18 Mar 22
@sonhouse saidYour boss must be the Rockefellers. You pretend this could not lead to nuclear war.
@Metal-Brain
Ah, all that stuff that 'seems reasonable to me', you fool nobody, that is right out of your boss's playbook, you know, Putin.
19 Mar 22
@metal-brain saidNo I think Bush and Blair should be sent to The Hague for the Iraq war.
How do you feel about GW Bush and Obama? Same amount of disdain?
You are trying to blame Iraq, Libya and Syria for not giving up their sovereignty in order to stop a murderous superpower from slaughtering them. Your worldview is one of the most hypocritical I’ve ever come across. You are the one who is strange. Are you incapable of realizing you hold 2 contradictory opinions at the same time? All because of partisan bias?
The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the result of 9/11 it did not come out of thin air. In retrospect it was a stupid emotional response but then most emotional responses are. However it’s hard to argue against the initial aim of hunting down and neutralising Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network headquartered in Afghanistan.
The Russians have killed astronomically more Syrian civilians supporting the despot Assad than the US coalition did in trying to topple him in support of a popular uprising following Syria’s version of the Arab spring.
Libya was not an invasion it was a very limited off shore campaign to prevent Gaddafi from wiping out his own population.
@kevcvs57 saidThis is BS. Libya was an adventure in regime change, just like Afghanistan and Iraq all of which NATO was involved in.
No I think Bush and Blair should be sent to The Hague for the Iraq war.
The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the result of 9/11 it did not come out of thin air. In retrospect it was a stupid emotional response but then most emotional responses are. However it’s hard to argue against the initial aim of hunting down and neutralising Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network head ...[text shortened]... sion it was a very limited off shore campaign to prevent Gaddafi from wiping out his own population.
A later UK Parliamentary investigation concluded:
"An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was started in July 2015 by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclusions of which were released on 14 September 2016 in a report titled Libya: Examination of intervention and collapse and the UK's future policy options.[231][232] The report was strongly critical of the British government's role in the intervention.[233][234][235] The report concluded that the government "failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element."[236] In particular, the committee concluded that Gaddafi was not planning to massacre civilians, and that reports to the contrary were propagated by rebels and Western governments. The feared threat of the massacre of civilians was not supported by the available evidence, according to the parliamentary report. For example, on 17 March 2011 Gaddafi had given Benghazi rebels the offer of peaceful surrender and when Gaddafi had earlier retaken Ajdabiya from rebel forces there were no massacres of non-combatants.[237][231] Alison Pargeter, a freelance Middle East and North Africa (MENA) analyst, told the Committee that when Gaddafi's forces re-took Ajdabiya they did not attack civilians, and this had taken place in February 2011, shortly before the NATO intervention.[238] She also said that Gaddafi's approach towards the rebels had been one of "appeasement", with the release of Islamist prisoners and promises of significant development assistance for Benghazi.[238]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#:~:text=On%2019%20March%202011%2C%20a,the%20First%20Libyan%20Civil%20War.
The US invaded Syria more than Russia; the latter was invited in by the still recognized government (granted it's a tyranny). Ironically, the Western intervention against ISIS greatly strengthened the military position of Assad by severely damaging the most effective fighting group against him (granted they were brutal lunatics).
19 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidAt the end of the day, the choice was simple.
This is BS. Libya was an adventure in regime change, just like Afghanistan and Iraq all of which NATO was involved in.
A later UK Parliamentary investigation concluded:
"An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was started in July 2015 by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclus ...[text shortened]... severely damaging the most effective fighting group against him (granted they were brutal lunatics).
Keep Assad or ISIS ?
20 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidThe Russians killed terrorists.
No I think Bush and Blair should be sent to The Hague for the Iraq war.
The initial invasion of Afghanistan was the result of 9/11 it did not come out of thin air. In retrospect it was a stupid emotional response but then most emotional responses are. However it’s hard to argue against the initial aim of hunting down and neutralising Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network head ...[text shortened]... sion it was a very limited off shore campaign to prevent Gaddafi from wiping out his own population.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-syria-isis-al-qaeda_b_8259870
"Libya was not an invasion"
Stop lying. Even dumb people know better.
21 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidNo everything you say in your snidely hands clean support of Putin’s massacre of Ukraine is BS.
This is BS. Libya was an adventure in regime change, just like Afghanistan and Iraq all of which NATO was involved in.
A later UK Parliamentary investigation concluded:
"An in depth investigation into the Libyan intervention and its aftermath was started in July 2015 by the U.K. Parliament's House of Commons' cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee, the final conclus ...[text shortened]... severely damaging the most effective fighting group against him (granted they were brutal lunatics).
You know your talking nonsense but it’s all you have in this one and you’ve decided to run with it.
