Redbrickbear said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Short version: Pekka Kallioniemi (whoever that is) doesn't know the difference between fact and opinion.

---

You should be quoting more from General Mark Hertling than Col Macgregor.

---

MacGregor looks and sounds like someone who is pissed he didn't get his star... Now, we see the character flaw that probably prevented promotion to Brigadier and passed over...

---

He's just saying publicly what many of them are saying privately.

---

That may be so, but you DON'T say those things publicly. That is the personality flaw, either sour grapes and he is trying to make the Pentagon look bad OR he has a need for everyone to know he is the "smartest". Either way, not a good thing.

---

Two massive military failures over the past 20 years and a humiliating blunder of a withdraw (slap stick retreat) from Kabul show that the Pentagon paper pushers can do that themselves.

There is a reason faith in the military has plummeted in this country over past several years.

[The annual survey which asks Americans their level of trust and confidence in a variety of government institutions showed a 70 percent approval rate for the military in 2017, but that dropped dramatically over the next five years, reaching a low of 45 percent in 2021.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/1/18/annual-poll-shows-low-confidence-in-military#:~:text=The%20annual%20survey%20%E2%80%94%20which%20asks,of%2045%20percent%20in%202021.]

---

I don't disagree.

I am saying there is something about this particular COL on TV that does not add up.

China has just named Russian President Vladimir Putin as the Guest of Honor at the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing.

If all you followed was the mainstream media's coverage of Ukraine, you'd probably come to believe that Russia just lost Bakhmut and that China was backing off…

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 22, 2023

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. He's a Russian shill. Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. (Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. Then predicted weeks, then months. And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true.

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS.

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory.

Macgregor is a clown. There are two possibilities. He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure.

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed.

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap.

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

You mean smear a magazine being used to spread Russian propaganda?

---

Proof?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

You mean smear a magazine being used to spread Russian propaganda? The 2nd amendment allows for propaganda. It's you who should be ashamed as you seem to swallow every bit of it, even defending O'Neill, which had nothing to do with smearing the NRA and everything to do with getting Russian sanctions removed.

---

They had every right to oppose the sanctions. The fact that you disagree doesn't and shouldn't make them subject to criminal charges.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

You mean smear a magazine being used to spread Russian propaganda?

---

Proof?

---

Remember the double standard: anything favorable to Ukraine is truth, but anything favorable to Russia is "propaganda."

Redbrickbear said:

---

China has just named Russian President Vladimir Putin as the Guest of Honor at the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing.

If all you followed was the mainstream media's coverage of Ukraine, you'd probably come to believe that Russia just lost Bakhmut and that China was backing off…

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 22, 2023

---

He's being invited as the Gimp.

"Thanks for all the cheap minerals to build our new *****!"
-Xi

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. He's a Russian shill. Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. (Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. Then predicted weeks, then months. And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true.

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS.

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory.

Macgregor is a clown. There are two possibilities. He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure.

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed.

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap.

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

You mean smear a magazine being used to spread Russian propaganda?

---

Proof?

---

Remember the double standard: anything favorable to Ukraine is truth, but anything favorable to Russia is "propaganda."

---

The magazine wrote an article on Ukrainian disinformation and hasn't said a word about Russian. Parrots the cultural zeitgeist argument at the center of Putin's justification for the invasion and does nothing to counter balance its anti-West pro-Russian bent. I'd give them a pass if it was Buchanan-esque anti-War angling, but they jumped the shark into picking a side for the war.

---

Buchanan was the principal founder of the magazine. It's not "anti-West" by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately our foreign policy went off the rails during the Clinton and Bush administrations and has lost sight of any real Western interests.

You'll get Ukraine in 10 or 20 years, when the drama is over and all you see is the futility and waste. Of course by then we'll be fighting for regime change in Antarctica, and anyone who questions it will be a "propagandist."

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

You mean smear a magazine being used to spread Russian propaganda?

---

Proof?

---

Remember the double standard: anything favorable to Ukraine is truth, but anything favorable to Russia is "propaganda."

