-->
@Best.Korea
so your argument is what exactly? That you recognize that Russia is doing something horrible, but since the US did bad things we should just let Ukraine be conquered?
Is Tucker Carlson going to try to run for VP, with Trump?
Posts
Total:
65
-->
@Greyparrot
An anti-Russian, anti war stance would be that it is not in the USA's interest to finance Ukraine's conquest of the Donbas region as a result of their 2014 Civil war.
That would be the russian position. So what about that is anti-russian?
Is it your contention that the Donbas is definitively Ukrainian territory?
that is obviously the case. The Russians paid off some Ukrainians to fight against their own government, then used those people the Russians paid as an excuse to invade.
What facts do you have to support this claim knowing that the vast majority of the civilians in the Donbas today are not only Russian speakers and ethnically Russian, but also Russian nationals as well?
this took like 5 seconds to find. So your statement that Russians make up the majority is false. They did not. That is, they did not until the Russians paid off Ukrainians to fight against their own government. At that point, ethnic Ukrainians started moving out of the conflict zone.
"According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 58% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 56.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively."
And even if you somehow were in support of the 2014 ethnic cleansing of the Donbas
the what? that is not a thing that happened.
What do you think would be the ethical thing to do with those people as they are being forcefully displaced?
if they think they are russians, they should presumably move to russia. If they want to be Ukrainian, they are certainly welcome to do that too. Although after murdering their countrymen for the last 8 years, they may not be as welcome any more.
Does it even matter if they are ethnically Russian to you,
who are? 40%ish of the people of Donbass? Why would it matter? They were welcome to stay in Ukraine and be Ukrainian citizens. They were welcome to move to Russia and be Russian citizens. They were even allowed to have dual citizenship. What they weren't allowed to do was start murdering people and giving Russia an excuse to invade.
or does your hatred for Putin extend to all ethnic Russians no matter where they may live so that extermination would be a viable ethical option?
no one is talking about exterminating russians. Where did that even come from?
-->
@HistoryBuff
Nice job destroying the boneheaded substitute teacher! I would throw in a few “ dummies” for emphasis though
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your argument is what exactly? That you recognize that Russia is doing something horrible, but since the US did bad things we should just let Ukraine be conquered?
No. I believe my argument doesnt say anywhere "US bad, so it okay".
My argument supports our logical inconsistency: where when NATO does bad = it okay, but when Russia bad = we mad.
I am not really sure how could you miss my argument, when I pointed it out clearly.
-->
@Best.Korea
No. I believe my argument doesnt say anywhere "US bad, so it okay".My argument supports our logical inconsistency: where when NATO does bad = it okay, but when Russia bad = we mad.I am not really sure how could you miss my argument, when I pointed it out clearly.
I missed it because it wasn't really related. I was discussing one topic and you felt the need to talk about something completely different. For example if we were talking about mass murder done by Khmer Rouge and someone goes "Well why aren't you talking about the holocaust!!!!".
In my example, both things are bad. But you can have a conversation about the Khmer Rouge without talking about the Holocaust, and vice versa. Similarly, we can have a conversation about Russia doing bad things without having to talk about the US doing bad things. So bringing it up out of the blue just seems like you are trying to distract from the conversation I was having about current events.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Nice job destroying the boneheaded substitute teacher! I would throw in a few “ dummies” for emphasis though
I try to hard to keep insults out of my arguments. I don't always succeed, but I try. It's never constructive. But I am aware that there are some people who post here that there is no talking to. I've haven't posted here in awhile so i don't remember which ones exactly. I feel like a guy named sadolite or something was one of them.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ya, Sadolite is still around and still a wack job. You are wasting your time with Best Korea. He’s nuts. But then again, most conservatives are nuts these days.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You seem to be on about some nonsense about relations and how we should talk about things that you like.
Still, nothing you said refuted my arguments or was relevant to them, so I will consider them unchallenged for now.
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem to be on about some nonsense about relations and how we should talk about things that you like.Still, nothing you said refuted my arguments or was relevant to them, so I will consider them unchallenged for now.
let me see if I have this right. I was talking about current events, IE the russian invasion of Ukraine. You brought up an unrelated topic. I declined to change topics to something completely unrelated. You are now going on about how I haven't refuted your unrelated topic.
Is that about it? Because if so, your topic is still unrelated and has no impact on what we were talking about.
