Amnesty International Condemns Ukraine's Tactics

[Rust_Cohle]

No, the real question is, why are you so loyal to Putin and so anti American when nearly the whole world has condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine?

Right cause knowing history, wanting peace and avoiding WW3 means I'm an unamerican putinist

You dumbfuck

You've never seen combat or served in the military if you had you be sick of war but since it's not you or your family who cares right? Pussy

 

[toomuchtime_]

Right cause knowing history, wanting peace and avoiding WW3 means I'm an unamerican putinist

You dumbfuck

You've never seen combat or served in the military if you had you be sick of war but since it's not you or your family who cares right? Pussy

Bullshit, you have posted nothing but Putin propaganda, and you defend the invasion so you are clearly no advocate for peace, but what makes you clearly anti American is that you lay all the blame on NATO and NATO can take no action the US objects to.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Bullshit, you have posted nothing but Putin propaganda, and you defend the invasion so you are clearly no advocate for peace, but what makes you clearly anti American is that you lay all the blame on NATO and NATO can take no action the US objects to.

AnYtHiNg I DoN't LiKe iS PuTiN PrOpAgAnDA

Fuck outta here NPC go get boosted

 

[Papageorgio]

Yes, there will be human rights abuses on both sides, but then there wouldn't be these abuses if Russia hadn't invaded.
Zelensky is doing everything he can to save his country, whatever his motive. He'll go down in History as a national hero. You don't seem to know much about him to have formed an opinion of him.

There were human rights violations by Ukraine on their own people before the war started. Not that excuses Russia from invading however, Zelenskyy was close to losing his election before the war. I don’t trust either country, as I said no excuse for Russia invading.

 

[ActionJackson]

That's complete and utter nonsense. NATO is right on Russian borders, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, where Kalingrad is, Poland too.
To complain NATO is doing this or that is just a crap excuse.

If America's enemy (these days they're inside D.C.) were to set up camp in Mexico or Canada ... she would be within her right to do something about it. Of course ... Biden welcomes America's enemies with open arms, so it's a moot point.

 

[toomuchtime_]

AnYtHiNg I DoN't LiKe iS PuTiN PrOpAgAnDA

Fuck outta here NPC go get boosted

You are just a very loyal Putinhead. Why deny it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

If America's enemy (these days they're inside D.C.) were to set up camp in Mexico or Canada ... she would be within her right to do something about it. Of course ... Biden welcomes America's enemies with open arms, so it's a moot point.

Yes, the US would get angry if Russia or China ended up on its borders, China keeps North Korea impoverished because it stops the US getting a border with China.

However, when Putin got in NATO was already on Russia's borders. Poland was a NATO member in 1999 and Norway had been a member for a long time.

2004 Latvia and Estonia became members right on Russia's proper border and Lithuania with Kalingrad. So, the argument that the Ukraine is a problem is nonsense, NATO is already there.

Putin is using this as an excuse. He's been attacking the Ukraine ever since he got himself enough power to do it. He's poisoned pro-EU presidential candidates, he's annexed the Crimea, kept a "civil war" going in the region for 8 years before the war.
What Putin wants is a throw back to the USSR and the EU and NATO are stopping this, so he'll use any excuse to legitimize his campaign.

I mean, why not? The US used WMDs as an excuse to go to war in Iraq....

It's what asshole governments with huge armies do, they act like assholes.

 

[José]

Originally posted by frigidweirdo
Yes, the US would get angry if Russia or China ended up on its borders, China keeps North Korea impoverished because it stops the US getting a border with China.

However, when Putin got in NATO was already on Russia's borders. Poland was a NATO member in 1999 and Norway had been a member for a long time.

2004 Latvia and Estonia became members right on Russia's proper border and Lithuania with Kalingrad. So, the argument that the Ukraine is a problem is nonsense, NATO is already there.

Putin is using this as an excuse. He's been attacking the Ukraine ever since he got himself enough power to do it. He's poisoned pro-EU presidential candidates, he's annexed the Crimea, kept a "civil war" going in the region for 8 years before the war.
What Putin wants is a throw back to the USSR and the EU and NATO are stopping this, so he'll use any excuse to legitimize his campaign.

I mean, why not? The US used WMDs as an excuse to go to war in Iraq....

It's what asshole governments with huge armies do, they act like assholes.

This post takes the concepts of self-contradiction, intellectual mess to a whole new level.

It's not everyday you come across a message so poorly thought-out, so incoherent.

The US and China sincerely, honestly get angry at foreign powers setting up military bases in neighboring countries but Russia, for some unknown, mysterious reason has no problem with the military encirclement of its western borders and is merely using it as an excuse.

Is Russia a nation state from another planet, a country from Jupiter or Neptune, that unlike all the other nation states on Earth has no problems with foreign military alliances surrounding their borders?

When America invaded granada in 1983 and financed coup detats and proxy wars throughout Latin America, the US was already reluctantly, grudgingly putting up with a soviet client state located less than 500 miles from Florida.

Does this mean the prospect of having another soviet satellite in Central America or the Caribbean was just a pretext, an excuse to invade and/or overthrow those countries' governments?