---

The magazine wrote an article on Ukrainian disinformation and hasn't said a word about Russian. Parrots the cultural zeitgeist argument at the center of Putin's justification for the invasion and does nothing to counter balance its anti-West pro-Russian bent. I'd give them a pass if it was Buchanan-esque anti-War angling, but they jumped the shark into picking a side for the war.

---

Buchanan was the principal founder of the magazine. It's not "anti-West" by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately our foreign policy went off the rails during the Clinton and Bush administrations and has lost sight of any real Western interests.

You'll get Ukraine in 10 or 20 years, when the drama is over and all you see is the futility and waste. Of course by then we'll be fighting for regime change in Antarctica, and anyone who questions it will be a "propagandist."

---

Or, Ukraine will follow the Poland, Baltics into the EU and see this as entry to the west. Western investment is what will make the difference, not politics. Bottonmline, investment only goes where it is stable, getting the Russia problem out of the way only helps Ukraine and the West.

If Russia wins and Ukraine becomes a state of Russia, NATO has another frontier to protect. Either way, this has gone too far, resolution one way or other is only next step.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

You mean smear a magazine being used to spread Russian propaganda?

---

Proof?

---

Remember the double standard: anything favorable to Ukraine is truth, but anything favorable to Russia is "propaganda."

---

The magazine wrote an article on Ukrainian disinformation and hasn't said a word about Russian. Parrots the cultural zeitgeist argument at the center of Putin's justification for the invasion and does nothing to counter balance its anti-West pro-Russian bent. I'd give them a pass if it was Buchanan-esque anti-War angling, but they jumped the shark into picking a side for the war.

---

Buchanan was the principal founder of the magazine. It's not "anti-West" by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately our foreign policy went off the rails during the Clinton and Bush administrations and has lost sight of any real Western interests.

You'll get Ukraine in 10 or 20 years, when the drama is over and all you see is the futility and waste. Of course by then we'll be fighting for regime change in Antarctica, and anyone who questions it will be a "propagandist."

---

Or, Ukraine will follow the Poland, Baltics into the EU and see this as entry to the west. Western investment is what will make the difference, not politics. Bottonmline, investment only goes where it is stable, getting the Russia problem out of the way only helps Ukraine and the West.

If Russia wins and Ukraine becomes a state of Russia, NATO has another frontier to protect. Either way, this has gone too far, resolution one way or other is only next step.

---

Russia and Ukraine were ready to invest in a stable future. We rewarded them with a violent coup and at least a decade of war.

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. He's a Russian shill. Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. (Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. Then predicted weeks, then months. And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true.

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS.

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory.

Macgregor is a clown. There are two possibilities. He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure.

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed.

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap.

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

Touche' and even a bit funny. But, by "consistently" I meant not just during this invasion, but for over 10 years. That's just plain odd. Combine that with being objectively wrong so often, and it's beyond odd.

And, sorry, but we see far too much of this from the anti-Ukraine crowd - denying clear facts and using Russian propaganda. There still is something called truth.

BTW if by "initial" you mean a few days, then you at least have an argument (although there were early documented hits on clear civilian targets nowhere near strategic targets). But, when Macgregor made and then doubled-down on those comments, the intentional civilian and non-strategic infrastructure bombings and mass executions/rapes were prevalent. By March, nobody in their right mind would say Putin was "too gentle."

---

Well, that's the thing. They've been consistently right about our military misadventures for as long as the magazine has been around.

Putin was too gentle to achieve his objectives in the given amount of time. I doubt Macgregor was making any moral judgment about that fact.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage.

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

You mean smear a magazine being used to spread Russian propaganda?

---

Proof?

---

Remember the double standard: anything favorable to Ukraine is truth, but anything favorable to Russia is "propaganda."

---

The magazine wrote an article on Ukrainian disinformation and hasn't said a word about Russian. Parrots the cultural zeitgeist argument at the center of Putin's justification for the invasion and does nothing to counter balance its anti-West pro-Russian bent. I'd give them a pass if it was Buchanan-esque anti-War angling, but they jumped the shark into picking a side for the war.

