Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too. That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it. Or about the state of the Russian military. Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.

---

How much of Ukraine would you like to see Russia conquer before it agrees to Trump's ceasefire proposal? Do you think it needs to topple the president and install a dummy president who will do Russia's bidding? Or would you prefer perhaps Russia simply annex the entire country?

Just trying to get the Russian perspective. Thanks.

---

It doesn't really matter to me how much of Ukraine they conquer. You still think our involvement is a bad idea, or have you changed your mind now that Trump is in charge?

---

Well, you're on record as saying that you understand why Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, so at the very least you've analyzed and taken a position on that issue. I am curious what you think would be acceptable for Russia? Annex the entire country? Install a puppet govt.? What?

As I've always said, I think Biden's provocation, which gave Putin the excuse he so badly desired for a land grab, was bullsh. His bellicose rhetoric gave Putin just the cover he needed to justify something he had wanted to do for years.

I still believe our involvement should be limited, and Trump should be looking for an off-ramp.

---

At a minimum it will be the four newly annexed oblasts and Crimea. Barring an agreement in the next month or two, they'll continue to the Dnieper and probably to Kiev and Odesa. Western Ukraine would be better off if annexed at that point, but I don't think Russia wants that.

---

Do you think the Russians should agree to ceasefire and land grab like you described, or should they continue to try and take more ground? Should toppling Ukraine be the goal? Or perhaps more appropriately, is continuing the conflict justified?

---

They should only agree to a ceasefire if their immediate conditions are met and there's a reliable process in place to resolve the underlying issues (and frankly I'm not sure that's possible, given the lack of trust).

---

So, they are justified in continuing to fight until the govt. is overthrown and a dummy govt. favorable to Russia has been installed, as the Russians have suggested?

---

I don't know what kind of government the Russians have suggested, but they would certainly be justified in overthrowing Zelensky. I'm not sure it would be wise at this point, since he's probably the best military strategist the Russians have.

---

Well, I don't know what kind of military strategist Zelensky is, but given the fact that he has been able to rally most of the free world to his cause, and Russian military deaths range from 146,194 to 211,169, according to the BBC, and Russians have failed to capture the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past 3 years, despite the Ukrainians being badly outgunned and outnumbered, I'd say at the very least he's been effective. The Russians have fared pretty poorly by any objective measure when you consider the odds.

So you believe Russia is justified in continuing this war until the Ukrainian govt. is toppled. Correct?

---

Asked and answered.

Capturing the vast majority of Ukrainian territory in the past three years wasn't the strategy. Destroying the Ukrainian army was.

---

Actually, Putin's stated goal, which you used to parrot, was to "protect the people" of the Russian-controlled breakaway republics, protect them from "genocide" and to rid it of Neo-Nazis. He also said the goal was to topple the Ukrainian govt., which he branded illegitimate. I suppose trying to destroy the military was a part of that goal, but we know for a fact that Russia thought it could march quickly to Kyiv, topple Zelensky, and then ultimately gain control over Ukraine.

Perhaps you'd be cool with Russian parking a nuke over Kyiv. That would seem to solve the stated goal.

---

What Putin said and thought was somewhat different from the above, but that's been well covered.

---

Incorrect. This is generally what he said, and were his stated goals.

Don't like the idea of parking a nuke over Kyiv?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

---

The question is meaningless. It's neither fair nor unfair.

---

Well, to be fair, you brought up the idea that terroristic and totalitarian regimes responsible for killing Americans have the same rights to the technology as everyone else.

If you don't like the word "fair," your comments at the very least suggest you take no issue whatsoever with Russian supplying terroristic and totalitarian regimes who've killed numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology (which we all know can and has been used to advanced a nuclear weapons program). Does this accurately describe your position or no?

---

Saudi Arabia is closer to a totalitarian regime than Iran is. All we really know about Iran's nuclear weapons program is that we succeeded in curtailing it and the neocons have been lying and obstructing agreements ever since.

