I have a hot take for yas


Anyone who thinks the west has a powerful military hasnt watched enough drone trench warfare videos in ukraine right now.

That on its own isnt a big thing. Heres the 2nd part.


You also havent tried playing a bunch of asians in computer game tournaments.

Theyre micro skills are way better and that goes from the poorest of countrys where 7 yr olds are skipping school in philippines to play starcraft allday at a new cafe in a bamboo hut to the chinese prisoners forced to game for online currencys to pay back the government in games like eve and wow

Robots are the future and theyre better at controlling them. Thats why ai is being pushed so hard cause we know they can manufacture and control the $100 a pop grenade drones

If we have ai flying ours we might have half a chance

Anything made of metal as a defensive mechanism is basically same as a sling or chariot vs a riflemen in that computer game civ 2

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

bjw said..
So if they attacked Australia, would you want NATO to defend us?

Or better to avoid the war?

Your hypothetical situation lacks an instigator.
Did all the Russians living in Australia demand to be treated better than Australians?
Did the Australian government then respond by opening fire upon them?
Or did someone crunching numbers at a desk just think"hey, I know, war with Australia will be a good idea"

Edit: also, you're missing the point that NATO would automatically join a war in any member country. That's why Putin was unwilling to defend Palestine, it would have been an instant multinational war because stolen Palestine, or should I say Israel, is a member state.

You made me do it - actually check a fact - members of NATO are listed here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

The thing I found that I didnt already know is that and attack on Hawaii wouldnt cause Nato to respond, Pearl Harbour II

Select to expand quote

Article 5 of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it shall be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.[1] Article 6 of the treaty limits the scope of Article 5 to the islands north of the Tropic of Cancer, the North American and European mainlands, the entirety of Turkey, and French Algeria, the last of which has been moot since July 1962. Thus, an attack on Hawaii, Puerto Rico, French Guiana, the Falkland Islands, Ceuta or Melilla, among other places, would not trigger an Article 5 response.

Select to expand quote

hardpole said..

psychojoe said..

bjw said..
So if they attacked Australia, would you want NATO to defend us?

Or better to avoid the war?

Your hypothetical situation lacks an instigator.
Did all the Russians living in Australia demand to be treated better than Australians?
Did the Australian government then respond by opening fire upon them?
Or did someone crunching numbers at a desk just think"hey, I know, war with Australia will be a good idea"

Edit: also, you're missing the point that NATO would automatically join a war in any member country. That's why Putin was unwilling to defend Palestine, it would have been an instant multinational war because stolen Palestine, or should I say Israel, is a member state.

You made me do it - actually check a fact - members of NATO are listed here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO

The thing I found that I didnt already know is that and attack on Hawaii wouldnt cause Nato to respond, Pearl Harbour II

Article 5 of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it shall be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.[1] Article 6 of the treaty limits the scope of Article 5 to the islands north of the Tropic of Cancer, the North American and European mainlands, the entirety of Turkey, and French Algeria, the last of which has been moot since July 1962. Thus, an attack on Hawaii, Puerto Rico, French Guiana, the Falkland Islands, Ceuta or Melilla, among other places, would not trigger an Article 5 response.

Ah good, I was wrong again. I was just vaguely repeating someone else's words without fact checking first. Maybe it was Americas involvement in Israel that was central to what was said. Dunno.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

bjw said..
So if they attacked Australia, would you want NATO to defend us?

Or better to avoid the war?

That's the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation you're referring to, right?

I give a completely and utterly unrealistic scenario as a theoretical question, and you guys dodge the question and follow up with questions.

Do I need to make it simpler? If you see someone you know getting mugged, would you help?

Select to expand quote

bjw said..

Mr Milk said..

bjw said..
So if they attacked Australia, would you want NATO to defend us?

Or better to avoid the war?

That's the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation you're referring to, right?

I give a completely and utterly unrealistic scenario as a theoretical question, and you guys dodge the question and follow up with questions.

Do I need to make it simpler? If you see someone you know getting mugged, would you help?

Fair call. But that's a completely different question. Do I even like the person I know that's getting mugged? I guess the simple answer is no. Nobody I know deserve to be mugged less than me. And as for this country. I don't support it's government, I wouldn't risk my life to protect them. Someone bombs Australia, I'm out. I don't give a **** what NATO does. I'm sure they'd escalate the situation toward an unnecessary genocide. It's the American way. It'd be all over the news, America leads NATO to save Australia from blah blah.

If Russia took on NATO it would be ever within a week or two. But that's not to say that Russia would nuke some soft targets as they went under.

