervous?  The only way to MAKE Russia into the threat they describe, is by what they are doing.  One might even reach the conclusion the Neocons won't be satisfied unless they can dismember and destroy Russia - exactly as those maps they published describe.

2 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

Now factor in the unilateral withdrawal from the INF.  The question is, why would the Europeans be nervous?  The only way to MAKE Russia into the threat they describe, is by what they are doing.  One might even reach the conclusion the Neocons won't be satisfied unless they can dismember and destroy Russia - exactly as those maps they published describe.

 

I long suspected the provocation of Ukraine was a Western ploy to get Russia to bleed out, why would Boris Johnson fly in specifically to stop Zelensky from signing a treaty that brings peace with Russia. It was bizarre.

 

Even Russia wins now, there's a peace treaty, Russia will have lost 1 million men and 1 billion USD.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You need to be more specific. What are you suggesting that there should be absolute free speech? For example, you would be happy for a person of influence to be able to freely state, "Kill all <insert name of group here>", and to be free of all moral and legal accountability and responsibility when someone does just that?

That would be a direct threat - incitement to violence - which is not covered, by existing court-precedent.  There are people in prison for this sort of thing.  One CAN say "this person" or "this group" is "bad" - but not call for violent acts, in response.  Saying, "But, some nutter might act violently if they knew X," is not an excuse to ban speech.   Related, "The Noble Lie."

29 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It wasn't about that though. NATO KNEW full well that Russia's stratgegic defence  is hampered by the great European plain. As long as Russia controlled Ukraine it controlled virtually the whole entry point of the European plain. However, NATO encroaching ever more eastward actually meant Russia became impossible to defend due to its location on the European plain. So if a nation has to fear being invaded by Russia now, then because Russia is concerned about her own defense and security.

Every eastern European country that joined NATO volunteered to because it didn't want to be under Russia's repressive rule. 

Likewise Ukraine. 

Putin couldn't bear seeing a nation on his border cosying up to the West, the next thing is his own citizens might start demanding freedoms from repressive rule so Ukraine had to be attacked.

3 minutes ago, bannork said:

Every eastern European country that joined NATO volunteered to because it didn't want to be under Russia's repressive rule. 

Likewise Ukraine. 

Putin couldn't bear seeing a nation on his border cosying up to the West, the next thing is his own citizens might start demanding freedoms from repressive rule so Ukraine had to be attacked.

 

No it wasn't Putin having jealousy issues. It was a matter of defense and national security.

 

The motivation for Ukraine, Georgia etc wanting to join NATO hardly matters. What matters is that Russia is located on the great European plains, and as long as it controlled entry and access to those plains, by controlling Ukraine, it had a decent chance of self defence. But with Ukraine joining NATO it would have meant Russia could no longer defend herself effectively.

2 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

That would be a direct threat - incitement to violence - which is not covered, by existing court-precedent.  There are people in prison for this sort of thing.  One CAN say "this person" or "this group" is "bad" - but not call for violent acts, in response.  Saying, "But, some nutter might act violently if they knew X," is not an excuse to ban speech.   Related, "The Noble Lie."

 

So you agree that there should be limits to free speech?

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

I long suspected the provocation of Ukraine was a Western ploy to get Russia to bleed out, why would Boris Johnson fly in specifically to stop Zelensky from signing a treaty that brings peace with Russia. It was bizarre.

 

Even Russia wins now, there's a peace treaty, Russia will have lost 1 million men and 1 billion USD.

The numbers I have seen it was the Ukrainians who lost ~1-Million or more - the Russians a fraction of that - but still a lot.  I expect we won't know the real numbers for years, if ever.  Normally, the attacker loses 3:1 vs the defender, but that goes out the window when the attacker has a massive advantage in artillery, air-support, etc.

 

And, the economic "bleed out Russia" plan backfired - only manged to de-industrialize Europe with sky-high energy-costs**, and re-invigorate many Russian economic sectors - and bring many new (formerly import) sectors on-line. 

 

**( which has benefited the USA.  Europeans should hate us for this - but they want the war to continue more than we do - and to spend more money on war, making them even poorer - which seems crazy to me.  Propaganda works, sadly.)

