Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.Sam Lowry said:In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.ATL Bear said:Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.ATL Bear said:Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.Sam Lowry said:You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.ATL Bear said:You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.Sam Lowry said:I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?ATL Bear said:Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.Sam Lowry said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.ATL Bear said:Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.ATL Bear said:Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.Sam Lowry said:Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.ATL Bear said:Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.Sam Lowry said:So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.ATL Bear said:That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.Sam Lowry said:
We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.
And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.
Only in America, folks.
All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.
Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.
You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.
The Putin Interview
50,220 Views |
885 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Mothra
Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different. But feel free to message me the names of the posters who you claim said we had no role in sparking the conflict if you're uncomfortable naming them for whatever reason.
Again, you still haven't made clear what your comments have to do with my posts, but I guess I'm just not going to get an answer to that question.
Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
We weren't in a position to necessitate surrender. The Japanese were, and continued to defy the intent to do so and got more brutal and irrational in their battle tactics and rhetoric on their people.Sam Lowry said:We didn't need negotiations in order to surrender, either. Anyone can surrender unconditionally at any time. That doesn't make it a reasonable expectation.ATL Bear said:The Japanese didn't need negotiations to surrender, and the war was going to be executed according to the best outcome for America. We'd just finished a brutal battle in Okinawa and were preparing to invade the islands of Japan proper.Sam Lowry said:No, my point is that we didn't bomb in order to force negotiations. We did it in order to avoid them.ATL Bear said:So your point is that our fire power brought an abrupt end to a brutal war with a brutal enemy under the terms we wanted, while avoiding a massive loss of American lives in a land invasion? Ok. And that's a bad thing because?? How many more nukes and firebombs do you think would have occurred had they refused, as was nearly the case?Sam Lowry said:Which demonstrates my point. Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped us avoid negotiation and obtain an unconditional surrender.ATL Bear said:The Potsdam Declaration was presented and rejected before any nuclear bombs were dropped. It took a matter of days after Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the terms to be accepted.Sam Lowry said:Exactly the point. We can debate whether the Japanese were ready to negotiate, though I think it's pretty clear they were. It's quite clear that we weren't, and that in itself vitiates any argument that we used nukes as a last resort.Redbrickbear said:Maybe they were willing to negotiate in good faith…maybe they were not.ATL Bear said:They wanted to keep all the lands they conquered and were willing to risk an invasion of Japan to keep as much as they could. There was no good faith negotiations occurring despite the recognition they were in trouble…Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:Except the Soviets had no interest and were not going to be a mediator. Your link above even says as much…Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Sam Lowry said:Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.ATL Bear said:Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.Sam Lowry said:So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.ATL Bear said:That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.Sam Lowry said:
We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.
And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.
Only in America, folks.
All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.
Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.
That is exactly what Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. They forced him to the table. Otherwise, this war would have gone on indefinitely, as the Japanese spurned every attempt by the Americans to end the war. And we tried. Repeatedly.
The Japanese were already trying to use the Soviets as a mediator in a negotiated end to the war.
I think what you mean is that the atomic bombs made Japan submit to an unconditional surrender.
Vs the conditional surrender they wanted to negotiate
What the bombs did do (along with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) was convince the Emperor that they had to unconditionally surrender…because the cabinet was still very much divided on the issue.
[Anami still wanted to fight on despite thinking the US might have had 100 atomic bombs and might use them on Tokyo.
It is true that Suzuki said at the cabinet meeting on the afternoon of August 13 that the atomic bombs nullified the traditional form of homeland defense. But it appears that the military treated the Nagasaki bomb as a part of the ordinary incendiary air raids. Even after the Nagasaki bomb, and even though Anami made startling assertions that the United States might possess more than 100 atomic bombs, and that the next target might be Tokyo, the military insisted upon the continuation of the Ketsu Go strategy. Anami's revelation did not seem to have any effect on the positions that each camp had held. The Nagasaki bomb simply did not substantially change the arguments of either side. The official history of the Imperial General Headquarters notes: "There is no record in other materials that treated the effect (of the Nagasaki bomb) seriously."]
[Meanwhile in the afternoon of August 8, before the entry of the Soviet Union into the war or the bombing of Nagasaki, the emperor met with Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo. Shortly after the war, Togo affirmed that the emperor stated the war must end at this meeting. New evidence now confirms Togo's account that it was the atomic bomb that moved the emperor to decide to end the war.]