Russian leaders were already bitterly complaining about NATO's eastward expansion 10 years before Putin came to power (the first meeting to discuss the expansion occurred in 1992, believe it or not).

Since before Napoleon's invasion Russia is terrified by the possibility of being invaded by western Europe. If you are hearing this information for the first time in your life you're a total ignoramus about Russia who shouldn't even be debating the War in Ukraine here.

 

[José]

José punishing his little son, frigidweirdo,
for babbling about a subject he knows nothing about.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You can't spank people in here, this is the WAR ROOM!

 

[ActionJackson]

Yes, the US would get angry if Russia or China ended up on its borders, China keeps North Korea impoverished because it stops the US getting a border with China.

However, when Putin got in NATO was already on Russia's borders. Poland was a NATO member in 1999 and Norway had been a member for a long time.

2004 Latvia and Estonia became members right on Russia's proper border and Lithuania with Kalingrad. So, the argument that the Ukraine is a problem is nonsense, NATO is already there.

Putin is using this as an excuse. He's been attacking the Ukraine ever since he got himself enough power to do it. He's poisoned pro-EU presidential candidates, he's annexed the Crimea, kept a "civil war" going in the region for 8 years before the war.
What Putin wants is a throw back to the USSR and the EU and NATO are stopping this, so he'll use any excuse to legitimize his campaign.

I mean, why not? The US used WMDs as an excuse to go to war in Iraq....

It's what asshole governments with huge armies do, they act like assholes.

America is probably the number one "a-hole" when it comes to bullying other nations. We have a long history and track record to prove it. America seems to be involved with almost every war that's existed since her founding, but especially WWI, WWII, and onward. So our warmongering leaders have no business condemning Russia for something they've been doing for many decades. The warmongers in D.C. are trying their damnedest to force a regime change in Syria, so they can grab their oil (and other resources) and build a pipeline.

So until America cleans up her own backyard ... she has no business worrying about the mess in someone else's.

 

[frigidweirdo]

America is probably the number one "a-hole" when it comes to bullying other nations. We have a long history and track record to prove it. America seems to be involved with almost every war that's existed since her founding, but especially WWI, WWII, and onward. So our warmongering leaders have no business condemning Russia for something they've been doing for many decades. The warmongers in D.C. are trying their damnedest to force a regime change in Syria, so they can grab their oil (and other resources) and build a pipeline.

So until America cleans up her own backyard ... she has no business worrying about the mess in someone else's.

Well, the US worries a lot about such things because it is an asshole. And Russia too.

 

[ActionJackson]

Well, the US worries a lot about such things because it is an asshole. And Russia too.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are some stark realities at work here that must be ignored to take an anti-war stance. If Putin somehow wins Ukraine gets looted, raped and murdered. They have every right to resist and we as the supposed leader of free world have an obligation to help them.

You mean Ukrainians will get murdered worse that they were by the Ukrainian Nazis in Donbass??? That sounds serious!

 

[José]

For anyone who hasn't already seen it ... here's Zelenskyy's little satanic, transgender dance:

The guy was a director, actor and comedian before entering politics, for heaven's sake!!

When you accuse Zelensky of exercising his profession you're clearly hitting below the wasteline...

I shake my head in disbelief when people point out the corruption, curtailment of civil liberties, nazism, lack of democracy in Ukraine as a legitimate casus belli or as a way to partially justify the invasion (not saying Jackson is doing this but a lot of people do)...

None of that justifies an armed aggression against a sovereign country.

The two legitimate casus belli presented by Russia are:

1 - The absurd, gratuitous policy of military encirclement of Russia's western borders that began 16 years before Russia's first violent reaction to it (War in Georgia) as Cole rightly pointed out crushing the alternate history of the parallel universe presented by the super patriotic american clown toomuchtime:

toomuchtime: What you are calling NATO expansion was Russia's neighbors, having been held captive by Russia for many years, banding together to defend themselves against another Russian aggression.

Cole: The USSR collapsed the only aggression has been from the West dumbass

2 - The fact that the ukrainian national identity is legitimate, real but Ukraine (like Belarus) is not a homogenous country which leads to an infinite number of problems, from political polarization within the ukrainian socieity (West vs Russia) and regional autonomy where ethnic or linguistic minorities reside to the language and subtitles of movies produced in Ukraine.

These are the two real, legitimate casus belli... the rest is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

 

[ActionJackson]

The guy was a director, actor and comedian before entering politics, for heaven's sake!!

When you accuse Zelensky of exercising his profession you're clearly hitting below the wasteline...



I shake my head in disbelief when people point out the corruption, curtailment of civil liberties, nazism, lack of democracy in Ukraine as a legitimate casus belli or as a way to partially justify the invasion (not saying Jackson is doing this but a lot of people do)...

None of that justifies an armed aggression against a sovereign country.