---

Buchanan was the principal founder of the magazine. It's not "anti-West" by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately our foreign policy went off the rails during the Clinton and Bush administrations and has lost sight of any real Western interests.

You'll get Ukraine in 10 or 20 years, when the drama is over and all you see is the futility and waste. Of course by then we'll be fighting for regime change in Antarctica, and anyone who questions it will be a "propagandist."

---

Or, Ukraine will follow the Poland, Baltics into the EU and see this as entry to the west. Western investment is what will make the difference, not politics. Bottonmline, investment only goes where it is stable, getting the Russia problem out of the way only helps Ukraine and the West.

If Russia wins and Ukraine becomes a state of Russia, NATO has another frontier to protect. Either way, this has gone too far, resolution one way or other is only next step.

---

1. Sure, the future of Kyiv and Ukraine proper is in the EU...just like Poland. Being a farm belt for the population centers of the rest of Europe will be a major economic positive for them. Just like Iowa-Nebraska-Kansas make their rural economy pay by feeding the east coast of America (and the world).

But Kyiv can't focus on that until it gets rid of the large unhappy restless ethnic Russian population of the East...a political and military liability. They should look at the breaking off of Donbas and Crimea not as a loss but as the amputation of an infected limb....addition by subtraction.

2. Russia is not going to conquer Kyiv or take over all Ukraine. They can't even get to and hold Kyiv much less long term occupy central and western Ukraine and its hostile population. This war is about if Kyiv will accept Russian control of Crimea and Donbas (areas already filled with russians)

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

---

You either have an incredible inability to read, or to apply logic…or both. What I said was, "I don't see any photos of women giving birth being rushed out of that hospital" AND "If it had happened, BBC would have no qualms making it known".

Now, does that imply that no one Was hurt?

Maybe some were, regrettably. Ugly. Don't condone it. But to act as if it's one and the same is a special kind of disingenuous, or a special kind of special, and your continual mental gymnastics are leading towards point #2.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

---

You either have an incredible inability to read, or to apply logic…or both. What I said was, "I don't see any photos of women giving birth being rushed out of that hospital" AND "If it had happened, BBC would have no qualms making it known".

Now, does that imply that no one Was hurt?

Maybe some were, regrettably. Ugly. Don't condone it. But to act as if it's one and the same is a special kind of disingenuous, or a special kind of special, and your continual mental gymnastics are leading towards point #2.

---

So you asked about America bombing hospitals, I gave you an example, and now you're upset because it didn't get the same sensational coverage, which means it didn't happen, or maybe it means it did happen, but if it did then it's not the same.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

---

You either have an incredible inability to read, or to apply logic…or both. What I said was, "I don't see any photos of women giving birth being rushed out of that hospital" AND "If it had happened, BBC would have no qualms making it known".

Now, does that imply that no one Was hurt?

Maybe some were, regrettably. Ugly. Don't condone it. But to act as if it's one and the same is a special kind of disingenuous, or a special kind of special, and your continual mental gymnastics are leading towards point #2.

---

So you asked about America bombing hospitals, I gave you an example, and now you're upset because it didn't get the same sensational coverage, which means it didn't happen, or maybe it means it did happen, but if it did then it's not the same.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

---

We know what you're doing, though - nut-picking to build a composition fallacy under a penumbra of false equivalence.

No nation has ever worked harder to limit collateral damage than the USA. Russia, on the other hand, is as a matter of policy the modern incarnation of the Golden Horde, purposely destroying any city which does not surrender, building by building - total destruction of civilization. They do this as both a terror tactic, to coerce future surrenders, as well as for ethnic cleansing purposes. Once you destroy the city, anyone remaining is by definition a combatant to be shot on sight, freeing up a largely uninhabited frontier for redevelopment by Russian oligarchs.

But Sam is predilected to oppose the war so obviously Russia is doing nothing we wouldn't do, or haven't already done.

---

They are now. It's not their preference or their original plan.

DioNoZeus said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

---

You either have an incredible inability to read, or to apply logic…or both. What I said was, "I don't see any photos of women giving birth being rushed out of that hospital" AND "If it had happened, BBC would have no qualms making it known".