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/japans-surrender-part-i
Certainly,
At the time they were wanting the Soviets to be their mediator old Joe Stalin was planning to eventually invade Japan and get back Sakhalin island and other lands the Czar had lost to Japan in 1905
But the fact is the Japanese leadership knew since the fall of Saipan that they could not win the war and were looking for a negotiated peace…one that would let them keep the Emperor and at least some of their pre-1939 lands
The point is that the USA leadership made a decision that they would settle for nothing less than unconditional surrender.
Surrender usually follows the realization.Sam Lowry said:As opposed to "it goes on until someone surrenders."ATL Bear said:After one or both sides realize the cost of continuing is too great.Sam Lowry said:That's not necessarily true at all. Many wars have ended with a negotiated peace.Oldbear83 said:
Sam: "Negotiating means dealing with people you may not like."
That's what you do in peacetime. When someone attacks you and you go to war, negotiating ends until someone surrenders. A negotiated surrender in WW2 was never a sane outcome for the Allies to accept.
The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.ATL Bear said:Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.Sam Lowry said:In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.ATL Bear said:Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.ATL Bear said:Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.Sam Lowry said:You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.ATL Bear said:You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.Sam Lowry said:I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?ATL Bear said:Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.Sam Lowry said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.ATL Bear said:Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.ATL Bear said:Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.Sam Lowry said:Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.ATL Bear said:Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.Sam Lowry said:So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.ATL Bear said:That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.Sam Lowry said:
We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.
And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.
Only in America, folks.
All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.
Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.
You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.
You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.Sam Lowry said:The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.ATL Bear said:Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.Sam Lowry said:In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.ATL Bear said:Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.ATL Bear said:Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.Sam Lowry said:You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.ATL Bear said:You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.Sam Lowry said:I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?ATL Bear said:Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.Sam Lowry said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.ATL Bear said:Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.ATL Bear said:Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.Sam Lowry said:Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.ATL Bear said:Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.Sam Lowry said:So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.ATL Bear said:That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.Sam Lowry said:
We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.
And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.
Only in America, folks.
All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.
Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.
You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.
Mothra said:
As for what everyday Russians think, you might find this hard to believe, but repressive states that restrict outside media, and feed their citizens propaganda, typically do support the despotic regime in power.
We get it. You are coming from a perspective where Putin is Hitler and you've bought into the Russia! Russia! Russia! myth.
What "despotic policies" does Russia enforce that the Ukraine or EU does not? I can name one that the political left would identify, that I dont consider despotic. Anything else?
Realitybites said:Mothra said:
As for what everyday Russians think, you might find this hard to believe, but repressive states that restrict outside media, and feed their citizens propaganda, typically do support the despotic regime in power.
We get it. You are coming from a perspective where Putin is Hitler and you've bought into the Russia! Russia! Russia! myth.
What "despotic policies" does Russia enforce that the Ukraine or EU does not? I can name one that the political left would identify, that I dont consider despotic. Anything else?
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Bear8084 said:
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.
I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
I appreciate your efforts to counter his bull**** narrative, but I've come to the conclusion you're wasting your time with this dishonest POS.
While true, anyone that knows Sam's 20-year posting history knows that is essentially what his views boil down to.Realitybites said:Bear8084 said:
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.