Iran doesn't have a strong air force and relies heavily on missiles for deterrence and defense. I'm not aware of any ballistic missile treaties to which Iran is a party. If they were receiving assistance from Russia in violation of any such treaties, I would take issue with it. But it would have no relevance to my point. It wouldn't come close to waging war against the United States.

---

Not to mention Saudi Arabia has poured more money (billions) into spreading radical Islam around the world.

And since Saudi Arabia is home to the most holy sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina) and that it is interested in reaching Sunni Muslims (80% of the world population) its been far more effective and deadly at spreading the poison of radicalism than has Iran....who targets Shiites and has less money

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

---

The question is meaningless. It's neither fair nor unfair.

---

Well, to be fair, you brought up the idea that terroristic and totalitarian regimes responsible for killing Americans have the same rights to the technology as everyone else.

If you don't like the word "fair," your comments at the very least suggest you take no issue whatsoever with Russian supplying terroristic and totalitarian regimes who've killed numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology (which we all know can and has been used to advanced a nuclear weapons program). Does this accurately describe your position or no?

---

Saudi Arabia is closer to a totalitarian regime than Iran is. All we really know about Iran's nuclear weapons program is that we succeeded in curtailing it and the neocons have been lying and obstructing agreements ever since.

Iran doesn't have a strong air force and relies heavily on missiles for deterrence and defense. I'm not aware of any ballistic missile treaties to which Iran is a party. If they were receiving assistance from Russia in violation of any such treaties, I would take issue with it. But it would have no relevance to my point. It wouldn't come close to waging war against the United States.

---

So, the answer is you take no issue with Russia supplying a terrorist regime responsible for killing numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology, correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Iran has not yet aggressively and illegally invaded any democratic republics with the stated intention of toppling them. So in that sense, you are right it's an apples to oranges comparison. If it did so, I suspect it could count on most of the free and democratic world pushing back on such conduct.

---

I don't know what you mean by "advanced weaponry."

The US and Russia have both agreed to supply Iran with civilian nuclear technology. If Russia does so, it is only fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If we were more interested in arms reduction and less interested in regime change, we would do the same.

I don't have an issue with Iran's ballistic missiles per se. We can't tell everyone we don't like that they have no right to national defense. The world has never worked that way and never will.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

I have not just assumed such was going on, but frequently expressed frustration that we did not go further, sooner.

That the author attempts to present the bloody obvious (to anyone who has actually played the game) as a game-changing revelation shows that he is at best a propagandist, and at worst a naive neophyte purveying nonsense (that anything he alleged would remotely be a spark for war).

Nato is grinding down Russia's ability to wage war in the future. The 100yr stockpile of ordnance is gone. Forever. Now, Russia has to fight Nato head-up on manpower (where it has a 3-1 disadvantage) and industrial might (where it has a 10-1 disadvantage). It can no longer count on engaging in exactly the kind of warfare we see going on in Ukraine, burning thru steel & shot & blood & bone to outlast its opponent's will to fight. It will have to either engage in a blitzkrieg to force a quick surrender, or somehow find a way to overcome the 10x distance between their GDP and Nato's GDP in order to test it's belief that it cannot lose a war of wills. Russia cannot hope to do either one. Never has. Never will (as long as they lumber on in autocracy).

---

Our orchestration of the Maidan putsch was obvious, too.
Obvious only to propagandists pushing conspiracy theories.....
That's never stopped you from churning out disinformation about it.
Facts are not disinformation, and it is a fact you have no proof of your allegations.
Or about the state of the Russian military.
Almost everyone overestimated their capabilities. You still do.
Or about our participation in long-range attacks on Russian soil, which you've denied precisely because it could spark a war.
LOL I have stated frequently and pointedly the opposite, that our reluctance to authorize them was far too cautious, that Russia had no effect escalation to play, because A) it was already attacking Ukraine with max effort and B) it would not dare attack Nato directly.

