Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone should really start a new thread with the simple question:

1) I favor a violent Russian Military invasion of tiny Ukraine, or

2) I favor peace.

Pick one.

There are no other angles here.

No, it is not complicated. It really isn’t. You want WAR or you don’t.

1. And I further support Russian involvement in the balkans. Russia is a great power.

2. China should take Taiwan

3. Índia should take Kashmir and smash Pakistan

4. Israel should send the Palestinians to Saudi Arabia or Jordan and take over the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip

5. Us, uk, Australia, Canada and NZ should have a free trade and free movement alliance.

I take it you play a lot of video games. Millions of people die in your scenario and thermonuclear war breaks out.

Anonymous wrote:Someone should really start a new thread with the simple question:

1) I favor a violent Russian Military invasion of tiny Ukraine, or

2) I favor peace.

Pick one.

There are no other angles here.

No, it is not complicated. It really isn’t. You want WAR or you don’t.

1. And I further support Russian involvement in the balkans. Russia is a great power.

2. China should take Taiwan

3. Índia should take Kashmir and smash Pakistan

4. Israel should send the Palestinians to Saudi Arabia or Jordan and take over the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip

5. Us, uk, Australia, Canada and NZ should have a free trade and free movement alliance.

Anonymous wrote:Matti Taibbi wrote a lot about American media's willful blindness when it comes to Russia and evidence. More broadly, he wrote about trigger points that make reporters come together to praise the government - whatever it does, as long as it is framed right

Taiibbi is a Russian stooge.

No, the proper questions are:

1. Should NATO help defend a non-NATO nation against invasion from a large non-NATO nation with nuclear weapons, a propensity for supporting cyber criminals, and situated between China, Europe, and the Middle East?

2. If so, as the most powerful member of NATO what should the U.S. role be?

Option 3:

I favor Ukraine's right to defend its soverignty, which at the hands of Russia, may result in war.

Ukraine is most certainly not the aggressor here.

Someone should really start a new thread with the simple question:

1) I favor a violent Russian Military invasion of tiny Ukraine, or

2) I favor peace.

Pick one.

There are no other angles here.

No, it is not complicated. It really isn’t. You want WAR or you don’t.

Anonymous wrote:Russia has nothing to fear about Ukraine joining NATO. Russia already occupies Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO and invoked Article 5, America would have to go to war against Russia. That would be impossible. Once a country has nuclear weapons, war is no longer an option. Only diplomacy can work

Not just that but one of the conditions of joining NATO is resolving any territorial claims beforehand. Romania had to resolve their border dispute with Ukraine and give up claims on Moldova before joining. Spain had to give up its claim on Gibraltar. Greece and Turkey had to do the same with each other.

Joining NATO actually increases Russia's security because Ukraine wouldn't be able to claim any Russian territory. In addition, as a practical matter, between Crimea, Donbas, and Trans-nistria, Ukraine would not even be eligible for NATO membership any time soon. They would have to settle this disputes with Russia first. The whole NATO thing is a red herring.

Matti Taibbi wrote a lot about American media's willful blindness when it comes to Russia and evidence. More broadly, he wrote about trigger points that make reporters come together to praise the government - whatever it does, as long as it is framed right

Pushing FUD back to Putin. Love it.

If there is dissention in the ranks, that won't bode well for the on-the-street Russian's response to Putin waging this war.

It’s definitely possible to have a conventional war with countries who both possess nuclear weapons.

Russia has nothing to fear about Ukraine joining NATO. Russia already occupies Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. If Ukraine joined NATO and invoked Article 5, America would have to go to war against Russia. That would be impossible. Once a country has nuclear weapons, war is no longer an option. Only diplomacy can work

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF is wrong with Matt Lee? "Show us your classified intel that would expose the inside source!"

Don’t be an imbecile and listen to the clip. jFC you people are stupid.

I did listen to the clip. Matt Lee sounded like a complete imbecile.

Then you are remarkably ignorant of what a journalist’s job is because Matt Lee has been universally praised for his questioning by the press.

I'm too old for the draft so I don't really care what happens. Let the draft age sons of DCUM fight in World War 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF is wrong with Matt Lee? "Show us your classified intel that would expose the inside source!"

Don’t be an imbecile and listen to the clip. jFC you people are stupid.

I did listen to the clip. Matt Lee sounded like a complete imbecile.

No, he sounded like a crictical, skeptical journalist seeking proof and hard facts, rather than dutifully accepting l a “well, you can just trust us because I said so” from SD.


Shocking in this day and age, right?



If the Trump administration had attempted nonsense like this, that briefing room would’ve sounded like a prison riot.

If he were truly a critical, evidence-oriented journalist then he would have done his homework to know that Russia already has a notorious, proven history of doing things like this. But, instead he just came across as a clueless fool, and worse yet, accusatory toward SD to suggest what they were saying was fake - where is proof and hard facts that SD was making it up? How can any serious journalist go on the offensive like that without any evidence to support his attack?