-->
@HistoryBuff
your topic is still unrelated and has no impact on what we were talking about
Doesnt change the fact that you havent refuted it. If you cant refute it, you might as well admit its true so we move on.
-->
@Best.Korea
Doesnt change the fact that you havent refuted it. If you cant refute it, you might as well admit its true so we move on.
America has done shitty things. I do not, and have never denied that. And it has absolutely nothing to do with Russia's attempted genocide on Ukraine.
Ya, Sadolite is still around and still a wack job. You are wasting your time with Best Korea. He’s nuts. But then again, most conservatives are nuts these days.
ur so retarded that u make them look sensible
-->
@HistoryBuff
America has done shitty things.
Well, good that you admit that both Russia and US are bad. Now move on, talk about what you want.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Biden was like "fuck meritocracy, I am definitely picking a woman."Most people prior to picking a VP say "I am picking somebody that will challenge me who is different than me politically, etc "
Bullshit.
Every VP over the past generation has been picked for political reasons.
In the world of picking a VP, there are three classifications: an August, a November, and a January. The classification is a clear indicator of the strength of that person's candidacy.
An August is the weakest of them all. It's a candidate who will give you a boost in August when you receive your party's nomination. The idea is to boost your candidacy within your own party, normally a sign that you don't even have their full backing.
A November is the middle ground and most common. It's a candidate that will appeal to the voters you need to win the election.
A January is the strongest, that's a candidate whose purpose is to help them govern after taking office.
Kamala Harris was a November. She was never popular within the democratic party, Biden chose her to appeal to suburban women tired of Trump's antics and masochony.
Biden was also a November, Obama needed him to appeal to the working class white people who might feel uneasy about a black man in the white house.
Mike pence was an August. Trump did not have the entire GOP at that time so he needed someone to appeal to the conservative base.
I don't know who would be considered the last January and wouldn't be surprised if we never had one. Every VP is picked for political reasons. That's not surprising, because it's politics.
-->
@Double_R
Every VP over the past generation has been picked for political reasons.
That is what I said. I said they say it is going to be based on meritocracy not that they Do pick based on meritocracy.
I don't know who would be considered the last January and wouldn't be surprised if we never had one. Every VP is picked for political reasons. That's not surprising, because it's politics.
It's fucking evil, lack of shock value aside. It should always be the best person for the job. I mean they'll have to run the country if you get assassinated.
I literally picked Ilikepie6 because he was the most qualified person next to me, to be president should I die.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It should always be the best person for the job.
That's the fundamental flaw with self governance, the voters rarely reward competence.
-->
@Double_R
That's the fundamental flaw with self governance, the voters rarely reward competence.
Glad we agree, fellow fascist.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Glad we agree, fellow fascist.
Uh, no.
Recognizing the flaws with self governance does not = being unsupportive of it, and it certainly does not = embracing fascism.
-->
@Double_R
Recognizing the flaws with self governance does not = being unsupportive of it, and it certainly does not = embracing fascism.
I get you ;)
Being too obvious could be our downfall.
-->
@HistoryBuff
According to the 2001 census,
Ok what about the 2022 census?
if they think they are russians, they should presumably move to russia. If they want to be Ukrainian, they are certainly welcome to do that too. Although after murdering their countrymen for the last 8 years, they may not be as welcome any more.
So a forced displacement of an entire culture based on the language they speak. Ok just so we are clear.
You should probably skim this:
As I think you implied the Donbas is full of Ukrainians. That concurrent war is very relevant.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Also, according to your own 2001 source, you might have missed this:
The entire war is over who is going to control the Donbas. We helped greatly to incite the Euro rebellion to overthrow democracy in 2014 in Ukraine as a drastic measure to stop the Donbas from declaring independence. So it's extremely relevant to note that Donetsk is much more culturally Russian than Ukraine.
Whether you think it was ethical or not for America to intervene and support a civil insurrection in 2014 is irrelevant to the real question I am asking you. What are the Ukrainians going to do to all those people living there NOW if the US helps them win that Civil War?
Because there is no doubt that if the US continues to support the civil war and Russia chooses to withdraw from the Donetsk that Western Ukraine will probably win that civil war with huge civilian casualties. What do you think is going to happen to all those ethnic Russians? Seems like Bosnia all over again. We shouldn't be there.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Here is a VERY good example for being anti war while also being anti Russian.
At some point you have to ask just how much we are going to pay to support Zelensky. Is nuclear war really worth that strip of the Donbas?