I welcome your acknowledgment that Russia is fighting the war in its preferred manner, not trying and failing to imitate the NATO model. It only took you 1,000 years to figure this out. What you'll learn rather more quickly, in the nearly unthinkable event that NATO joins the war, is that GDPs don't build munitions. Munition factories do. For all its flaws, Russian autocracy has given them an advantage over our profit-based military-industrial complex.
Only temporarily. GDP does indeed set the limit for war production. If/when Nato mobilizes to the degree Russia has, Russia is toast. And one of the side-benefits of Trump's policy approach is that it's win-win: either we get peace, or we get Europe taking over the lead on support for Ukraine. And Europe is already moving to do so.

But all is not lost. Trump is reducing commitments in Europe and allocating resources to the Pacific and Taiwan. You'll get to see lots more meddling in other people's politics. More propaganda and rabble-rousing. More money wasted and lives lost. Maybe even more reckless tempting of the nuclear fates. You just won't see it in Ukraine for much longer.
Blah blah blah more Ivan talking

---

I hope you are getting well paid for your schtick.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia's done worse in Afghanistan. Syria, and Iraq.

.

---

Russia was never in Afghanistan…the USSR was

I also don't remember them being in Iraq

---

distinction without a difference. Russian involvement in Afghanistan has quite a long history, regardless of regime.

What happened with Maidan is obvious to you too.

You missed my point as to long-range missile strikes. Yes, you advocated more, but you denied our obvious participation in them.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia's done worse in Afghanistan. Syria, and Iraq.

.

---

Russia was never in Afghanistan…the USSR was

I also don't remember them being in Iraq

---

distinction without a difference. Russian involvement in Afghanistan has quite a long history, regardless of regime.

---

So you admit that some countries (under whatever regime) care more about certain regions more than we ever could

Almost like the UK will always care more about Ireland than China will.

Or Russia will care more about Eastern Europe and Central Asia than Brazil will

Or that the USA will always care more about Canada and Mexico more than Russia can….

It's a most like spheres of influence exist and are in fact a reality….and need to be respected

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia has propped up Syria for years, not only with weapons, but manpower. It's forces actually attacked US positions in Syria back in 2018 in the Battle of Khasham. It has been the number one supplier of advanced conventional arms to Iran, technology for its ballistic missile and chemical and biological warfare programs, and is Iran's sole source of "civilian" nuclear technology. And it has provided the same sort of technology and arms to NK.

The idea that Russia's support for these countries is not "remotely comparable" to our degree of involvement in Ukraine is certainly a hot take.

---

It's not clear that any Russians were involved in the isolated incident at Khasham. Certainly no regular Russian forces were. So no, not remotely comparable, nor are any of the other policies you mentioned.

---

The reports of Wagner Group mercenaries (the same mercenaries used by Russia in Ukraine) killed during the battle - which by the way has been reported by multiple independent sources, including the NYT - are no less credible than the NYT article you claim evidences deep NATO involvement in Ukraine. And there are likewise reports they were led and directed by members of the Russian military.

But I do understand why you'd never admit that Russians providing guns, ballistic missiles, nuclear technology and manpower for our enemies to attack us is indeed comparable. Russian propagandist has to propagandize.

---

The Russians and Americans were on the deconfliction phone line throughout, and we were told no Russians were involved. It later emerged, through a detailed report by Der Spiegel, that a few Russian contractors stationed nearby were killed in an airstrike. But they were not participating in the fighting. In any case, Khasham was barely a pin***** compared to what's happened in Ukraine.

---

Well that settles it then. If the Russians said it, you have to believe them.

I think providing ballistic missile and nuclear technology to an adversary whose proxy groups have killed many Americans is "remotely comparable" to assisting a democratic republic illegally invaded by a foreign aggressor. I suspect most reasonable people would agree.

---

Do you know the purpose of a deconfliction line? It seems not.

Iran has every right to a civilian nuclear program, but that's beside the point. Simply being allied with Iran or sharing technology with them is not an act of war against the US.

---

Objection, relevance.