With all due respect, I don't think an apologist for the mass murder of innocent civilians is in a position to call anyone else cowardly.ATL Bear said:You have no point or grasp of reality. Only a cowardly narrative of anti-Americanism built around revisionist guilt. Devoid of facts and only a warped perspective, it's no wonder you claim truths as lies.Sam Lowry said:The regime wasn't honest with the people? You're proving my point. If you were held accountable for half the lies you believe, the angels would weep.ATL Bear said:Actually, that's mostly how it works, especially in a war of this scale. It starts first and foremost with crimes against peace levied on the invaders. But your response is even more absurd given the brutality of the regime on the civilians of the nations they invaded and conquered, and the nature of how they fight their wars. Civilians are taken into account to the level they can be. We dropped leaflets for months in Japan. But the regime was not honest with the people, and made them extra vulnerable to our necessary battle tactics. It was on full display in Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It was an inevitability on Japan proper. Fortunately it was expeditious enough to force surrender in short order.Sam Lowry said:In other words we're not responsible for anything because we're the good guys. That isn't how it works, especially not if you're interested in criticizing anyone else for war crimes. Like it or not, civilians are supposed to be protected.ATL Bear said:Soldiers who die have families just like civilians, and the impact of their sacrifice has an equal if not greater cascade effect. And where you concede the debate is that the blood of the civilians is on the enemy's hands and not their regime that put them in the situation.Sam Lowry said:You don't know how my family might have been affected if our soldiers had been ordered to invade. It's a given that lives are at stake in any war. The question is how many civilians can you justify sacrificing to save those whose business is to fight. If your only answer is "what about grandpa," you've conceded the debate.ATL Bear said:Your blind spot is your disdain for America. I frankly could care less about the saving of Japanese lives. It was a strategy that saved hundreds of thousands of American lives, and by circumstance ended up saving millions of Japanese as well. I'm curious how you bend your disregard for American soldiers lives into your moral origami.Sam Lowry said:You're talking about saving Japanese lives. It's quite a stretch to claim that was part of any war strategy. Sounds a lot more like a moral justification to me.ATL Bear said:You are asking about morality and justice. I'm dealing in justification and strategy. You're looking for retrospective guilt within the prism of modernity. I'm dealing with the realities of the war and era. If you want to noodle over the moral decision of killing 500,000 Japanese in order to save 500,000 American soldiers I can assure you of where I land. The fantasy you're entertaining is that neither was required, which is a pure revisionist hypothetical. So no, I have no interest in entertaining the latter.Sam Lowry said:I'm not asking about the justice of the war, I'm asking about the justice of dropping nuclear bombs on half-trained civilians who would have been little more than speed bumps in the path of an invading army. It sounded like you had an opinion a while ago, or have you just lost interest?ATL Bear said:Your "Just War" conversation is with someone else. The only moral conversation we've had is your attempt at moral equivalency for the bombing of Tokyo and/or Hiroshima and the rape and slaughter of captured civilians and POWs. Trying to equate morality with a battle objective is an exercise in futility. You follow rules and conventions that are in place to the best of your ability and the rest is the hell of war.Sam Lowry said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but you and others seem to be arguing that we were morally justified in nuking Japan. So it kind of does matter what you think. If you're saying anything goes and morality doesn't matter, let's be clear about that.ATL Bear said:Your boy Putin has them pointed at us right now, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with what you or I want or think, It has to do with the nature of enemies and war.Sam Lowry said:If you really believe we're all legitimate targets for a nuclear attack, you're way more anti-American than I'll ever be.ATL Bear said:Yes, it does make us all legitimate targets of an invader. Which is why if the roles were reversed the Japanese would have done similar or likely worse. Maybe you think something different, but that's the reality of war.Sam Lowry said:Your logic, not mine. All you're really saying is that Japan had a citizen militia. Horror of horrors, so did we. It brings to mind the quote about Japan invading America and finding a rifle behind every blade of grass. Apocryphal or not, there's a lot of truth to the observation. Plenty of Americans would fight to defend their homeland in the event of an invasion, and rightly so. Do you really think that makes us legitimate targets for a weapon of mass destruction? Take a step back and consider how warped that is.ATL Bear said:Only in Sam's warped logic does it get framed that way.Sam Lowry said:So we used a nuclear bomb against women and children wielding bamboo spears...and we were doing them a favor.ATL Bear said:That's an extremely warped perspective and ignorant of the factual history. Negotiating for peace? Even after Nagasaki and the planned surrender, there was an attempt by some Senior Japanese officers to stop it in a coup. I'm sorry the people had to suffer under the extreme militaristic and fanatical leadership of Imperial Japan, who literally had a belief in invincibility. But what you call terror and intimidation tactics saved millions of lives. Every citizen of Japan was prepped as a warrior, including women and children, so every target was a military one.Sam Lowry said:
We were preparing for an invasion because we were determined not to negotiate the peace. So if we "saved" the Japanese from anything, it was only from ourselves.
And fire-bombing is not a battle tactic any more than mass rape or any of the other atrocities committed by Japan. It's a terrorist tactic designed to demoralize and intimidate a population.
Only in America, folks.
All of the propaganda about Japanese fighting to the death overlooks one point. They were ordered, or at least believed it was their patriotic duty, to do so. When the emperor surrendered, so did they. Sure, there were a few holdouts and dead-enders hiding out in caves, isolated from news reports, living on bugs and rainwater, sharpening sticks and piling up pebbles sort of like Whiterock plotting the "liberation" of Crimea.
Everyone else acknowledged reality and got on with their lives. Our beef wasn't with them. It was with the emperor. We wanted him gone and didn't care how many people, including women and children, we had to kill to make that happen.
You and OldBear are wrong to suggest that moral questions weren't raised at the time. If there's any revisionism going on here, it's that.
Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
Just because someone recognizes that Putin is an effective Russian leader who loves HIS country doesn't mean anything more than that. Don't you wish that we had a President who cared as much about America as Putin does about Russia?
I travel extensively. I would 100% rather live in Moscow in 2024 than London or Frankfurt. I'd also 100% rather live in Fort Worth or Jacksonville than Moscow. But yes - there are places in America (San Francisco, LA, Philly - pretty much any hardcore blue city in a blue state) that I would pick Russia over if forced to choose.
I'm on team Jesus. After that, I'm on team family, and team me. I've long passed the stage of my life where I hold a mindless allegiance to a flag.
I travel extensively. I would 100% rather live in Moscow in 2024 than London or Frankfurt. I'd also 100% rather live in Fort Worth or Jacksonville than Moscow. But yes - there are places in America (San Francisco, LA, Philly - pretty much any hardcore blue city in a blue state) that I would pick Russia over if forced to choose.
I'm on team Jesus. After that, I'm on team family, and team me. I've long passed the stage of my life where I hold a mindless allegiance to a flag.
Realitybites said:
Just because someone recognizes that Putin is an effective Russian leader who loves HIS country doesn't mean anything more than that. Don't you wish that we had a President who cared as much about America as Putin does about Russia?
ROFL. I said we get it. "US bad, Russia good." Shill gonna shill.
ExactlyRealitybites said:Bear8084 said:
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.
Is the United States less murderous than most.....probably.
But don't try to sell this narrative to much of the rest of the world.
Especially those countries we still hit with air strikes, missil launches and drone attacks.
Americans were generally much less murderous than the Germans, Russians, or Japanese. The fire-bombing and use of nuclear weapons were a departure from our ideals and from our usual course of conduct. Unfortunately they set a precedent and perverted our way of thinking to such an extent that we now abhor the very idea of compromise.KaiBear said:ExactlyRealitybites said:Bear8084 said:
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.
Is the United States less murderous than most.....probably.
But don't try to sell this narrative to much of the rest of the world.
Especially those countries we still hit with air strikes, missil launches and drone attacks.
Thought provoking conclusion .Sam Lowry said:Americans were generally much less murderous than the Germans, Russians, or Japanese. The fire-bombing and use of nuclear weapons were a departure from our ideals and from our usual course of conduct. Unfortunately they set a precedent and perverted our way of thinking to such an extent that we now abhor the very idea of compromise.KaiBear said:ExactlyRealitybites said:Bear8084 said:
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.
Is the United States less murderous than most.....probably.
But don't try to sell this narrative to much of the rest of the world.
Especially those countries we still hit with air strikes, missil launches and drone attacks.
Well done.
Not sure I agree as we certainly concluded the Korean War via compromise; as well as our departure from Vietnam. ( of course we totally sold out South Vietnam in the process ).
KaiBear said:ExactlyRealitybites said:Bear8084 said:
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.
Is the United States less murderous than most.....probably.
A lot less murderous but we make a big mess a lot by getting involved in places we don't know much about and then getting bored and leaving.
"America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair."
-Arnold Toynbee
Realitybites said:Mothra said:
As for what everyday Russians think, you might find this hard to believe, but repressive states that restrict outside media, and feed their citizens propaganda, typically do support the despotic regime in power.
We get it. You are coming from a perspective where Putin is Hitler and you've bought into the Russia! Russia! Russia! myth.
What "despotic policies" does Russia enforce that the Ukraine or EU does not? I can name one that the political left would identify, that I dont consider despotic. Anything else?
Honestly, what a really bizarre take. I think Putin is Hitler? No. I would submit that there is a sliding scale of dictators. Some are worse than others, though they share many of the same qualities.
Putin is a despot. There's no question. He's repeatedly changed the Russian constitution to allow himself control of Russia, he squelches any political dissent and jails or kills his political opponents, he attacks surrounding countries that he feels don't align with Russia's strategic interest, and he's president of one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism in the world today, especially the cyber variety. But that does not make him Hitler. Good grief.
Again, I think the issue is some of you Putin dick suckers confuse, critiques of Putin, as tacit approval of US actions toward Russia and Ukraine. You're not bright enough to distinguish the difference.
Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
Realitybites said:
Just because someone recognizes that Putin is an effective Russian leader who loves HIS country doesn't mean anything more than that. Don't you wish that we had a President who cared as much about America as Putin does about Russia?
