The Former Russian Empire Strikes Back .... Against the Motherland.

[occupied]

Incorrect Poindexter. ...
Your such a hysterical homo. lol

I was born and raised in in America, as were my parents and grandparents.

Really? Then you have no excuse at all for your unabashed manlove for Putin.

 

[toobfreak]

We tried isolationism. It led to world wars one and two.

No, Germany and Hitler pretty much led to WWI and WWII.

But picking your battles is what life is all about. Hitler and Imperial Japan were worth destroying, but saving Ukraine from their own lack of preparedness is not.

 

[Sunsettommy]

We tried isolationism. It led to world wars one and two. Those wars were many multiples more expensive in lives and treasure than if we had gotten involved early.

We know the mistakes from history. Your argument is we should repeat those mistakes. Because it makes so much sense according to you.

It didn’t make sense in 1914. Or in the 1930’s. Odd that you missed those lessons from History. Or are you delusional enough to pretend that somehow we can walk off our nation and just let the rest of the world go to hell?

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Those wars began in EUROPE America wasn't involved in them it was Germany both times who started the wars against Europe.

America didn't do squat to make those wars happen.

 

[Sunni Man]

Really? Then you have no excuse at all for your unabashed manlove for Putin.

You're just trying to deflect from your passionate manlove for the homo Zelensky and his lover veggie Joe. ...

 

[SavannahMann]

No, Germany and Hitler pretty much led to WWI and WWII.

But picking your battles is what life is all about. Hitler and Imperial Japan were worth destroying, but saving Ukraine from their own lack of preparedness is not.

Actually. Mussolini would be the precursor. But that is history.

When Hitler first started. He was underestimated as a Corporal who would be easy to manipulate and contain. German Generals made that mistake. Foreign diplomats made that mistake. A vast majority said Hitler was a dedicated nationalist who would set Germany on the road to recovery.

One of those few who saw Hitler as a threat was Churchill.

Putin is Hitler 2.0. Just give me a little more and we will have peace. Just a little more. I swear this is the last time.

And just like the 1930’s. Some are foolish enough to believe him. When Putin has all the non NATO members, he will turn on NATO. He will ask if nuclear war is preferable to surrendering Lithuania. Or Poland.

So it’s fight now. Or fight later. It’s stand up now. Or stand up later. Only later will be much more expensive. It will cost much more in lives. Much more in money. And perhaps be the end of civilization.

Let’s say a man shoved you in a bar. You can fight. Or you can wait until he breaks a bottle over your head. If you wait, you are starting at a huge disadvantage. You are hurt.

We’ve been shoved. The bully is swinging the bottle. What are we going to do?

 

[Sunni Man]

Putin is Hitler 2.0. Just give me a little more and we will have peace. Just a little more. I swear this is the last time.
So it’s fight now. Or fight later. It’s stand up now. Or stand up later. Only later will be much more expensive. It will cost much more in lives. Much more in money. And perhaps be the end of civilization.

You're being way overly dramatic.
Putin's foray into Ukraine isn't a threat to America or any of our business.

 

[toobfreak]

Putin is Hitler 2.0.

Don't you think that is a bit melodramatic? The guy is really after two regions in Ukraine full of Russians anyway. Had Biden approached this as Leader of NATO willing to negociate a peaceful solution rather than boost NATO globalist and anti-Russian interests as IS HIS JOB as POTUS, we might not have a war now and be 5 billion dollars ahead.

 

[ESay]

View attachment 634570 for asking the ONE QUESTION most worth asking, that to date, I've seen NO MSM ask!!!

What is this war REALLY about?!

What can't you get? Once again, this war isn't about Ukraine. This war is about a security shape of Europe. You should read Russia's demands for the US and NATO put forth in December.

 

[marvin martian]

Real Americans understand perfectly why we are backing Ukraine. If you don't understand by now you never will.

Ukraine has outlawed homosexuality, and has a serious neo-Nazi problem inside their government, military, and among the population. Fly that Ukrainian flag, boy!

LOL

 

[toobfreak]

What can't you get? Once again, this war isn't about Ukraine. This war is about a security shape of Europe. You should read Russia's demands for the US and NATO put forth in December.

What can I say? Stolen fraud elections have consequences.

Bid Trump Return.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Maybe because this war isn't about Ukraine, basically. This is about a security basis for more than half of Europe. I am sure you haven't heard about Russia's demands to the US and NATO back in December, have you?

Europe made themselves weak by stifling their own energy supply efforts then get overly dependent on Russian energy that is their own fault.

Collectively Europe has more Military power than Russia does BECAUSE of NATO but that isn't where the problem is it is because they grew dependent on Russia to stay warm and run part of their economy on.

That is what YOU ignore because you are so one sided on your hate of Russia who benefits from European stupidity.

 

[mamooth]

No there is a BIG difference since England and France were ALLIED with Poland through a treaty

A treaty signed 25 August 1939. The German invasion was one week later. Would you have been happy about everything if the USA made an official treaty with Ukraine the week before the invasion?

and that Germany was clearly invested in taking over Europe as Churchill knew long before he became Prime Minister.

And that differs from Russia ... how?

True, they don't want all of europe. Just half of it. Genocides to follow. And you seem fine with that.

 

[ESay]

Europe made themselves weak by stifling their own energy supply efforts then get overly dependent on Russian energy that is their own fault.

