Russian-Ukrainian war

You can't just move? Hundreds of thousands of people are throwing their shit into burlap sacks and marching in battalions towards Hungary's borders right now and you're telling me you can't just get up and go to another country?
 
ChildServices said:
You can't just move? Hundreds of thousands of people are throwing their shit into burlap sacks and marching in battalions towards Hungary's borders right now and you're telling me you can't just get up and go to another country?
Click to expand...

Technically I can move, and quite easily but let's not take this to the literal level. It's just ends up being a personal attack. The thing is why should I move? Why would I want to? Life is good for me (which makes me guilty that it isn't for so many) and I want to help other people's lifes.

What I just LOOVVVEEE about the middle east refugee crisis's that we've had is how America and Europe help start them. Now normally the middle east ALONE would make loads of refugees but add America/NATO bombing runs and more suffering and you get crisis's.
 
1: They are extreme, hence my use of the word extremist. They (the leaders), adhere to Wahhabi/Salafist Islam, a very extreme interpretation. The fighters, despite what motivated them to join, take their orders from these guys. The caliphs decision supercedes their personal reason for fighting. Even LA said as much. I am also sure Crni would agree though you folks tend to stay silent when disagreeing amongst yourselves. A theocracy based on their interpretation of Islam, how can that NOT be construed as madness by any rational person. Unless of course you think that brand of Islam is normal.

2: Agreed. But what you guys do not understand is size is irrelevant, an asshole is an asshole. Given the opportunity, and the desire (Putin in this case), Russia can be just as big as the U.S. Its clear he wants Russia not to be communist, but to be as powerful as the soviet union was (not saying he IS, a communist).

3: And what does that say about the situation in Russia? Putin should be training a successor instead of leaving all of Russias eggs in one basket so to speak (talking about stable effective leader, not the power hungry one). Of course America won't change, we are the superpower after all. Do you remember my post that said there will ALWAYS be a hegemon?

Are you against the right for folks like the gays to marry? What about the rights of the others I brought up, the LGBT?
 
Last edited:
DarkCorp said:
1: They are extreme, hence my use of the word extremist. They (the leaders), adhere to Wahhabi/Salafist Islam, a very extreme interpretation. The fighters, despite what motivated them to join, take their orders from these guys. The caliphs decision supercedes their personal reason for fighting. Even LA said as much. I am also sure Crni would agree though you folks tend to stay silent when disagreeing amongst yourselves. A theocracy based on their interpretation of Islam, how can that NOT be construed as madness by any rational person. Unless of course you think that brand of Islam is normal.

2: Agreed. But what you guys do not understand is size is irrelevant, an asshole is an asshole. Given the opportunity, and the desire (Putin in this case), Russia can be just as big as the U.S. Its clear he wants Russia not to be communist, but to be as powerful as the soviet union was (not saying he IS, a communist).

3: And what does that say about the situation in Russia? Putin should be training a successor instead of leaving all of Russias eggs in one basket so to speak. Of course America won't change, we are the superpower after all. Do you remember my post that said there will ALWAYS be a hegemon?

Are you against the right for folks like the gays to marry? What about the rights of the others I brought up, the LGBT?
Click to expand...

1. Nah the leaders are in it for power not for religious gains. They just use Islam as an excuse, though of course they're all fanatics. I'm trying to get across that just because you fight with Islamic terrorists doesn't mean you're a crazy ass fanatic.

2. Okay. WE"RE ALL ASSHOLES!!!

3. Agreed, and I do remember. If only it wasn't true... but sometimes I wonder if another different super power would be better.

No I'm not against them, I just don't understand it. Why argue so strongly over... sex?
 
Fucking mobile device.

1: Fanatic extremists are bad in any flavor. Well, they sure do use religion as a justification to do what they want. Take that away and IS/AQ, are just a bunch of selfish asshats. Who would fight for that? Religion is a powerful motivator. Keep in mind although the leadership know its about money and power, the rank and file do not. To the fighter on the ground, its religion all the way.

2: Such is the human condition.

3: Naw man, we just agreed on number two. I am a realist first and an idealist second, check the sig. The role of a hegemon is to make sure we don't get WW3. If it fails, someone else takes the job. Will a hegemon favor itself? Sure, its natural. If only we had a science/tech that made resource competition obsolete. Bye to nations, hello Terran Empire.

Imagine in a world dominated by gayness, some men and women wanted to fuck. Of course finding a partner may be hard, a marriagable one even harder. But lets say you found a perfect girl and wanted to marry her. Everyones calls you a fucking degenerate and all you get is fuck yous. Thats how gays were historically treated.
 
Last edited:
Murrica as in geopolitics isn't fair, absofuckinglutely.

If we help the french, we fuck over the viet minh. We help the Sunnis, we fuck over the Shias. World ain't perfect, especially when Europe says fuck this job, America, you do it.
 
DarkCorp said:
Like the terrorists will all magically vanish along with sectarianism if only the west and Israel left.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about anything magically vanishing? The terrorists might remain, but they'd be taking more time killing each other, and less trying to kill us. What happens in the middle east is none of our business. If they all want to kill each other, why whould we stop them? Europe and North America developed quite nicely, and we didn't have outside powers with "helping hands".

Statements in other threads like Israel wants to turn the ME into a wasteland while ignoring what happened to that country in 1948.
Click to expand...

You mean how Israel came rolling in with full western support, did some ethnic cleansing, and defeated its neighbours using an army which was bigger, far more concentrated and better equipped than the Arab coalition. A lamb surrounded by wolves indeed.