Select to expand quote

bjw said..

Mr Milk said..

bjw said..
So if they attacked Australia, would you want NATO to defend us?

Or better to avoid the war?

That's the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation you're referring to, right?

I give a completely and utterly unrealistic scenario as a theoretical question, and you guys dodge the question and follow up with questions.

Do I need to make it simpler? If you see someone you know getting mugged, would you help?

I think that's Mr Milk's obtuse way of saying NATO is only North Atlantic countries. It would make more sense if he just said that, but...?

We are apparently not part of NATO but a major non-NATO ally. I think that means NATO 'might' help us, but more likely just the USA, but there would not be the same obligations as if we were part of NATO.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
more dumb henrymakow.com stuff

Paper money will 'seize to exist'...??

This sort of stuff makes me think the authors are just stupid.

Thats right Mr Denial - deny any validity to his post based on a spelling error.

Talk about scraping the barrel.

Is this the best you lot can come up with?

Perhaps book your seventh appointment so we can finally rid the world of another with eyes not to see.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
Thats right Mr Denial - deny any validity to his post based on a spelling error.

Talk about scraping the barrel.

Is this the best you lot can come up with?

Perhaps book your seventh appointment so we can finally rid the world of another with eyes not to see.

A lack of spelling ability to me hints at a lack of education, comprehension, and lack of attention to detail. That as well as lack of social awareness apparently is common amongst people that other people would call 'conspiracy theorists'.

A spelling error is when you make a mistake in spelling, not using the wrong word. For something that is then published, it should be at least checked for simple mistakes. Then again, I have heard that scam artists intentionally misspell words to filter out people that might be a bit more aware. It improves their chances of finding the more gullible apparently.

You need not worry yourself about this.

Yours sincerely Prince FN of Nigeria.

He does have a point.

I am thinking lots on here wish you FN would take up the TGA recent recommendation for adults to have your C19 booster lol.

Yes they know we know they are lying.........

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
2025 is when it's all going to happen. The world isn't round, it isn't flat the world is farked.

Just remember, I said bitcoin will go to $100k 2 years ago and everyone here LOL'd and said its going to zero first. Well fellas, I have some news for you..... look at the price of BTC today.

Fkn oath that went thru the roof ! Im still sticking 5 bucks in the cookie jar weekly tho

They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Does this mean all UK citizens will be able to be conscripted?

I really wonder what Putin is going to get out of all of this. Eventually the Russian people will realise how many of them have died for nothing, although there is probably little they could do about it.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Pcdefender said..
They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Does this mean all UK citizens will be able to be conscripted?

I really wonder what Putin is going to get out of all of this. Eventually the Russian people will realise how many of them have died for nothing, although there is probably little they could do about it.

You almost had it there, FN.
What's Putin going to get out of this? Nothing!
Why did he instigate it? He didn't.

But we can support the Ukrainians or they will just get slaughtered. Standing back and doing nothing doesn't save lives. It just makes it worse.

Arguably if the Allies had taken earlier intervention against Germany it might not have gotten to what it did.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

Pcdefender said..
They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Does this mean all UK citizens will be able to be conscripted?

I really wonder what Putin is going to get out of all of this. Eventually the Russian people will realise how many of them have died for nothing, although there is probably little they could do about it.

You almost had it there, FN.
What's Putin going to get out of this? Nothing!
Why did he instigate it? He didn't.

See, that's where people are annoying. If you have a viewpoint, express it.

Sure. okay, if you say Putin did not instigate it, instead of just leaving airspace, say who and say why. Otherwise you may as well just say "it was Mary Poppins". It would be just as believable.

If you state an opinion, you can then look at the logic around it to see if it's plausible.

e.g. Mary did it because their seemed to be a huge market for umbrellas in Russia and Ukraine had the supply all sewn up. There was also a looming revolt by the local chimneysweeps and she was trying to crush it before she lost power.

It's just a forum. You can be wrong. I am plenty of times, and I just don't care.

Just an aside, have any of you people worked in a business full of 'yes men'? The sort of places where the boss doesn't want to hear bad news and just wants to hear good news? Nothing ever ends well.

I have. I worked for a place where the stupid manager announced "I don't want to hear (of) problems, I want to hear solutions", despite him actually being the person that was empowered to actually make changes. In the end, the business suffered and he was kicked out.

That's what these dictators end up having. Everyone says yes to them. Otherwise they get killed, or relocated to a Gulag at best. When presidents start changing constitutions and extending political terms or removing restrictions, its a sure-fire indicator that they now think that they know better than everyone and will do what they want.