Now, does that imply that no one Was hurt?

Maybe some were, regrettably. Ugly. Don't condone it. But to act as if it's one and the same is a special kind of disingenuous, or a special kind of special, and your continual mental gymnastics are leading towards point #2.

---

So you asked about America bombing hospitals, I gave you an example, and now you're upset because it didn't get the same sensational coverage, which means it didn't happen, or maybe it means it did happen, but if it did then it's not the same.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

---

We know what you're doing, though - nut-picking to build a composition fallacy under a penumbra of false equivalence.

No nation has ever worked harder to limit collateral damage than the USA. Russia, on the other hand, is as a matter of policy the modern incarnation of the Golden Horde, purposely destroying any city which does not surrender, building by building - total destruction of civilization. They do this as both a terror tactic, to coerce future surrenders, as well as for ethnic cleansing purposes. Once you destroy the city, anyone remaining is by definition a combatant to be shot on sight, freeing up a largely uninhabited frontier for redevelopment by Russian oligarchs.

But Sam is predilected to oppose the war so obviously Russia is doing nothing we wouldn't do, or haven't already done.

---

They are now. It's not their preference or their original plan.

---

Covid broke you and now you're a joke. I'm not sure why anyone responds to you anymore. Have fun being the new Cinque.

---

Is "Cinque" in the room with us right now?

Sam Lowry said:

---

DioNoZeus said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

---

You either have an incredible inability to read, or to apply logic…or both. What I said was, "I don't see any photos of women giving birth being rushed out of that hospital" AND "If it had happened, BBC would have no qualms making it known".

Now, does that imply that no one Was hurt?

Maybe some were, regrettably. Ugly. Don't condone it. But to act as if it's one and the same is a special kind of disingenuous, or a special kind of special, and your continual mental gymnastics are leading towards point #2.

---

So you asked about America bombing hospitals, I gave you an example, and now you're upset because it didn't get the same sensational coverage, which means it didn't happen, or maybe it means it did happen, but if it did then it's not the same.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

---

We know what you're doing, though - nut-picking to build a composition fallacy under a penumbra of false equivalence.

No nation has ever worked harder to limit collateral damage than the USA. Russia, on the other hand, is as a matter of policy the modern incarnation of the Golden Horde, purposely destroying any city which does not surrender, building by building - total destruction of civilization. They do this as both a terror tactic, to coerce future surrenders, as well as for ethnic cleansing purposes. Once you destroy the city, anyone remaining is by definition a combatant to be shot on sight, freeing up a largely uninhabited frontier for redevelopment by Russian oligarchs.

But Sam is predilected to oppose the war so obviously Russia is doing nothing we wouldn't do, or haven't already done.

---

They are now. It's not their preference or their original plan.

---

Covid broke you and now you're a joke. I'm not sure why anyone responds to you anymore. Have fun being the new Cinque.

---

Is "Cinque" in the room with us right now?

---

Is he sitting next to Scary Virus?

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

---

You either have an incredible inability to read, or to apply logic…or both. What I said was, "I don't see any photos of women giving birth being rushed out of that hospital" AND "If it had happened, BBC would have no qualms making it known".

Now, does that imply that no one Was hurt?

Maybe some were, regrettably. Ugly. Don't condone it. But to act as if it's one and the same is a special kind of disingenuous, or a special kind of special, and your continual mental gymnastics are leading towards point #2.

---

So you asked about America bombing hospitals, I gave you an example, and now you're upset because it didn't get the same sensational coverage, which means it didn't happen, or maybe it means it did happen, but if it did then it's not the same.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

---

We know what you're doing, though - nut-picking to build a composition fallacy under a penumbra of false equivalence.

No nation has ever worked harder to limit collateral damage than the USA. Russia, on the other hand, is as a matter of policy the modern incarnation of the Golden Horde, purposely destroying any city which does not surrender, building by building - total destruction of civilization. They do this as both a terror tactic, to coerce future surrenders, as well as for ethnic cleansing purposes. Once you destroy the city, anyone remaining is by definition a combatant to be shot on sight, freeing up a largely uninhabited frontier for redevelopment by Russian oligarchs.