7 hours ago, riclag said:

Here here ! I got a sense of pride

reading this, its goose bumps material.

Put your trust in Trump if you

want to destroy Terror proxies  & their weasel sympathizers  from becoming the “norm”.

 

 

Really? trump negotiates with terrorists and aggressive authoritarian regimes. Even goes so far to admire them in the public domain e.g.

 

Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923

6 minutes ago, bannork said:

Every eastern European country that joined NATO volunteered to because it didn't want to be under Russia's repressive rule. 

Likewise Ukraine. 

Putin couldn't bear seeing a nation on his border cosying up to the West, the next thing is his own citizens might start demanding freedoms from repressive rule so Ukraine had to be attacked.

Now do the same thing, but Mexico joining a Chinese alliance, and guess who "couldn't bear" that.

 

Also, only a portion of Ukrainians wanted what the West was pushing, after years of the USA spending literally Billions on propaganda, telling them how great it was going to be.  Then, when snap-elections were agreed, the coupsters nullified that with violence.

 

They had to get Crimean folks out of the voting, before they could "win" an election - while cynically pretending they were mad about what they KNEW would happen.   Yet, even then, the literal actor who was groomed for the role of president with a TV show (financed by an anti-Russian oligarch) had to promise to do the opposite of what he actually did, regarding all things Russian / peace.

7 hours ago, UWEB said:

Fools day today?

Is that what you showed up for? 

7 hours ago, hotsun said:

Most Americans agree with what hes doing and don’t particularly care what the rest of the world thinks, because the rest of the world doesnt have free elections anymore. Do the facts bother you?

 

freedom comes at a high price, something only an American can understand

 

I care about what the rest of the world thinks, but I care more about what I think. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

So you agree that there should be limits to free speech?

Of course - direct violent-threats are prohibited, and should be.  That is exactly where the courts put the line.  This is being tested with new restrictions, however - will see what happens.

7 hours ago, UWEB said:

Fools day today?

Do you feel the AfD should be permitted to stand in elections?

18 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Really? trump negotiates with terrorists and aggressive authoritarian regimes. Even goes so far to admire them in the public domain e.g.

 

Trump calls Putin ‘genius’ and ‘savvy’ for Ukraine invasion

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/23/trump-putin-ukraine-invasion-00010923

Here is the transcript.

https://www.clayandbuck.com/president-trump-with-cb-from-mar-a-lago

 

Admiration. More propagandistic lies.

12 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No it wasn't Putin having jealousy issues. It was a matter of defense and national security.

 

The motivation for Ukraine, Georgia etc wanting to join NATO hardly matters. What matters is that Russia is located on the great European plains, and as long as it controlled entry and access to those plains, by controlling Ukraine, it had a decent chance of self defence. But with Ukraine joining NATO it would have meant Russia could no longer defend herself effectively.

 

You may well be correct that Russia is concerned about a theoretical threat to its' security along the Eastern Plains, but imo this current conflict has little to do with that.

 

The catalyst for Russian aggression in the Donbass and the invasion of Crimea was the removal of Yanukovych, who had become Moscow's puppet. The desire of the Ukrainian people and politicians for EU membership posed a direct economic threat to Russia and this was something that Putin was not willing to accept.

 

Ukraine's accession to NATO was unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future in 2014 and has effectively been used as a smokescreen by Russia to justify its' actions.

21 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

The numbers I have seen it was the Ukrainians who lost ~1-Million or more - the Russians a fraction of that - but still a lot.  I expect we won't know the real numbers for years, if ever.  Normally, the attacker loses 3:1 vs the defender, but that goes out the window when the attacker has a massive advantage in artillery, air-support, etc.

 

And, the economic "bleed out Russia" plan backfired - only manged to de-industrialize Europe with sky-high energy-costs**, and re-invigorate many Russian economic sectors - and bring many new (formerly import) sectors on-line. 

 

**( which has benefited the USA.  Europeans should hate us for this - but they want the war to continue more than we do - and to spend more money on war, making them even poorer - which seems crazy to me.  Propaganda works, sadly.)

 

Fair point, the numbers are tentative at this point.

 

The Europeans were the ones who caused themselves massive economic problems, whilst Russia's economy blossomed, very true.