There's no free lunch to punish Russia. At some point you can still retain your hatred for Russia while negotiating peace and concessions. After all, didn't we already do that in Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Syria? you know, the endless proxy war list?
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok what about the 2022 census?
2 things:
1) this is now territory occupied by the russians. They have banned publishing lots of statistics and the ones they do release look awfully tampered with. So any stats that exist now can't really be trusted
2) after years of russian funded and armed rebel groups, many civilians fled the area. So the demographics have likely shifted. But if mexico invaded texas, deported or killed any white people, then said "hey, I don't see any non-mexicans, so this is rightfully mexico". Would you accept that legally, texas is mexican now? Any rational person would look and this and see that russians were a minority, until they started killing the non-russians.
So a forced displacement of an entire culture based on the language they speak. Ok just so we are clear.
no one said anything about a forced displacement. They were allowed to stay and be ukranian citizens. They were allowed to leave and be russian citizens. I believe they even were allowed to stay and be dual citizens. No one was going to make them leave. But the russians paid a bunch of ethnic russian, ukranian citizens to turn traitor. And even though they were the minority in the entire region, insist that they had the right to take the whole thing over and hand it to russia. And they did so, because russia paid them to do it
you are quoting the stat for the city of doentsk, not the Oblast (state). they were the largest group (by 2%) in that specific city. In the whole Oblast, they made up 39% and Ukranians were 56.9%
The entire war is over who is going to control the Donbas.
nope. The russians used them as an excuse. But many Government officials and official news media have repeatedly claimed the Ukranians aren't a real people, they are just russians. Russia intended to annex all, or at least most of Ukraine. Donbas was just an excuse to invade.
We helped greatly to incite the Euro rebellion to overthrow democracy in 2014 in Ukraine as a drastic measure to stop the Donbas from declaring independence. So it's extremely relevant to note that Donetsk is much more culturally Russian than Ukraine.
I'm not sure any part of that made sense. The people overthrew their own russian puppet government because it refused to listen to them and went back on their word at the last minute. And I already showed you that the entire donbass region was majority Ukrainian, not russian.
What are the Ukrainians going to do to all those people living there NOW if the US helps them win that Civil War?
They have already said, anyone living there who was living there before the russian occupation began will be welcome to stay. Anyone who moved there after the russian invasion began and therefore does not have Ukranian citizenship, will have to leave.
What do you think is going to happen to all those ethnic Russians?
i'm sure their ukranian neighbors won't be very fond of them. but the Ukranian government has already said what their policy is. It isn't genocide. That is Russia's plan for the area.
Here is a VERY good example for being anti war while also being anti Russian.
how is this either of those those things? It is the US trying to keep the war as a relatively low intensity war. The US government doesn't really want Ukraine or Russia to win, they want the 2 sides to deplete each other.
At some point you have to ask just how much we are going to pay to support Zelensky. Is nuclear war really worth that strip of the Donbas?
For America, it isn't about Donbass. It's about containing Russian imperial expansion. They have made it clear their goal is to rebuild the russian empire. They've waged multiple wars in the last decade or 2 to this end. If the invasion of Ukraine is successful, and to be clear success means annexing alot more than donbass, then they will move on to their next target. And there are multiple NATO members that used to be part of the USSR and/or the russian empire. America has nothing to gain by selling out Ukraine. It just delays a confrontation. If Russia thinks it can redraw the map of Europe by force, then war is inevitable. Much better to beat them here than in Warsaw or Vilnius.
It's about containing Russian imperial expansion.
With our history of proxy wars over oil (nearly all of them waged with the cover of "saving democracy") It's far more likely this war is over who will control the supply of oil and who will control the petrodollar.
Biden losing Saudi Arabia as an economic ally and China buying Russian oil in Yuan instead of the petrodollar means we already lost that part of the war.
And there are multiple NATO members
One of them who was buying oil from the Russians and we blew up that pipeline. At least for that NATO member, oil is more important than "containing expansion" or whatever cover reason you think applies to describe yet another war for oil.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol I refuted all of your points with evidence, and you come back with.... nothing. Your personal opinion is that it is about oil, so you ignore all the other inforamtion, including the statements by the russian government and putin himself.
And nothing to say about any of your other disproven assertions? Like that Donbass was majority russian?
One of them who was buying oil from the Russians and we blew up that pipeline.
1) I don't see how that is related. 2) there is no evidence of that.