Counselor, I wouldn't expect a regime that lies repeatedly to ever admit any Russian involvement (despite evidence to the contrary).

Does Iran have a right to ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry and reported chemical and biological weapons, as well?

---

They have rights to the same technology that anyone else does. For obvious reasons, I take rumors of Iranian WMD with a grain of salt. That's as far as I want to go down that rabbit trail.

---

So you're cool with it, then?

Let's put aside the WMD's for a moment. Do you believe all totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans have a "right" to be supplied with ballistic missile technology, and advanced weaponry? I mean, is that only "fair" in your book?

---

As opposed to what? Disarming every country in the world that's ever killed an American? Your question suggests a completely unrealistic view of foreign policy.

---

As opposed to the Russians not arming totalitarian and terroristic regimes responsible for killing Americans (among others). Do you think it's only fair that such regimes should be supplied with ballistic missile technology and advanced weaponry?

---

The question is meaningless. It's neither fair nor unfair.

---

Well, to be fair, you brought up the idea that terroristic and totalitarian regimes responsible for killing Americans have the same rights to the technology as everyone else.

If you don't like the word "fair," your comments at the very least suggest you take no issue whatsoever with Russian supplying terroristic and totalitarian regimes who've killed numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology (which we all know can and has been used to advanced a nuclear weapons program). Does this accurately describe your position or no?

---

Saudi Arabia is closer to a totalitarian regime than Iran is. All we really know about Iran's nuclear weapons program is that we succeeded in curtailing it and the neocons have been lying and obstructing agreements ever since.

Iran doesn't have a strong air force and relies heavily on missiles for deterrence and defense. I'm not aware of any ballistic missile treaties to which Iran is a party. If they were receiving assistance from Russia in violation of any such treaties, I would take issue with it. But it would have no relevance to my point. It wouldn't come close to waging war against the United States.

---

So, the answer is you take no issue with Russia supplying a terrorist regime responsible for killing numerous Americans with ballistic missile technology, advanced weaponry, and "civilian" nuclear technology, correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Iran has not yet aggressively and illegally invaded any democratic republics with the stated intention of toppling them. So in that sense, you are right it's an apples to oranges comparison. If it did so, I suspect it could count on most of the free and democratic world pushing back on such conduct.

---

I don't know what you mean by "advanced weaponry."

The US and Russia have both agreed to supply Iran with civilian nuclear technology. If Russia does so, it is only fulfilling its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If we were more interested in arms reduction and less interested in regime change, we would do the same.

I don't have an issue with Iran's ballistic missiles per se. We can't tell everyone we don't like that they have no right to national defense. The world has never worked that way and never will.

---

Notice I didn't ask if you believed they had a "right" to a national defense. What I asked is whether a terrorist regime responsible for killing numerous Americans should be supplied with the means of that defense by Russia, whatever that may be. And just FYI, what we know is those weapons haven't merely been used for defensive purposes.

Still haven't gotten a definitive confirmation. Can you answer?

What you asked was whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Have you seen the rail and road links being created between China-Russia-Iran

I wonder how you think we can even stop them from trading for selling each other weaponry

Our ability to influence events in Central Asia is very very limited

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Have you seen the rail and road links being created between China-Russia-Iran

I wonder how you think we can even stop them from trading for selling each other weaponry

Our ability to influence events in Central Asia is very very limited

---

I didn't make any comment regarding whether we can stop it. Read my posts again.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Have you seen the rail and road links being created between China-Russia-Iran

I wonder how you think we can even stop them from trading for selling each other weaponry

Our ability to influence events in Central Asia is very very limited

---

I didn't make any comment regarding whether we can stop it. Read my posts again.

---

I was just asking a follow up question

Like it or hate it....what exactly can the USA do?