The two legitimate casus belli presented by Russia are:

1 - The absurd, gratuitous policy of military encirclement of Russia's western borders that began 16 years before Russia's first violent reaction to it (War in Georgia) as Cole rightly pointed out crushing the alternate history of the parallel universe presented by the super patriotic american clown toomuchtime:



2 - The fact that the ukrainian national identity is legitimate, real but Ukraine (like Belarus) is not a homogenous country which leads to an infinite number of problems, from political polarization within the ukrainian socieity (West vs Russia) and regional autonomy where ethnic or linguistic minorities reside to the language and subtitles of movies produced in Ukraine.

These are the two real, legitimate casus belli... the rest is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Out of curiosity ... what do you think of America's invasion of Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya, and many other small "sovereign" nations over the past several decades? Does America have room to judge the moral standards of other nations while she allows pedophiles dressed like women into Kindergarten classes or full-grown men into a woman's bathrooms or genetic males into women's sports? America doesn't have a leg to stand on in the "morality" department.

 

[José]

Originally posted by JacksonAction
Out of curiosity ... what do you think of America's invasion of Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Libya, and many other small "sovereign" nations over the past several decades?

Let's compare similar military interventions (apples to apples):

1 China entering the Korean War

2 America invading Grenada and financing proxy wars in Central America

3 Russia invading Ukraine

These are 3 perfect examples of regional powers preventing the military encroachment of hostile foreign powers on their neighborhood.

Every serious political scientist in the world recognizes this obvious similarity between these 3 military interventions/wars... the only people who doesn't are super patriotic american clowns with massive bias towards America.

Originally posted by JacksonAction
Does America have room to judge the moral standards of other nations while she allows pedophiles dressed like women into Kindergarten classes or full-grown men into a woman's bathrooms or genetic males into women's sports? America doesn't have a leg to stand on in the "morality" department.

This is a completely different issue that doesn't even have to do with the War in Ukraine, Jackson. But it is an extremely important issue nonetheless:

"Is secularism in western societies going too far?"

I agree with you 100%... secularism in western countries is definitely going too far. But the solution is not the imposition of a theocracy on the american, british, german, french peoples/societies.

Presenting a religious dictatorship that interferes in the private lives of its citizens as a "solution" to the excesses of secularism in modern western societies is akin to killing the patient to cure the disease.

What the West really needs is to strike the right balance... America and the rest of the West need to abandon the exaggerations and abominations that pass for secularism these days (the ones you cited and many others) and return to a moderate, "normal" secularism that was prevalent some decades ago (I would dare to point 1950's America as an ideal middle ground as far as secularism is concerned but this is a subjective choice to a certain extent).

 

[ActionJackson]

Let's compare similar military interventions (apples to apples):

1 China entering the Korean War

2 America invading Grenada and financing proxy wars in Central America

3 Russia invading Ukraine

These are 3 perfect examples of regional powers preventing the military encroachment of hostile foreign powers on their neighborhood.

Every serious political scientist in the world recognizes this obvious similarity between these 3 military interventions/wars... the only people who doesn't are super patriotic american clowns with massive bias towards America.



This is a completely different issue that doesn't even have to do with the War in Ukraine, Jackson. But it is an extremely important issue nonetheless:

"Is secularism in western societies going too far?"

I agree with you 100%... secularism in western countries is definitely going too far. But the solution is not the imposition of a theocracy on the american, british, german, french peoples/societies.

Presenting a religious dictatorship that interferes in the private lives of its citizens as a "solution" to the excesses of secularism in modern western societies is akin to killing the patient to cure the disease.

What the West really needs is to strike the right balance... America and the rest of the West need to abandon the exaggerations and abominations that pass for secularism these days (the ones you cited and many others) and return to a moderate, "normal" secularism that was prevalent some decades ago (I would dare to point 1950's America as an ideal middle ground as far as secularism is concerned but this is a subjective choice to a certain extent).

I can see how you believe preemptive wars are not related to moral standards, but I tend to believe there's a direct correlation. If nation A has a standard of living that it believes to be "moral," then nation B encroaches upon A's landmass ... nation A takes corrective action when it feels that nation B's moral code may be imposed upon it. Nation A becomes threatened by B's code of ethics and morals.

I've listened to the Dems and RINOs justify the sending of billions of taxpayer dollars to Ukraine because "it's our moral duty" to do so. So morality (or at least the pretense of morality) becomes a pivotal factor in how America approaches war. They used to say that "we must go to war to spread Democracy." Of course ... they don't bother pretending that that's the case anymore, but the citizens used to buy that line hook-line-and-sinker.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When you realize that people misrepresent everything.

1) The Ukraine suspended parties with links to the enemy. That's normal in times of war.

The US locked up Japanese AMERICAN CITIZENS in WW2.

2) Rule number one of a democracy is that it needs to protect itself before getting all sanctimonious. You can't win by allowing the enemy to be everywhere.

 

[ActionJackson]

When you realize that people misrepresent everything.

1) The Ukraine suspended parties with links to the enemy. That's normal in times of war.

The US locked up Japanese AMERICAN CITIZENS in WW2.

2) Rule number one of a democracy is that it needs to protect itself before getting all sanctimonious. You can't win by allowing the enemy to be everywhere.

True. That would include NATO (if you're the leader of Russia).