I travel extensively. I would 100% rather live in Moscow in 2024 than London or Frankfurt. I'd also 100% rather live in Fort Worth or Jacksonville than Moscow. But yes - there are places in America (San Francisco, LA, Philly - pretty much any hardcore blue city in a blue state) that I would pick Russia over if forced to choose.
I'm on team Jesus. After that, I'm on team family, and team me. I've long passed the stage of my life where I hold a mindless allegiance to a flag.
You're on team Jesus, but don't have a problem with a killer like Putin invading other countries, squelching political dissent and killing innocent people.
Brother, I would submit you are the kind of Christian, who might be a stumbling block for others. There is a dichotomy between Jesus teachings and yourbelief.
KaiBear said:ExactlyRealitybites said:Bear8084 said:
We get it, you bought into the US bad, Russia good myth. Shill.
Life and history are too complicated to try and pigeonhole countries into categories like this.
Is the United States less murderous than most.....probably.
But don't try to sell this narrative to much of the rest of the world.
Especially those countries we still hit with air strikes, missil launches and drone attacks.
Indeed, due to our murderous past, there is no way we can ever sit in a position to judge any conduct as wrong or murderous. We should sit silent when bad men do bad things, or try to figure out a way to rationalize their actions. That's why we will never hear a single critique from you of Putin.
Amiright?
Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
But of course our own actions in Iraq don't fall under such a criteria.
This whole "how dare Russia invade the sovereign nation of Ukraine....while we the USA can invade the sovereign nation of Iraq" ring very hollow.
DC would be standing on much stronger ground had they not done that (against the will of the international community)
Not to mention every unjust war on the planet is NOT the concern of the USA or the American people.
Sometimes horribly unjust wars take place and its not the role of the USA to spend its money fighting them.
I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
To the contrary, that is EXACTLY what Sam has said. Ask him.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
Sam Lowry said:I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
lol well I stand corrected.
I should then say that most of us are not making that argument
Redbear-Sam Lowry said:I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
See? I agree, it's incredible, but this is the immoral POS you're defending.
Never said or suggested anyone other than Sam has made the argument. While Kai's silence is disappointing, I don't think he is making this argument either. Just a bunch of whataboutism out of him.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
lol well I stand corrected.
I should then say that most of us are not making that argument
Now hopefully you see why the Putin shill comments are warranted. Anyone who could defend this despot's actions in Ukraine (among other areas) is not a Christian, much less a person with any semblance of a moral compass. The idea that Christ would be ok with Putin's decision to invade and kill others is a demonic distortion of his teachings. There is no other way to describe it.
And for the record, I generally agree with your comments regarding our conduct in Iraq. Our interventionist foreign policy since the 60's has been very regrettable. But I don't think that limits us from calling wrong conduct wrong.
You might want to kind of try to understand JWT before passing judgment, but maybe that's just me.Mothra said:Never said or suggested anyone other than Sam has made the argument. While Kai's silence is disappointing, I don't think he is making this argument either. Just a bunch of whataboutism out of him.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
lol well I stand corrected.
I should then say that most of us are not making that argument
Now hopefully you see why the Putin shill comments are warranted. Anyone who could defend this despot's actions in Ukraine (among other areas) is not a Christian, much less a person with any semblance of a moral compass. The idea that Christ would be ok with Putin's decision to invade and kill others is a demonic distortion of his teachings. There is no other way to describe it.
Mothra said:Redbear-Sam Lowry said:I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
See? I agree, it's incredible, but this is the immoral POS you're defending.
Yup.
As always, the offer stands for you to make an argument for the following well-settled JW criteria: 1) Ukraine posed an imminent threat to innocent life; and 2) Russia exhausted all other alternatives.Sam Lowry said:You might want to kind of try to understand JWT before passing judgment, but maybe that's just me.Mothra said:Never said or suggested anyone other than Sam has made the argument. While Kai's silence is disappointing, I don't think he is making this argument either. Just a bunch of whataboutism out of him.Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
lol well I stand corrected.
I should then say that most of us are not making that argument
Now hopefully you see why the Putin shill comments are warranted. Anyone who could defend this despot's actions in Ukraine (among other areas) is not a Christian, much less a person with any semblance of a moral compass. The idea that Christ would be ok with Putin's decision to invade and kill others is a demonic distortion of his teachings. There is no other way to describe it.
You must suck as a lawyer, BTW. I should have steered you a different direction when you asked my advice about going to law school all those years ago.