 

Europe's politicians are by far the most amateurish. You just have to look at Germany's foreign minister, a girl named Annalena Baerbock whose main distinction is that she has achieved nothing in life. Literally nothing. Apart from bing a trampoline gymnast. You can't make this stuff up. This is Germany's foreign minister.

7 minutes ago, Rob Browder said:

Now do the same thing, but Mexico joining a Chinese alliance, and guess who "couldn't bear" that.

 

Also, only a portion of Ukrainians wanted what the West was pushing, after years of the USA spending literally Billions on propaganda, telling them how great it was going to be.  Then, when snap-elections were agreed, the coupsters nullified that with violence.

 

They had to get Crimean folks out of the voting, before they could "win" an election - while cynically pretending they were mad about what they KNEW would happen.   Yet, even then, the literal actor who was groomed for the role of president with a TV show (financed by an anti-Russian oligarch) had to promise to do the opposite of what he actually did, regarding all things Russian / peace.

China is not in Central America! It's a false analogy.

In addition the states previously under Soviet rule since 1945 were simply seeking liberation from Russian oppression and rejoining Europe politically, the EU,cwhere they geographically belong. 

The Crimean 'folks' were Russians imported under Khrushchev.

What is Zelensky's current popularity? 67%.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

You may well be correct that Russia is concerned about a theoretical threat to its' security along the Eastern Plains, but imo this current conflict has little to do with that.

 

The catalyst for Russian aggression in the Donbass and the invasion of Crimea was the removal of Yanukovych, who had become Moscow's puppet. The desire of the Ukrainian people and politicians for EU membership posed a direct economic threat to Russia and this was something that Putin was not willing to accept.

 

Ukraine's accession to NATO was unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future in 2014 and has effectively been used as a smokescreen by Russia to justify its' actions.

 

Well, as you will see if you ressearch this matter, the removal of Yanukovych owed much to a revolution that was largely influenced by America's CIA, this is well documented. Now I am not saying some Ukrainians didn't want to jump into bed with rich hansum man USA, they certainly did, however, Ukraine's leaders should have realised the consequences of switching camp to pro Western.

 

 

4 minutes ago, bannork said:

China is not in Central America! It's a false analogy.

In addition the states previously under Soviet rule since 1945 were simply seeking liberation from Russian oppression and rejoining Europe politically, the EU,cwhere they geographically belong. 

The Crimean 'folks' were Russians imported under Khrushchev.

What is Zelensky's current popularity? 67%.

He's not saying China is in Central America. In fact it's a perfectly valid analogy.

 

What he's saying is that Mexico is in the USA's sphere of influence, just like Ukraine is in Russia's. If Mexico would join an alliance with China indeed the US would not take that lightly. Just see what happened to Panama who sold vital things to America's enemy.

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, as you will see if you ressearch this matter, the removal of Yanukovych owed much to a revolution that was largely influenced by America's CIA, this is well documented. Now I am not saying some Ukrainians didn't want to jump into bed with rich hansum man USA, they certainly did, however, Ukraine's leaders should have realised the consequences of switching camp to pro Western.

 

 

 

The US may well have fanned the flames of discontent, but the fire was lit and burning furiously already. 

 

I am not sure whether Ukrainians had any great desire to jump into bed with the 'handsome' US, but they undoubtedly were throwing themselves at the 'impossibly attractive' EU. A fact that Putin could not accept. 

 

You state ".. however, Ukraine's leaders should have realised the consequences of switching camp to pro Western". And that justifies Putin's actions? It sounds very much like you would deny a sovereign nation  (Ukraine) the right to self-determination?

7 hours ago, LiamB80 said:

I agree with the OP. I read these posts from non Americans and it’s pure insanity. I voted Trump and he’s doing exactly what i wanted him to do. The constant insults and childish names about President Trump show they never had any respect for America or our way of life to begin with.  

The one thing one can say about America, they don't waste time on dignity.

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

The US may well have fanned the flames of discontent, but the fire was lit and burning furiously already. 

 

I am not sure whether Ukrainians had any great desire to jump into bed with the 'handsome' US, but they undoubtedly were throwing themselves at the 'impossibly attractive' EU. A fact that Putin could not accept. 

