Why do the U.S. support Ukraine which has Nazi laws?

[Rigby5]

You continue simply making things up.

Capitalism is a voluntary exchange of money, goods, and services, theft is not capitalism.

Nonsense.
What about:
{...

Martin Shkreli, Who Raised Drug Prices 5,000 Percent, Heads into Fraud Trial​

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Martin Shkreli, the pharmaceutical entrepreneur vilified as the "pharma bro" for raising the price of a life-saving drug by 5,000 percent, will go on trial on Monday for what U.S. prosecutors called a Ponzi-like scheme at his former hedge fund and a drug company he once ran.

Prosecutors have accused Shkreli of lying to investors in the hedge fund and siphoning millions of dollars in assets from biopharmaceutical company Retrophin Inc to repay them. He has pleaded not guilty.
...}

Martin Shkreli, Who Raised Drug Prices 5,000 Percent, Heads into Fraud Trial

Accusers say he lied to investors

www.scientificamerican.com

Increasing a life saving drug by a factor of 50 is not a voluntary exchange by any means.
And capitalists have never shy about theft, slavery, abuse, extortion, etc.
We capitalists were, then the US would still belong to the natives.

 

[Rigby5]

The only "Security Arrangement" was relative to Ukraine Giving up it's nukes.

There was nothing in the agreement preventing the former Soviet States from joining NATO nor can you find it in the agreement.

No, that was long AFTER Gorbachev had already negotiated the independence of the Ukraine.

 

[Rigby5]

The only "Security Arrangement" was relative to Ukraine Giving up it's nukes.

There was nothing in the agreement preventing the former Soviet States from joining NATO nor can you find it in the agreement.

There is no public copy of any of the agreements Gorbachev negotiates with any former Soviet state.
And even if there were, it would be in Russian and none of us could read it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No such treaty existed to begin with.

I was speaking in the abstract.

 

[skye]

The dishonesty of the Left in this Biden's war knows no bounds.

totally repulsive.

 

[Rigby5]

You are still fabricating, No language in the agreements prevented any of the former Soviet Bloc nations from Joining NATO.

NATO is not hostile to Russia and never has been, it's a purely defensive pact.

As long as Russia doesn't start attacking it's neighbors she has absolutely nothing to fear form NATO.

Wrong.
NATO has never been a defensive pact and NATO members are the heart of the world colonial imperialists in the world.
Spain., France, England, and the US have invaded most of the countries in the world, many more than once.
Nato murdered Qaddafi, some of its members illegally attacked Iraq, some of its members illegally attacked Assad, etc.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Wrong.
NATO has never been a defensive pact and NATO members are the heart of the world colonial imperialists in the world.
Spain., France, England, and the US have invaded most of the countries in the world, many more than once.
Nato murdered Qaddafi, some of its members illegally attacked Iraq, some of its members illegally attacked Assad, etc.

Still lying out of your ass as usual I see.

NATO has never launched an unprovoked attack on any other nation.

As for Libya, if you're going to lie you really need to tell better lies.

UNSC Res. 1973 authorized the intervention in Libya.

 

[Rigby5]

No it couldn't. Russia was in the process of disintegrating. It had to hold on the critical republics and let everything else go. Ukraine wasn't critical to Russian survival.

The nukes in the Ukraine were critical to Russia.
The Russian pipelines through the Ukraine were critical to Russia.
Not having a NATO belligerent on Russia's border was critical to Russia.
The warm water port in the Crimea was critical to Russia.
Not having ethnic Russians murdered in eastern Ukraine was critical to Russia.
ETC.

 

[task0778]

The dishonesty of the Left in this Biden's war knows no bounds.

I think the dishonesty of the Left on anything knows no bounds.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The nukes in the Ukraine were critical to Russia.
The Russian pipelines through the Ukraine were critical to Russia.
Not having a NATO belligerent on Russia's border was critical to Russia.
The warm water port in the Crimea was critical to Russia.
Not having ethnic Russians murdered in eastern Ukraine was critical to Russia.
ETC.

How is any of that relevant to this discussion?

If Ukraine was that critical to Russia they should never tried to figure out a way to hang onto it when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The didn't or couldn't so they don't get to dictate Ukraine's affairs or it's alliances.

 

[Rigby5]

Capitalism depends on the establishment of property rights. Under some systems, slaves are valid property, not people (effectively). I'm not saying that makes it right, but that's the logic behind it.

This is why capitalism alone is not the basis for our system. We do not define people as property anymore because of the advancement of natural rights.

The fact capitalism can put property rights above inherent individual rights is why the US can not ever use capitalism at all for any basis for our political system.
Capitalism is an economic system, and if ever allowed to influence any political system, then the system becomes totally corrupted and has to be totally destroyed and started over.
Capitalism is not at all part of our political system and it constantly is a threat to our political system.
Clearly all capitalists degenerate into monopolies if not strictly prevented, and would use force, such as with slavery, if allowed.
Capitalism is inherently evil and dangerous, and the only reason we allow it is because it also is very good at producing weapons that can prevent us from being defeated by other capitalists.

 

[Kosh]

Think about it, Putin invaded Ukraine to get "white Supremist" aka Nazi's and now the far left claims anyone that disagrees with them as "White Supremist". Seems the far left and Putin are lock step.