Now, do you think that a person like that could form an opinion or be told of a situation and be led down the garden path thinking that he is resolving a problem instead of causing it?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

Pcdefender said..
They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Does this mean all UK citizens will be able to be conscripted?

I really wonder what Putin is going to get out of all of this. Eventually the Russian people will realise how many of them have died for nothing, although there is probably little they could do about it.

You almost had it there, FN.
What's Putin going to get out of this? Nothing!
Why did he instigate it? He didn't.

See, that's where people are annoying. If you have a viewpoint, express it.

Sure. okay, if you say Putin did not instigate it, instead of just leaving airspace, say who and say why. Otherwise you may as well just say "it was Mary Poppins". It would be just as believable.

If you state an opinion, you can then look at the logic around it to see if it's plausible.

e.g. Mary did it because their seemed to be a huge market for umbrellas in Russia and Ukraine had the supply all sewn up. There was also a looming revolt by the local chimneysweeps and she was trying to crush it before she lost power.

It's just a forum. You can be wrong. I am plenty of times, and I just don't care.

See. I thought you'd be across this by now. Here's a link about why NATO doesn't belong in Ukraine. Let's not forget, the death toll was very close to zero before NATO showed up.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

Pcdefender said..
They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Does this mean all UK citizens will be able to be conscripted?

I really wonder what Putin is going to get out of all of this. Eventually the Russian people will realise how many of them have died for nothing, although there is probably little they could do about it.

You almost had it there, FN.
What's Putin going to get out of this? Nothing!
Why did he instigate it? He didn't.

See, that's where people are annoying. If you have a viewpoint, express it.

Sure. okay, if you say Putin did not instigate it, instead of just leaving airspace, say who and say why. Otherwise you may as well just say "it was Mary Poppins". It would be just as believable.

If you state an opinion, you can then look at the logic around it to see if it's plausible.

e.g. Mary did it because their seemed to be a huge market for umbrellas in Russia and Ukraine had the supply all sewn up. There was also a looming revolt by the local chimneysweeps and she was trying to crush it before she lost power.

It's just a forum. You can be wrong. I am plenty of times, and I just don't care.

See. I thought you'd be across this by now. Here's a link about why NATO doesn't belong in Ukraine. Let's not forget, the death toll was very close to zero before NATO showed up.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

See, again, more inferences, but no actual meaningful statements.

'the death toll was close to zero before NATO...' ... what does that even mean?

Did NATO only join in when Ukraine was being invaded?

Did NATO only join in when Ukraine was about to be invaded?

Did the threat of Ukraine joining NATO force Russia to invade?

Did NATO coordinate this to create an enemy of Russia?


Good books actually state meaningful things and often use facts or information to back these up. Sometimes they even construct a theory, but use logic to show it is possible or even likely. A book where they would just infer things would be pretty silly.

So how come conspiracy theorists seem wrapped up in many half-arsed bits of information that seem to add up to 'something', but they cannot say what it actually is?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

Pcdefender said..
They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Does this mean all UK citizens will be able to be conscripted?

I really wonder what Putin is going to get out of all of this. Eventually the Russian people will realise how many of them have died for nothing, although there is probably little they could do about it.

You almost had it there, FN.
What's Putin going to get out of this? Nothing!
Why did he instigate it? He didn't.

See, that's where people are annoying. If you have a viewpoint, express it.

Sure. okay, if you say Putin did not instigate it, instead of just leaving airspace, say who and say why. Otherwise you may as well just say "it was Mary Poppins". It would be just as believable.

If you state an opinion, you can then look at the logic around it to see if it's plausible.

e.g. Mary did it because their seemed to be a huge market for umbrellas in Russia and Ukraine had the supply all sewn up. There was also a looming revolt by the local chimneysweeps and she was trying to crush it before she lost power.

It's just a forum. You can be wrong. I am plenty of times, and I just don't care.

See. I thought you'd be across this by now. Here's a link about why NATO doesn't belong in Ukraine. Let's not forget, the death toll was very close to zero before NATO showed up.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

See, again, more inferences, but no actual meaningful statements.

'the death toll was close to zero before NATO...' ... what does that even mean?

Did NATO only join in when Ukraine was being invaded?

Did NATO only join in when Ukraine was about to be invaded?

Did the threat of Ukraine joining NATO force Russia to invade?

Did NATO coordinate this to create an enemy of Russia?