At least for that NATO member, oil is more important than "containing expansion" or whatever cover reason you think applies to describe yet another war for oil.
you know what's more important than oil? Russian tanks invading poland or Lithuania. And Russia has already said they want that land back.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lol give me a chance to address some of your points. I can't type super fast.
you are quoting the stat for the city of doentsk, not the Oblast (state). they were the largest group (by 2%) in that specific city. In the whole Oblast, they made up 39% and Ukranians were 56.9%
There was a referendum held in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine in May 2014. These regions, collectively known as Donbass, had been the site of political unrest and separatist movements following the ousting of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych earlier that year.
The referendum was organized by separatist groups in the region who were seeking greater autonomy and, in some cases, outright independence from Ukraine. The referendum asked voters whether they supported the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, and whether they favored independence from Ukraine.
Something to note was that people who identified as ethnically Ukrainian saw autonomy and independence as a better choice over thin corruption and instability coming out of Kiev, which we now know is fact with the reported skimming of millions of dollars from the US funds to Zelenskys favorite generals.
We aren't talking about a fringe group here.
The separatist groups claimed that the majority of voters supported independence, with some reports suggesting a turnout of over 70%. Ukraine and NATO quite literally threw democracy out the window by refusing to recognize the will of the people of the Donbass.
The DPR and LPR are clearly backed by the majority of the people there and it most certainly will take some form of ethnic cleansing at this point similar to what we saw in Bosnia
-->
@HistoryBuff
you know what's more important than oil? Russian tanks invading poland or Lithuania. And Russia has already said they want that land back.
And yet, The NATO members that do not export oil do not seem nearly as concerned as the US over the fate of Ukraine. That's a pretty good indicator about what this war is really about.
Here's some more evidence as to the current corruption in Kiev and why the Donbas won't surrender to such a corrupt regime.
During a meeting with CIA Director William Burns in January in Kyiv, the topic of corruption was specifically brought up with the Ukrainian President. An intelligence official with firsthand knowledge of the encounter informed the journalist that his message to Volodymyr Zelensky was straight out of a 1950s gangster film.
“The senior generals and government officials in Kyiv were angry at what they saw as Zelensky’s greed, so Burns told the Ukrainian president, because he was taking a larger share of the skim money than was going to the generals.” he unveiled.
“Burns also presented Zelensky with a list of thirty-five generals and senior officials whose corruption was known to the CIA and others in the American government. Zelensky responded to the American pressure ten days later by publicly dismissing ten of the most ostentatious officials on the list and doing little else,” he added.
The ten people he fired were boasting openly about their wealth and cruising about Kyiv in their new Mercedes...
https://www.businessinsider.com/zelenskyy-fires-top-officials-corruption-scandal-vacation-war-2023-1
Most of the NATO non oil exporters clearly don't want this war to escalate.
But American War Propaganda and continued funding to a corrupt regime makes that escalation more likely with every passing moment.
Just so you know, there are plenty of progressives out there that actually want to turn the corrupt war machine back into US welfare for the people of the US.
"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
-->
@Greyparrot
There was a referendum held in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine in May 2014.
lol, not really. Armed thugs printed off some papers, collected them and said "yep we win". It was not an actual referendum. There was no oversight.
here are some quotes from the wiki on that "referendum". bottom line, it was a sham done by force
The Donetsk regional education superintendent informed reporters that they were forced under threat of death to organise polling stations in the schools.
Two official electoral commissioners were kidnapped by separatists prior to the vote.
Donetsk and Luhansk residents living in Russia were able to cast their votes in Moscow.
The separatist groups claimed that the majority of voters supported independence, with some reports suggesting a turnout of over 70%. Ukraine and NATO quite literally threw democracy out the window by refusing to recognize the will of the people of the Donbass.
but there was no legitimate vote. there was a sham with no oversight. they could claim the results were whatever they wanted.
Here's some more evidence as to the current corruption in Kiev and why the Donbas won't surrender to such a corrupt regime.
This article says he took money meant to buy fuel, and he bought fuel. He just didn't do it from the source the Americans wanted him to. I don't deny that there is corruption in Ukraine. But to say that there is less corruption in Russia is a joke so it's kind of a moot point.
-->
@HistoryBuff
but there was no legitimate vote. there was a sham with no oversight. they could claim the results were whatever they wanted.
That's the whole point. The US can arbitrarily choose which types of Democracy to support and which revolts to support.