 

You state ".. however, Ukraine's leaders should have realised the consequences of switching camp to pro Western". And that justifies Putin's actions? It sounds very much like you would deny a sovereign nation  (Ukraine) the right to self-determination?

 

Well, it was the Europeans and Americans that caused these flames of discontent, with their magnificent porn, Adidas and Nike, Britney and Republica, it's all very seductive. But it was the job of Ukrainian leaders to understand the implications of switching to the Western camp.

 

This does not deny a sovereign nation the right to self-determination across the board, only Ukraine. Why? Because Ukraine happens to be a neighbour of Russia, a global power. Just as the USA's neighbours can't do as they please, as Panama found out, neither can Russia's neighbours. A sovereign nation is not like any other sovereign nation. The realities of power need to be considered.

33 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Here is the transcript.

https://www.clayandbuck.com/president-trump-with-cb-from-mar-a-lago

 

Admiration. More propagandistic lies.

 

Following is a quote from the interview, doesn't change my mind, just reinforces my negative opinion of trump as an enabler of Putin at the time and ongoing. Defining Putin's forces as 'peacekeepers" you have to laugh at the ignorance.

 

"So, Putin is now saying, 'It's independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That's [the] strongest peace force," Trump said, adding that that was the kind of show of force the United States could use on its Southern border.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

I completely agree, Russia needs the Ukraine as a buffer to safeguard entry to the European plain so it has a chance of self defense. We need to give Russia this small gift to assuage their justifiably irritated nerves.

Omg  a Putin sympathizer!

Careful you don’t get the Musk treatment, being called a  Nazi.

Just now, riclag said:

Omg  a Putin sympathizer!

Careful you don’t get the Musk treatment, being called a  Nazi.

 

I do like Putin, how could one not? 

 

Sticks and stones....hahahaha

39 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, it was the Europeans and Americans that caused these flames of discontent, with their magnificent porn, Adidas and Nike, Britney and Republica, it's all very seductive. But it was the job of Ukrainian leaders to understand the implications of switching to the Western camp.

 

This does not deny a sovereign nation the right to self-determination across the board, only Ukraine. Why? Because Ukraine happens to be a neighbour of Russia, a global power. Just as the USA's neighbours can't do as they please, as Panama found out, neither can Russia's neighbours. A sovereign nation is not like any other sovereign nation. The realities of power need to be considered.

 

I will give you credit for your direct reply, and not trying to hide behind a convoluted conspiracy theory.

 

In essence, you are justifying Russian imperialism. Ukraine is forever to be viewed as nothing more than a Russian satellite state. You appear to find that acceptable; the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians and the free world do not.

32 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Following is a quote from the interview, doesn't change my mind, just reinforces my negative opinion of trump as an enabler of Putin at the time and ongoing. Defining Putin's forces as 'peacekeepers" you have to laugh at the ignorance.

If you were living in the Donbass region, being shelled for 8 years (including Trump years) before Russia stepped-in, you would probably call the Russians peacekeepers, also. 

 

Trump's ridiculous position, is pretending he didn't continue the very "uniparty" escalation which caused the war.  Every time he says the war would "not have happened, if I were president," I want to puke.  He just hired one of the war's chief anti-Russia cheerleaders for Sec-of-State, and still brags about starting lethal-aid to Ukraine.

 

He's only trying to get a "deal" now, because the West's Ukraine proxy war was lost. They are out of military options to "turn the tide," short of WW3 - and would likely lose that, given Russia has now re-mobilized, and they have not.  Sadly, I suspect they merely want to "buy time" to re-mobilize their military - Europe's in particular - then resume the conflict in 5+ years. 

45 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

Following is a quote from the interview, doesn't change my mind, just reinforces my negative opinion of trump as an enabler of Putin at the time and ongoing. Defining Putin's forces as 'peacekeepers" you have to laugh at the ignorance.

 

"So, Putin is now saying, 'It's independent,' a large section of Ukraine. I said, 'How smart is that?' And he's gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That's [the] strongest peace force," Trump said, adding that that was the kind of show of force the United States could use on its Southern border.

That's because you're blindness doesn't allow you to see anything other than what your masters have allowed you to think