 

[Rigby5]

The dishonesty of the Left in this Biden's war knows no bounds.

totally repulsive.


View attachment 648455

I am totally against the Ukraine, due to their support of the Holocaust in WWII, their attacks on ethnic Russians, etc.

 

[Uriel]

The fact capitalism can put property rights above inherent individual rights is why the US can not ever use capitalism at all for any basis for our political system.
Capitalism is an economic system, and if ever allowed to influence any political system, then the system becomes totally corrupted and has to be totally destroyed and started over.
Capitalism is not at all part of our political system and it constantly is a threat to our political system.
Clearly all capitalists degenerate into monopolies if not strictly prevented, and would use force, such as with slavery, if allowed.
Capitalism is inherently evil and dangerous, and the only reason we allow it is because it also is very good at producing weapons that can prevent us from being defeated by other capitalists.

Well, what we have and what most countries have is a combination of capitalism and socialism. The debate is where the ideal balance is. I personally prefer that we shift more towards an actual free market.

Socialism in its purest form doesn't tend to work well, as demonstrated by Venezuela.

The best that can be expected in that direction is a country like Norway, which is still very capitalist in most markets but heavily socializes certain amenities and oil & gas.

Communism is a non-starter, since it has killed more people than fascism.

 

[task0778]

The nukes in the Ukraine were critical to Russia.
The Russian pipelines through the Ukraine were critical to Russia.
Not having a NATO belligerent on Russia's border was critical to Russia.
The warm water port in the Crimea was critical to Russia.
Not having ethnic Russians murdered in eastern Ukraine was critical to Russia.
ETC.

Ukraine had no nukes, they gave 'em up years ago.

The Russian pipelines were critical to Europe too, Ukraine wasn't going to do anything about them.

Ukraine was not belligerent, and they aren't/weren't in NATO. What is this belligerency shit, NOBODY was belligerent to Russia. It was actually the other way around.

Rusia doesn't get to invade another sovereign country cuz they wanted a warm water port. They coulda worked out a deal for that with Ukraine, but instead they started a war.

Ethnic Russians were not murdered in eastern Ukraine, that was total propaganda bullshit.


Russia fomented and started a war to gain territory that belonged to another sovereign state. Period.

 

[Rigby5]

Still lying out of your ass as usual I see.

NATO has never launched an unprovoked attack on any other nation.

As for Libya, if you're going to lie you really need to tell better lies.

UNSC Res. 1973 authorized the intervention in Libya.

Oh, so then who wiped out Qaddafi's forces, resulting in him being murdered?
Why England join the US in attacking Saddam?

UN resolution 1973 did not authorize the NATO massacre of Qaddafi's forces that resulted in his murder.

{...
Resolution 1973 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 17 March 2011 in response to the First Libyan Civil War.
...
The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.[4]
...}

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But the NATO forced did not protect civilians or establish a no-fly-zone.
Instead the NATO forces massacred over 100,000 of Qaddafi's forces, leaving him defenseless and then murdered.
The UN has NOT voted for that at all.

 

[Rigby5]

How is any of that relevant to this discussion?

If Ukraine was that critical to Russia they should never tried to figure out a way to hang onto it when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The didn't or couldn't so they don't get to dictate Ukraine's affairs or it's alliances.

Wrong.
Russia could easily have hung onto the Ukraine.
That is the whole point.
Gorbachev clearly had to have negotiated with the Ukraine, and from all accounts, the Ukraine agreed to never join any alliance hostile to Russia.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Did NATO promise Gorbachev they would not advance on old Soviet states.
Since NATO is trying to include the Ukraine as a member, that is a violation of the promises to Gorbachev.

No it is not you are lying about their agreement

 

[Soupnazi630]

No, most treaties are not public.
And while it is pretty obvious the Ukraine and Russia agreed to term, a treaty is not necessary.
Just like the US used force against Cuban missiles, Russia is also well within its self defense rights, to attack a belligerent Ukraine.

Wrong.

They are always public.

No it is not obvious. There was no issue with missiles nor any belligerent actions from Ukraine.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Oh, so then who wiped out Qaddafi's forces, resulting in him being murdered?
Why England join the US in attacking Saddam?

UN resolution 1973 did not authorize the NATO massacre of Qaddafi's forces that resulted in his murder.

{...
Resolution 1973 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 17 March 2011 in response to the First Libyan Civil War.
...
The resolution formed the legal basis for military intervention in the Libyan Civil War, demanding "an immediate ceasefire" and authorizing the international community to establish a no-fly zone and to use all means necessary short of foreign occupation to protect civilians.[4]
...}

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But the NATO forced did not protect civilians or establish a no-fly-zone.
Instead the NATO forces massacred over 100,000 of Qaddafi's forces, leaving him defenseless and then murdered.
The UN has NOT voted for that at all.

The terrorists land forces that were overtaking the country that were being attacked by Q'daffi's air force, the force US and coalition aircraft were there to stop.

You'd do well to shut up and quit proving to everyone just what an idiot you are.

The Forty countryes that joined us in a coalition against Saddam did so for many reasons, since it was GB's planes most frequently being targeted and shot at while enforcing the NFZ and the fact they are the 2nd Largest military power in the free world I think that question answers itself.

The invasion and removal of Saddam were authorized by numerous UN Resolutions beginning with UN Res 1441.