But Sam is predilected to oppose the war so obviously Russia is doing nothing we wouldn't do, or haven't already done.

---

They are now. It's not their preference or their original plan.

---

Its been their preference from antiquity. It's their birthright.

---

We don't live in antiquity. We don't, or shouldn't, pursue ancestral grudges.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The American Conservative is run by people who literally facilitated Russian intelligence activities in the U.S. One of the editors and commentators (who may be quoted in this thread) barely missed getting charged with espionage. %A0

---

No one was charged with espionage because no espionage took place. Even the Russian woman at the center of the case was only charged with failing to register as a foreign agent. The left famously used the incident to attack 2nd Amendment rights by smearing the NRA. Now you're using it to smear and attack a good magazine for exercising 1st Amendment rights. You should be ashamed.

---

Macgregor should be ashamed. %A0He's a Russian shill. %A0Just top of head here:

Here praised Russia's 2014 Ukraine invasion and even went on Russian State tv.
He said Ukraine should let Russia have the entire country.
He said Ukrainians "are just Russians." %A0And the population is "indistinguishable" from Russians.
Claimed "strong majority" of Eastern Ukraine are Russian.
Called Zelensky a puppet (one of Putin's favorite terms) and repeatedly refers to Puppet Regime.
Still refers to Ukraine as the Neo Nazi junta. %A0(Putin propaganda)
Predicted Ukraine would be overrun in 24-72 hours. %A0Then predicted weeks, then months. %A0And has repeatedly said they're in the "final phase."
Repeatedly has said Russia is "crushing" Ukraine - (another favorite Putin term.)
Repeatedly stated that Russia is being careful to protect women and children and preserve infrastructure.
Argued against Russian sanctions, saying they would help Russia and hurt us.
Repeatedly claimed Ukraine's "Best soldiers are dead" - "hundreds of thousands of their best."
Repeatedly claims Ukraine is out of ammo.
Repeatedly claims the U.S. now has broad ammo shortages.
Long been opposed to NATO

---

To the extent that it's relevant, most of that stuff is true. Russia started out being careful of civilians and infrastructure. That changed over time, as I predicted. Ukraine is short on troops and ammo. Even the prediction of a swift Russian victory is understandable, since everyone expected it at the time. That's why we withdrew our personnel ahead of the invasion and only went back to assist the Ukrainians after we saw what they could do. This was an opportunistic venture on our part, and nothing more.

---

Exactly none of this is true. %A0

Russia was never careful, and besides, Macgregor continued making this comment long after the initial invasion. %A0There were arguments that Russia should have sent more forces, but they bombed indiscriminately from the start and also attacked infrastructure.

As for ammo (Ukraine and U.S.) Macgregor has talked in general and as to basic ammo, which has always been BS. %A0

Not even close to "everyone" expected Ukraine to fold quickly. %A0But worse, Macgregor doubled and tripled down and continued predicting swift Russian total victory. %A0

Macgregor is a clown. %A0There are two possibilities. %A0He's either stupid or he's a Russian pawn.

---

No, they did not bomb indiscriminately from the start. I don't know how Macgregor defines "final phase" or "total victory," if those are the words he used. He has said Russia will establish victory on its own terms, which in some sense it undoubtedly will. As for his being a clown, even Pekka acknowledges his credentials and accomplishments. His real sin seems to be holding opinions that don't support the pro-war agenda.

---

No, his sins in my view are being (1) consistently pro-Russian (fact), and (2) dead wrong on Russia issues (fact). %A0I've said and posted since Russia first invaded, I totally understand views contrary to my own. But, why lie or use Putin's propaganda? %A0If you have pure motives, there is no need.

And, it's amazing how little research some of y'all do. %A0Russia started hitting civilian targets immediately, and by mid-March was leveling infrastructure and bigger civilian targets throughout Ukraine.

---

I don't think it's possible to analyze the situation fairly without being accused of lying or using someone's propaganda. There's always going to be information that's useful to one side and unwelcome to the other side.

There are always civilian casualties, but Russia didn't systematically target civilians or civilian infrastructure until it became clear that they were in a long war of attrition.