The power of DC to shape events far from its imperial core....and with other regional powers now linked by expanding trade networks of new modern rail and highways in the heart of Asia is very limited

2600+ projects completed, in the works, or planned In their region in terms of transportation infrastructure

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Have you seen the rail and road links being created between China-Russia-Iran

I wonder how you think we can even stop them from trading for selling each other weaponry

Our ability to influence events in Central Asia is very very limited

---

I didn't make any comment regarding whether we can stop it. Read my posts again.

---

I was just asking a follow up question

Like it or hate it....what exactly can the USA do?

The power of DC to shape events far from its imperial core....and with other regional powers now linked by expanding trade networks of new modern rail and highways in the heart of Asia is very limited

---

Not much, unfortunately. Doesn't mean it's not wrong.

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Have you seen the rail and road links being created between China-Russia-Iran

I wonder how you think we can even stop them from trading for selling each other weaponry

Our ability to influence events in Central Asia is very very limited

---

I didn't make any comment regarding whether we can stop it. Read my posts again.

---

I was just asking a follow up question

Like it or hate it....what exactly can the USA do?

The power of DC to shape events far from its imperial core....and with other regional powers now linked by expanding trade networks of new modern rail and highways in the heart of Asia is very limited

---

Not much, unfortunately. Doesn't mean it's not wrong.

---

No, but at the least it might mean we need a major revaluation of our Foreign policy strategy

DC seems to be actively trying to drive Russia-Iran-China close together

A very dangerous situation when you created a hostile bloc like that in the heart of Eurasia

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

---

Tactical support is what Russia offered us in Afghanistan. We're doing a lot more than that in Ukraine. That's the whole point here. We're basically providing everything except the cannon fodder. In all other ways, Ukraine is our war.

The US has probably been the biggest state sponsor of terror over the last 100 years. We're a flagrant violator of international law and the only country to have used nuclear weapons. If you were really guided by "values," you'd be more worried about that. Should we have access to high-tech weapons and nukes? Probably not, but you don't hear me whining about it. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. The Iranians feel the same way.

You ought to know that Netanyahu has long been determined to get us into war with Iran. He tried last year and failed largely because of Iran's ballistic missiles. Without them Iran would immediately be attacked, and the US would most likely be drawn in. Maybe you haven't thought it through, or maybe that's what you want. Reasonable people want no part of it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

---

Tactical support is what Russia offered us in Afghanistan. We're doing a lot more than that in Ukraine. That's the whole point here. We're basically providing everything except the cannon fodder. In all other ways, Ukraine is our war.

The US has probably been the biggest state sponsor of terror over the last 100 years. We're a flagrant violator of international law and the only country to have used nuclear weapons. If you were really guided by "values," you'd be more worried about that. Should we have access to high-tech weapons and nukes? Probably not, but you don't hear me whining about it. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. The Iranians feel the same way.

You ought to know that Netanyahu has long been determined to get us into war with Iran. They tried last year and failed largely because of Iran's ballistic missiles. Without them Iran would immediately be attacked, and the US would most likely be drawn in. Maybe you haven't thought it through, or maybe that's what you want. Reasonable people want no part of it.

---

ROFL!!!!!

"Russia is not just reconstituting service members but is also replacing combat vehicles and munitions at an unprecedented pace. Russian ground forces in Ukraine have lost an estimated 3,000 tanks, 9,000 armored vehicles, 13,000 artillery systems, and over 400 air defense systems in the past year--but is on pace to replace them all. Russia has expanded its industrial production, opened new manufacturing facilities, and converted commercial production lines for military purposes. As a result, the Russian defense industrial base is expected to roll out 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored vehicles, and 200 Iskander ballistic and cruise missiles this year. (Comparatively, the United States only produces about 135 tanks per year and no longer produces new Bradley Fighting Vehicles.) Additionally, we anticipate Russia to produce 250,000 artillery shells per month, which puts it on track to build a stockpile three times greater than the United States and Europe combined."

Gen. Christopher Cavoli, April 3, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

---

Tactical support is what Russia offered us in Afghanistan. We're doing a lot more than that in Ukraine. That's the whole point here. We're basically providing everything except the cannon fodder. In all other ways, Ukraine is our war.