Or how everyone has the right to be hegemon while ignoring the price of 67 million plus dead.
Click to expand...

Of course, everyone should just bend over to the bully because a lot of people died in the past. What would have happened had we followed that logic before WWII?

How the world should be 'fair', with nukes.
Click to expand...

And I ask you again to find one major conflict between nuclear-armed countries.

Murrica is evil without acknowledging how life is pretty fucking good in the west, s. korea, taiwan, etc.
Click to expand...

The Nazis also did their best to keep their population happy. So what? Panem et circenses is suddenly an indicator of moral high ground?

Hey if your on the opposing side, I get it. But to rely on conspiracy theories and tryoing to argue the moral high ground.
Click to expand...

Which conspiracy theories are you referring to?

If we help the french, we fuck over the viet minh. We help the Sunnis, we fuck over the Shias. World ain't perfect, especially when Europe says fuck this job, America, you do it.
Click to expand...

Or you do this unthinkable thing of sticking to your own continent. And I don't know where you're getting this thing about Europe making America do it's dirty work. How often did Europe do something which wasn't in its interests because it was in America's - a lot. Supporting Libyan rebels, supporting Syrian rebels, raising sanctions against Russia. Even participated in your wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. When did America ever make a sacrifice for Europe?
 
LordAshur said:
Who's talking about anything magically vanishing? The terrorists might remain, but they'd be taking more time killing each other, and less trying to kill us. What happens in the middle east is none of our business. If they all want to kill each other, why whould we stop them?
Click to expand...
Because war has only active participants, and not massive civilian populations bearing the brunt of destruction.
 
1: The Yugoslav wars arn't our business. Fuck the Rwandans. Fuck Taiwan and let the CPC burn it. Let the brown peoples burn. LA has spoken so it must be genius.

2: Before, it was terror from both sides. Not good but better than war. You mean Israel was attacked FIRST, by three nations no less. This was right after the Jews had just been genocided by Hitler. And you wonder why they don't like the arabs much. Continue to stick your head in the sand.

3. Europe was burned to the ground multiple times due to the number of hegemons. It culminated in the mass horror that were the world wars. I'd take the bully who maintains order, especially if the bully isn't all that bad considering other candidates.

4. And the absolute insanity of every single nation on earth with nukes. But LA says nothing bad will happen, he knows all.

5. Fuck yea considering Dr asked me who likes American influence. Read my post much??

6. Uh, Maidan, Springs, did you forget already??

7. Uh by taking the fucking brunt of responsibility for world police. The europeans certainly didn't form a euro army to counter american dominance. They used the money for social programs. Been agreed upon by Crni and Dr. Fallout, europe made a good fucking deal. NATO.

Like Putin is minding his own business, or the CPC? Hate America cause you have bad blood, fine. But to say Putin or CPC is betterthan any other, keep dreaming.
 
Last edited:
With characters like Kissinger I can't believe how someone still can keep such opinions about US foreign policy.
 
TBH, considering the level of sectarianism going on in the ME, he might have been just a little correct. Do I need to remind you of what happened to Afghanistan post soviet exit?? I mean how many dead because Ali was or was not unfairly brushed aside?
 
Last edited:
Hey Sander, LA thinks Tibets situation is totally bullshit. Remember when I played Devils advocate to the CPC?

Crni, you asked who would think us heartless racist fucks who do not care about brown peoples if we ignored genocides, Sanders one of them, along with Gonzalez.
 
Last edited:
Sander said:
Because war has only active participants, and not massive civilian populations bearing the brunt of destruction.
Click to expand...

Again, it's none of our business, just like it was none of theirs when we were killing each other throughout history. There isn't anything we can do for them that won't make things worse in the long run. For them and for us.
@DarkCorp

1. Entirely correct. And you are aware that even some right-wing factions in Taiwan are pro-unification?

2. By that logic, WWII was started by the UK and France when they declared war on Germany. We can look at it that way. Never mind the massive ethnic cleansing.

3. When you look at the victims of American foreign policy after WWII, the numbers are certainly in the millions. And do you think the Cold war would have been so cold was it not for each side being armed to the teeth with nukes?

4. Actual evidence points to nuclear-armed countries not going to war with each other. But that's absolute insanity. I might not know everything, but at least my opinion on this is somewhat rooted in the scientific method while I can't even see where your opinion on this is coming from. It's a deterrent. Just like a house is far less likely to be burglarized if the (would-be burglar) is aware that the owner is armed.

5. My mistake.

6. How do you know that your views on these things aren't conspiracy theories? Because the CNN says so?

7. You're assuming that the world needs a single country to police it. European armies are strong enough to protect their own countries against outside threats, which is coincidentally their job. I don't know who you think you're protecting us from.

It's action-reaction. You're calling Putin a jerk for not sitting with his arms crossed and waiting for you to decide that his time is up. When your whole foreign policy is directed at surrounding Russia and China, how can you expect them to just sit there and take it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the U.S. should help itself before helping others. I don't care about genocide in Darfur or poverty in India; there's poverty here at home, too. Take care of U.S. citizens before taking care of everyone else. Let the Middle East kill each other off. It's not our business. As long as the oil flows, fuck the people. They are going to do what they re going to do, regardless of what we tell them.
 
Yes, who cares about human beings that weren't accidentally born within the same random lines drawn on a map as you were, amirite? Humanity, what's that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top