---

You mean like 3 weeks into the ordeal when they were slaughtering people in Bucha?

---

The fact that you cite Bucha every time should tell you something.

---

They really helped those folks in Mariupol out as well...
And the Zaporzhizia Power Plant
and...and....and...

Dude, there has been no effort whatsoever to limit civilians or civilian infrastructure. %A0

"Don't bomb here, bomb shelter with 500+ women and children in it painted out front in Mariupol!!!"

Bombed. %A0

You're as big a clown as MacGregor.

---

I've done the research and posted about it. It doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe. Russia limited civilian damage at first because they expected a short operation and a warm welcome. They believed their own propaganda, just like you do yours. Only difference is that they know better now.

---

As in, you've run to the American Conservative and copy/pasted. %A0I've spent about an hour per day for 15 months reading every end of this ordeal. %A0I'm quite positive I'm more well-versed than you in what is good info and what is crap. %A0

---

To borrow a phrase from sombear, you've been "consistently pro-Ukraine." If we're applying standards equally, that's pretty much fatal to your credibility.

The problem with debates like this is that there is no consistent standard. If we were talking about the US invading Iraq or whatever, you'd be arguing that war is messy and civilian casualties are inevitable. Since we're talking about Russia, you apply a different standard and expect everything to be 100 percent legal and humane without any small animals being harmed and nary a plastic spoon from a Russian MRE littering the pristine countryside. I'm not arguing that and never have. I'm simply saying what anyone who's spent a few hours on the topic (let alone 15 months) ought to know. Indiscriminate destruction was not Russia's initial strategy. It became part of the strategy as they adapted to events.

---

How many apartment buildings, schools, hospitals, and such did the US bomb intentionally in Iraq to humiliate and intimidate the people? %A0

---

Ask the people of Fallujah.

---

Know about that. I also know that there aren't photos of women giving birth being rushed out of the bombed hospital in that article...

---

Why would there be? Western media aren't in the business of manipulating your emotions to turn you against Western hegemony. They're in the business of manipulating your emotions to make you hate Putin.

---

BBC would have no qualms showing that or stating it in an article were it to have happened.

---

Right, because when America blows up hospitals we always make sure no one gets hurt…unlike those evil Russians.

---

You either have an incredible inability to read, or to apply logic…or both. What I said was, "I don't see any photos of women giving birth being rushed out of that hospital" AND "If it had happened, BBC would have no qualms making it known".

Now, does that imply that no one Was hurt?

Maybe some were, regrettably. Ugly. Don't condone it. But to act as if it's one and the same is a special kind of disingenuous, or a special kind of special, and your continual mental gymnastics are leading towards point #2.

---

So you asked about America bombing hospitals, I gave you an example, and now you're upset because it didn't get the same sensational coverage, which means it didn't happen, or maybe it means it did happen, but if it did then it's not the same.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

---

We know what you're doing, though - nut-picking to build a composition fallacy under a penumbra of false equivalence.

No nation has ever worked harder to limit collateral damage than the USA. Russia, on the other hand, is as a matter of policy the modern incarnation of the Golden Horde, purposely destroying any city which does not surrender, building by building - total destruction of civilization. They do this as both a terror tactic, to coerce future surrenders, as well as for ethnic cleansing purposes. Once you destroy the city, anyone remaining is by definition a combatant to be shot on sight, freeing up a largely uninhabited frontier for redevelopment by Russian oligarchs.

But Sam is predilected to oppose the war so obviously Russia is doing nothing we wouldn't do, or haven't already done.

---

They are now. It's not their preference or their original plan.

---

Half correct. It was certainly not their original plan, which assumed the Zelensky govt. would flee into exile at first cannon shot.

It is, however, their preference. It's how they do war. They actually pride themselves on it. Grind things up slowly, out-suffer the opponent. Not working out so well this time around…..

---

Right, but they didn't quite realize they were doing war. Or so it seems.

How y'all gonna feel in 4 years when this is still ongoing because Joe Biden can get 80+ million votes for term 2 and the tab is a couple trillion dollars?