The US has probably been the biggest state sponsor of terror over the last 100 years. We're a flagrant violator of international law and the only country to have used nuclear weapons. If you were really guided by "values," you'd be more worried about that. Should we have access to high-tech weapons and nukes? Probably not, but you don't hear me whining about it. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. The Iranians feel the same way.

You ought to know that Netanyahu has long been determined to get us into war with Iran. He tried last year and failed largely because of Iran's ballistic missiles. Without them Iran would immediately be attacked, and the US would most likely be drawn in. Maybe you haven't thought it through, or maybe that's what you want. Reasonable people want no part of it.

---

Tell me you hate our country without telling me you hate our country.

Iran is an evil and despotic regime. It subjugates its people, and brutalizes them. It is anti-democracy and anti-freedom in every sense of the word. It sows discord and terror throughout the ME, which is why it is universally viewed as a pariah by the vast majority of the free world. It would have no need for ballistic missiles if it knew how to behave and live at peace with its neighbors, such as Israel. But we know it has a blood lust for the Jews (as well as any people that don't adhere to its belief system), and would love nothing more than to finish the Holocaust.

That you would equate Iran to the United States, and defend Iran's right to have ballistic missiles is all we need to know about you. Disgusting.

Sam Lowry said:

---

"Russia is not just reconstituting service members but is also replacing combat vehicles and munitions at an unprecedented pace. Russian ground forces in Ukraine have lost an estimated 3,000 tanks, 9,000 armored vehicles, 13,000 artillery systems, and over 400 air defense systems in the past year--but is on pace to replace them all. Russia has expanded its industrial production, opened new manufacturing facilities, and converted commercial production lines for military purposes. As a result, the Russian defense industrial base is expected to roll out 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored vehicles, and 200 Iskander ballistic and cruise missiles this year. (Comparatively, the United States only produces about 135 tanks per year and no longer produces new Bradley Fighting Vehicles.) Additionally, we anticipate Russia to produce 250,000 artillery shells per month, which puts it on track to build a stockpile three times greater than the United States and Europe combined."

Gen. Christopher Cavoli, April 3, 2025

---

Well, we know this is the kind of news that makes you happy.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

---

Tactical support is what Russia offered us in Afghanistan. We're doing a lot more than that in Ukraine. That's the whole point here. We're basically providing everything except the cannon fodder. In all other ways, Ukraine is our war.

The US has probably been the biggest state sponsor of terror over the last 100 years. We're a flagrant violator of international law and the only country to have used nuclear weapons. If you were really guided by "values," you'd be more worried about that. Should we have access to high-tech weapons and nukes? Probably not, but you don't hear me whining about it. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. The Iranians feel the same way.

You ought to know that Netanyahu has long been determined to get us into war with Iran. He tried last year and failed largely because of Iran's ballistic missiles. Without them Iran would immediately be attacked, and the US would most likely be drawn in. Maybe you haven't thought it through, or maybe that's what you want. Reasonable people want no part of it.

---

Tell me you hate our country without telling me you hate our country.

---

Grow up.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

---

Tactical support is what Russia offered us in Afghanistan. We're doing a lot more than that in Ukraine. That's the whole point here. We're basically providing everything except the cannon fodder. In all other ways, Ukraine is our war.

The US has probably been the biggest state sponsor of terror over the last 100 years. We're a flagrant violator of international law and the only country to have used nuclear weapons. If you were really guided by "values," you'd be more worried about that. Should we have access to high-tech weapons and nukes? Probably not, but you don't hear me whining about it. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. The Iranians feel the same way.

You ought to know that Netanyahu has long been determined to get us into war with Iran. He tried last year and failed largely because of Iran's ballistic missiles. Without them Iran would immediately be attacked, and the US would most likely be drawn in. Maybe you haven't thought it through, or maybe that's what you want. Reasonable people want no part of it.

---

Tell me you hate our country without telling me you hate our country.