21 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidThe history of NATO since the fall of the USSR has been one of consistent aggressiveness against nations outside of Western influence. It has championed regime change and territorial dismemberment by military means against these nations in service to the neoconservative ideology.
No everything you say in your snidely hands clean support of Putin’s massacre of Ukraine is BS.
You know your talking nonsense but it’s all you have in this one and you’ve decided to run with it.
Your ignorance in these matters and gullible acceptance of absurd justifications for these wars (plus your rather constant lying about my position) has moved you to paranoid delusions and grotesque exaggerations regarding the present unfortunate situation. You and others who share such fantasies need to get back to reality.
21 Mar 22
@no1marauder saidI’m pretty sure your talking about your own regime, don’t confuse US imperialism with a defensive alliance that the vast majority of the time only responds to UN directives.
The history of NATO since the fall of the USSR has been one of consistent aggressiveness against nations outside of Western influence. It has championed regime change and territorial dismemberment by military means against these nations in service to the neoconservative ideology.
Your ignorance in these matters and gullible acceptance of absurd justifications for these ...[text shortened]... present unfortunate situation. You and others who share such fantasies need to get back to reality.
The Iraq invasion was not a nato operation. The only clear cut invasion by NATO was Afghanistan in response to article 5 being triggered by 9/11.
The history of NATO is almost totally facing off the soviet empire and now the wanna be soviet empire mark2.
Your blatantly misleading characterisation of NATO in order to excuse Putin for his slaughter of the Ukrainian people is almost surreally hypocritical for someone who holds his domestic democracy so dearly.
I guess only certain western types are worthy of democracy huh I guess Libya, Syria and Ukraine will just have to know their place and settle for vicious blood thirsty demagogue rule.
21 Mar 22
@kevcvs57 saidNATO does what the US tells it to do. IF they can then get UN authorization great but if they can't if goes ahead without that figleaf.
I’m pretty sure your talking about your own regime, don’t confuse US imperialism with a defensive alliance that the vast majority of the time only responds to UN directives.
The Iraq invasion was not a nato operation. The only clear cut invasion by NATO was Afghanistan in response to article 5 being triggered by 9/11.
The history of NATO is almost totally facing off the so ...[text shortened]... and Ukraine will just have to know their place and settle for vicious blood thirsty demagogue rule.
I already showed you that NATO sent troops to Iraq. I already showed you that it was NATO that invoked Article 5 in 2001 and it didn't even mention Afghanistan (I supplied the link - it's obvious you didn't bother to read it).
You keep ignoring the attack on Serbia in 1998 done without UN authorization and for the purpose of detaching Kosovo from that country.
I already showed that NATO went far beyond the UN authorized "no fly zone" in Libya to provide direct combat air support operations to overthrow the Libyan government.
You recycling the neocon argument that the West should implant "democracy" (mostly meaning laissez faire capitalist policies that favor Western pillaging of the newly "democratic" country) by force in places like Libya, Syria, etc. etc. etc. is particularly laughable given the bloodbaths those efforts have resulted in. The only legitimate way for a nation to overthrow a tyranny is by its People rising up and doing so; Western bombing isn't the wonderful panacea you seem to think it is.
All this is to say that NATO, whatever its origins, is now a dangerous, aggressive organization that is a threat to world peace and security since it is a tool for a neoconservative ideology that posits Western world domination, by force if need be (and it usually "needs to be" according to neocons). It should have been disbanded after the fall of the USSR and its actions after that would lead any rational leader of Russia to oppose its eastward march (as even someone as pro-West as Yeltsin did).
21 Mar 22
"Democratic" Ukraine just banned 11 political parties, including the largest opposition party. https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/598952-zelensky-says-ukrainian-political-parties-linked-to-russia-banned
A year ago, he had already arrested the chairman of the Opposition Platform for Life and shut down three opposition newspapers.
The Ukraine also had enacted a law empowering a national surveillance routine (supported by the West, of course) and restricting Russian language newspapers and periodicals. Both were criticized by Human Rights Watch as violations of minority rights. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/19/new-language-requirement-raises-concerns-ukraine
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/08/ukraine-security-agency-reform-bill-risks-undermining-human-rights
And of course, there was the illegal overthrow by force of an elected President in 2014.
None of this justifies the Russian invasion of course but it makes your claim the impetus for the attack was Putin's fears that Ukrainian "democracy" and economic success (it's the poorest country in Europe by a mile according to per capita GDP) was too much of a glowing example for the Russian People not to want to emulate, rather ridiculous.
21 Mar 22
@sonhouse said(Shrug) It won't happen, so why "pull for it"?
@no1marauder
All that being said, are you pulling for the end of NATO?