Collectively Europe has more Military power than Russia does BECAUSE of NATO but that isn't where the problem is it is because they grew dependent on Russia to stay warm and run part of their economy on.

That is what YOU ignore because you are so one sided on your hate of Russia who benefits from European stupidity.

I agree with all that. Europe has become too dependent on Russian energy supplies, too weak and too scared. They tried hard to preserve economic benefits from cooperation with Russia. Basically, it is Europe made it possible for Russia to behave as an arrogant bully.

But all that doesn't mean that Russia shouldn't be stopped. And not only Russia. I am sure that Beijing is watching very closely how this conflict is going on.

 

[mamooth]

Don't you think that is a bit melodramatic? The guy is really after two regions in Ukraine full of Russians anyway. Had Biden approached this as Leader of NATO willing to negociate a peaceful solution

This one is spouting all of the Russian talking points.

I can see why. Putin was seen as the great fascist savior. He hated and murdered all of the same people they want to murder. They dreamed of white supremacist christofascism controlling the entire western world. Instead, the whole western world has united against them, thanks largely to Biden's masterful diplomacy. Their dreams of a global fascist utopia have been crushed, so they now haz a sad.

 

[Sunsettommy]

A treaty signed 25 August 1939. The German invasion was one week later. Would you have been happy about everything if the USA made an official treaty with Ukraine the week before the invasion?


And that differs from Russia ... how?

True, they don't want all of europe. Just half of it. Genocides to follow. And you seem fine with that.

France signed a MILITARY based alliance treaty in 1921 that was never revoked when Poland was attacked in 1939.

Wikipedia,

The Franco-Polish Alliance was the military alliance between Poland and France that was active between the early 1920s and the outbreak of the Second World War. The initial agreements were signed in February 1921 and formally took effect in 1923.

===

Wikipedia,

Anglo-Polish alliance​

British assurance to Poland[edit]​

On 31 March 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and its occupation of Czechoslovakia,[6] in Parliament, the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to assure Polish independence:

...in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorised me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Governmen

There is no Military alliance treaty of any kind with Ukraine thus moot.

America is a member of NATO but Ukraine isn't thus moot again.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I agree with all that. Europe has become too dependent on Russian energy supplies, too weak and too scared. They tried hard to preserve economic benefits from cooperation with Russia. Basically, it is Europe made it possible for Russia to behave as an arrogant bully.

But all that doesn't mean that Russia shouldn't be stopped. And not only Russia. I am sure that Beijing is watching very closely how this conflict is going on.

You want America to maintain their policeman work, but wars never get stopped and the lack of Military alliances isn't helping your cause to have America dirty their hands in affairs we shouldn't be involved in.

 

[mamooth]

There is no Military alliance treaty of any kind with Ukraine thus moot.

What seems to be moot is your claim that any formal military alliance is needed.

Example. 1990. The USA had no formal alliance with Kuwait. Does that mean the Gulf War should have been off the table?

 

[Sunsettommy]

What seems to be moot is your claim that any formal military alliance is needed.

Example. 1990. The USA had no formal alliance with Kuwait. Does that mean the Gulf War should have been off the table?

The United Nations responded:

Iraq/Kuwait - UNIKOM - Background

On 2 August 1990, Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait. On the same day, the Security Council adopted its resolution 660 (1990), condemning the invasion and demanding Iraq’s immediate and unconditional withdrawal its forces to the positions they had occupied the previous day. A few days later, the Council instituted mandatory arms and economic sanctions against Iraq. In all, over the period between 2 August and 29 November 1990, the Council adopted 12 resolutions on various aspects of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, culminating in resolution 678 (1990). That resolution specified that if Iraq had not fully implemented by 15 January 1991 all of the Council's resolutions relating to the occupation of Kuwait, Member States cooperating with Kuwait's legitimate Government were authorized to use "all necessary means" to compel Iraq to do so and restore international peace and security in the area. The deadline passed and the next day, on 16 January 1991, the armed forces of the States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait began air attacks against Iraq, followed on 24 February by a ground offensive. Offensive operations were suspended as of midnight on 28 February 1991, by which time Kuwait City had been liberated and all Iraqi armed forces had vacated the territory of Kuwait. On 3 April 1991, the Council adopted resolution 687 (1991), setting detailed conditions for a formal ceasefire to end the conflict and establishing the machinery for ensuring implementation of those conditions. Following Iraq’s acceptance of the resolution’s provisions, the ceasefire became a formal one. LINK

bolding mine

Your ignorance of history bit you hard which I knew from the start 30 years ago because it was all over the freaking TV how did you miss unless you were in diapers at the time?

No alliance was needed since the U.N. set the table on this one.

 

[Sunni Man]

Example. 1990. The USA had no formal alliance with Kuwait. Does that mean the Gulf War should have been off the table?

We had no business invading Iraq during the 1st Gulf War over the issue of Kuwait.
The western powers had drawn a line on a map and carved out the new country of Kuwait from land that had rightfully been part of Iraq.
Saddam just wanted the stolen land back. ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

What seems to be moot is your claim that any formal military alliance is needed.

Example. 1990. The USA had no formal alliance with Kuwait. Does that mean the Gulf War should have been off the table?

"What seems to be moot is your claim that any formal military alliance is needed."

Then why is America ignoring wars in Africa?

Racism maybe?

Snicker........