---

Grow up.

---

The morals of anybody who attempts to make an equivalency argument between the United States and Iran need to be seriously questioned.

For years you have consistently been on the side of the immoral and in some instances the evil. I would submit you need some serious self-reflection and self examination.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

---

Tactical support is what Russia offered us in Afghanistan. We're doing a lot more than that in Ukraine. That's the whole point here. We're basically providing everything except the cannon fodder. In all other ways, Ukraine is our war.

The US has probably been the biggest state sponsor of terror over the last 100 years. We're a flagrant violator of international law and the only country to have used nuclear weapons. If you were really guided by "values," you'd be more worried about that. Should we have access to high-tech weapons and nukes? Probably not, but you don't hear me whining about it. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. The Iranians feel the same way.

You ought to know that Netanyahu has long been determined to get us into war with Iran. He tried last year and failed largely because of Iran's ballistic missiles. Without them Iran would immediately be attacked, and the US would most likely be drawn in. Maybe you haven't thought it through, or maybe that's what you want. Reasonable people want no part of it.

---

Tell me you hate our country without telling me you hate our country.

---

Grow up.

---

The morals of anybody who attempts to make an equivalency argument between the United States and Iran need to be seriously questioned.

For years you have consistently been on the side of the immoral and in some instances the evil. I would submit you need some serious self-reflection and self examination.

---

Says the guy who defended torture at Gitmo.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What you asked is whether I took issue with it. I don't in the sense of seeing it as a provocation. It might be nice if Iran had fewer missiles, but that's an issue that would have to be discussed in a broad context of regional arms control and security agreements.

---

So you're cool with Russia providing that type of weaponry to Iran. Got it.

---

Cool as opposed to hysterical and overwrought? Sure. It's certainly better than launching those missiles at us…which brings us back to the point. Nothing Russia is doing in Iran or anywhere else is in the same category as our proxy war in Ukraine.

---

Lord knows it would be beyond the pale to ask Sam Lowry to get "hysterical and overwrought" over something as minor as Russia providing weaponry to a terrorist state. But I didn't ask that of you.

Instead, I asked for a simple judgment call from a fellow American regarding whether he believed it's wrong for Russia to supply weaponry to a known terrorist state which has used those weapons to spread terrorism across the ME (and against our country). And while it took you a while, you have finally acknowledged you have no issue with it. I can't say I am at all surprised by your admission, but it does confirm for me at least that we no longer hold any of the same values, so I do appreciate you responding.

Regarding your side point, we disagree that Russia providing ballistic missile technology and WMDs to Iran is not in the same league as NATO providing weaponry and tactical support to a democratic country illegally invaded by a totalitarian regime. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

---

Tactical support is what Russia offered us in Afghanistan. We're doing a lot more than that in Ukraine. That's the whole point here. We're basically providing everything except the cannon fodder. In all other ways, Ukraine is our war.

The US has probably been the biggest state sponsor of terror over the last 100 years. We're a flagrant violator of international law and the only country to have used nuclear weapons. If you were really guided by "values," you'd be more worried about that. Should we have access to high-tech weapons and nukes? Probably not, but you don't hear me whining about it. I don't want to be deprived of the ability to defend ourselves. The Iranians feel the same way.

You ought to know that Netanyahu has long been determined to get us into war with Iran. He tried last year and failed largely because of Iran's ballistic missiles. Without them Iran would immediately be attacked, and the US would most likely be drawn in. Maybe you haven't thought it through, or maybe that's what you want. Reasonable people want no part of it.

---

Tell me you hate our country without telling me you hate our country.

---

Grow up.

---

The morals of anybody who attempts to make an equivalency argument between the United States and Iran need to be seriously questioned.

For years you have consistently been on the side of the immoral and in some instances the evil. I would submit you need some serious self-reflection and self examination.

---

Says the guy who defended torture at Gitmo.

---

B.S.

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

Sam Lowry said:

---

What happened with Maidan is obvious to you too.