I think that if you really understood what we're doing in Ukraine, you would find it extremely immoral. We have utterly destroyed that country for the sake of economic and geopolitical advantage while lying to them about the chances of success in the war. Reasonable chance of success is another factor in evaluating a just war, by the way.Mothra said:Redbear-Sam Lowry said:I am saying that, FTR. Otherwise I agree with your post.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:I haven't seen a single poster on this thread that believes Russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine either. But I am still waiting for that PM that tells me otherwise.Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:See above. As I said in response, I went back and reviewed about ten pages of posts….Redbrickbear said:Mothra said:Redbrickbear said:KaiBear said:
Yes, anyone with a different viewpoint is morally bankrupt.
Bottom line
The US helped bring on this Ukrainian nightmare by repeatedly attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit .
A place Ukraine had occupied unwillingly for centuries.
Now hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are DEAD and millions more are refugees in neighboring countries .
You are wasting your time on here arguing that point.
The other guys on this forum will argue that Nuland and the DC set never spent billions on pulling Ukraine out of the Russian orbit.
Then they will turn around with a straight face and tell you it was a wonderful thing that we did that.
Make no mistake about it….they are happy with every DC policy in Eastern Europe since Obama took power.
And while they lack the courage to come out and say it directly they would also like to see a regime change war/campaign inside Russia to install a more compliant regime there.
Repaying the Iraq disaster but this time on a much much larger scale.
Neo-cons and liberal interventionists never learn
Just curious, what posters are you referencing specifically, because I haven't seen anyone who agrees with your statements above, at least on the last several pages of this thread.
With all due respect, you seem to have erected a massive strawman. Recognizing that the US has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict and recognizing Russia has much blame for the Ukrainian conflict are certainly not neocon and interventionist positions.
You can back and look but several posters will deny the U.S. had any role in sparking off this conflict.
1. There has been a broad policy consensus from Bush to Obama to Biden that expansion of NATO into the East and color revolutions were a good policy.
I never specifically blamed Biden.
Neo-cons in the GOP and liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party have a lot in common on foreign policy.
2. To the extent that some posters on here don't think the U.S. government launches or supports color revolutions in other parts of the world…well I'm not going to call specific posters out
Nobody on this thread has said anything close to what you've alleged. The fact you can't name them says all one needs to know.
I'm not sure why you want me call out posters on here…I would be happy to message you at least 3 posters usernames on here who have denied that the Maidan uprising was a coup, that the USA had anything to do with it, and that the expansion of NATO had absolutely nothing to do with this conflict or was it see by Moscow as an unacceptable provocation into their sphere of influence.
Hmm now it seems you're backtracking. You said that numerous posters have said the US played no role in sparking this conflict. What you're now claiming above is quite a bit different.
Not at all.
Since the beginning of this thread (and many others like it on this forum) we have debating this conflict and the reasons it has come about.
I have simply never believed russia just woke up one day and decided to invade Ukraine for kicks…there were a lot of issues leading up to it.
What specifically have I backtracked on?
The backtrack is what I said above. Nobody has said the US played no role or couldn't have done more to prevent the Ukraine invasion, as you alleged. When I asked for names, you then said that posters had different beliefs about Maidan, coups, etc. That's a bit different than stating we had no role in what happened.
Quite frankly, I think a lot of the push back from posters on this thread in response to you Putin dick suckers is that you seem to want to place all of the blame on the US for what happened, while failing to recognize that the bloodthirsty little tyrant, with a history of aggression toward his neighbors, was the guy who pulled the trigger. Those two things can be possible at the same time, as I've repeatedly pointed out. Our behavior in Ukraine has done nothing to ratchet down the temperature. Instead, Obama and Biden have ratcheted it up. Biden's comments regarding NATO were especially terrible and he has a lot of the blame for what happened. But I also recognize it was Putin that ultimately pulled the trigger. He has the blood on his hands, even if other events influenced him to pull the trigger. The Putin dick suckers that loathe our country like Sam will never admit as much. But as I've repeatedly pointed out, he's never been on the right side of an issue on these boards, perhaps with the exception of abortion.
Well maybe I was mistaken about some posters views but I don't think Sam is "sucking Putin's thing"
You can dislike US foreign policy and DC insiders without being on team Putin
I feel like the "you love Putin" charge is mean to shut down debate far more than it's an accurate assessment of anyone's views
And you would be wrong again. Any American that believes that Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls within the just war criteria is exactly what I described.
Stop defending horrid conduct.
No one has said Putin's actions in Ukraine fall under the Christian doctrine of Just war.
See? I agree, it's incredible, but this is the immoral POS you're defending.