Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

We trained their army and supplied/are continuing to supply their weapons. We have heavily sanctioned Russia. How is that sitting this one out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

In no scenario do I see us repeatedly bombing mexican hospitals and apartment buildings and shooting journalists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.