You missed my point as to long-range missile strikes. Yes, you advocated more, but you denied our obvious participation in them.

---

more reading comprehension problems for you = I complained that we refused to let them strike as deep as Russia was striking in Ukraine.

Proportionality is usually a very good policy to avoid escalation.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

I'm surprised the NYT is surprised.

Heck, we have posters with friends, colleagues, and family members working in Ukraine.

I've known since 2022 we were closely involved in strategy, etc., and there were countless reports that certain weapons required our assistance.

---

That's interesting, because I've been saying the same thing all along and have been called a propagandist.

I will point out a key takeaway from this. You've always maintained that what we're doing is no different from Russian support of our enemies in various places over the years. I think we can put that argument to rest, as nothing they've ever done remotely compares to our degree of involvement here.

---

Russia's done worse in Afghanistan. Syria, and Iraq.

.

---

Russia was never in Afghanistan…the USSR was

I also don't remember them being in Iraq

---

distinction without a difference. Russian involvement in Afghanistan has quite a long history, regardless of regime.

---

So you admit that some countries (under whatever regime) care more about certain regions more than we ever could.
Have never denied that. It's a huge factor. But caring and being able to do something about it are two very different things.

Almost like the UK will always care more about Ireland than China will.
Just like Nato (an alliance to which we are a member) will always care as much about Ukraine as Russia does.

Or Russia will care more about Eastern Europe and Central Asia than Brazil will.
Or Nato will care as much about Eastern Europe as Russia does; or China ill care as much about Central Asia as Russia does.

Or that the USA will always care more about Canada and Mexico more than Russia can….
Or that the USA/Nato will always care just as much about Scandanavia, Anatolia, and Eastern Europe as Russia does.

It's a most like spheres of influence exist and are in fact a reality….and need to be respected
Exactly the same way Russia resepected Nato's sphere.

---

You are holding onto a number of faulty premises:
1) that Ukraine belongs to Russia. (why does Ukraine fight for independence every time the opportunity occurs?)
2) that Nato has no interest in what happens to anything beyond its own borders. (Ukraine matters as much to Nato as it does to Russia).
3) that "once a great power, always a great power. (once upon a time, Ukraine was a greater power than Russia.)
4) that we are honor bound to maintain the spheres of influence of others. (we do so only when such benefits our own sphere of influence.)

Russia is entitled to control only what it actually can control.
Russia could defend itself against Nato invasion by engaging in policy less alarming to Nato.
etc.....


Russia is not defending itself against Nato. It's defending itself against modernity.
Russia is not defending itself against the Western Alliance. It's defending itself against the liberal order.

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

But reality always comes around eventually.

Then the search for scapegoats begins in earnest.

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Do you believe this to be a good thing?

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

---

I never thought (much less said) Russia was losing. I did suggest they've taken a hell of a lot more losses than they expected. Putin believed the whole thing would be over in a couple of weeks. Hundreds of thousands of casualties and 3 years later, not much has changed.

The idea that tariffs are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US in any significant numbers is a fantasy on the level of those who suggested Ukraine could win a war with Russia.

You will see in time.

KaiBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Ukraine get's it's ass kicked

https://www.facebook.com/reel/655054747126910

---

Remember when contributors around here were insisting the embargo's were working, how Putin was taking unaffordable casualties and Ukraine was going to force Russia to withdraw ?

Western propaganda works.

---

Kind of reminds me of the insistence that tariffs are working, and will end up bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

It was all a fantasy.

---

My friend I seem to remember a similar mentality whenever I said Russia was winning the war.

And like Russia wining the war ; tariffs and even just the threats of tariffs ; are going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US.

Time clarifies everything.

---

Several foreign companies have already made multibillion dollars commitments to expand manufacturing in the U.S. . Also, domestic companies are moving operations from Mexico and other places back to the U.S. Let's see if they follow through, but we've already seen trillions of dollars of investment opportunities from Volkswagen, Rolls Royce, Hyundai, and others.