Good books actually state meaningful things and often use facts or information to back these up. Sometimes they even construct a theory, but use logic to show it is possible or even likely. A book where they would just infer things would be pretty silly.

So how come conspiracy theorists seem wrapped up in many half-arsed bits of information that seem to add up to 'something', but they cannot say what it actually is?

A client didn't pay me on time two weeks ago.
I sent a text but didn't receive a response.
I sent details to a third party.
I sent another text to the tardy payer.
Payment arrived.

What actually happened?
I don't know, much like any conspiracy theorist, I can imagine an original attempt to defraud me. Perhaps the third party made a difference. Maybe it was just a slow bank transfer.
Why you would expect hard facts in a situation where even many of those involved would be unable to deliver them is...well, it's not beyond me, I've gotten used to your way of thinking.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

Pcdefender said..
They are now saying if Ukraine is defeated NATO will go to war with Russia.

WW3 effectively.


U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned on Thursday that NATO will be drawn into war if Ukraine is defeated by invading Russian forces.

Does this mean all UK citizens will be able to be conscripted?

I really wonder what Putin is going to get out of all of this. Eventually the Russian people will realise how many of them have died for nothing, although there is probably little they could do about it.

You almost had it there, FN.
What's Putin going to get out of this? Nothing!
Why did he instigate it? He didn't.

See, that's where people are annoying. If you have a viewpoint, express it.

Sure. okay, if you say Putin did not instigate it, instead of just leaving airspace, say who and say why. Otherwise you may as well just say "it was Mary Poppins". It would be just as believable.

If you state an opinion, you can then look at the logic around it to see if it's plausible.

e.g. Mary did it because their seemed to be a huge market for umbrellas in Russia and Ukraine had the supply all sewn up. There was also a looming revolt by the local chimneysweeps and she was trying to crush it before she lost power.

It's just a forum. You can be wrong. I am plenty of times, and I just don't care.

See. I thought you'd be across this by now. Here's a link about why NATO doesn't belong in Ukraine. Let's not forget, the death toll was very close to zero before NATO showed up.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

See, again, more inferences, but no actual meaningful statements.

'the death toll was close to zero before NATO...' ... what does that even mean?

Did NATO only join in when Ukraine was being invaded?

Did NATO only join in when Ukraine was about to be invaded?

Did the threat of Ukraine joining NATO force Russia to invade?

Did NATO coordinate this to create an enemy of Russia?


Good books actually state meaningful things and often use facts or information to back these up. Sometimes they even construct a theory, but use logic to show it is possible or even likely. A book where they would just infer things would be pretty silly.

So how come conspiracy theorists seem wrapped up in many half-arsed bits of information that seem to add up to 'something', but they cannot say what it actually is?

(random anecdote removed).

So, the sum total of your suggestion is that 'Putin didn't do it' and 'the death toll was close to zero before NATO showed up'. But apart from that you are not suggesting anything at all, and have no idea of anything else. Just those two comments.

I am a bit surprised if that is all you think. I would have thought there would be logic behind these comments, and if Putin didn't do it, who did. If there were almost no deaths before NATO got involved, what are you implying?

I can only surmise that you are thinking 'Putin's aunty did it' and 'before NATO arrived on the scene the Russias were using supersoakers as weapons'.

I get it now.

Or it could be the usual conspiracy theorist thing about a bunch of random brain farts, no logical reasoning, and then pray that one of your abstract theories comes true enough to say "I told you so".

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova

So, the sum total of your suggestion is that 'Putin didn't do it' and 'the death toll was close to zero before NATO showed up'. But apart from that you are not suggesting anything at all, and have no idea of anything else. Just those two comments.

I am a bit surprised if that is all you think. I would have thought there would be logic behind these comments, and if Putin didn't do it, who did. If there were almost no deaths before NATO got involved, what are you implying?

I can only surmise that you are thinking 'Putin's aunty did it' and 'before NATO arrived on the scene the Russias were using supersoakers as weapons'.

I get it now.

Or it could be the usual conspiracy theorist thing about a bunch of random brain farts, no logical reasoning, and then pray that one of your abstract theories comes true enough to say "I told you so".

Hmm, let's see. America has gained the most out of this. Maybe they saw a problem that had existed for 8 years and decided to pretend it had only just started so their war machine could capitalise on it. Makes sense. All the pieces fit. And it's their usual M.O.. Not sure I can dumb down the possibilities and likelihood any more.
We've also seen Putin defending expats during civil unrest in South Assetia only years ago, so it's just more of the same, packaged as something new by western media.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova

So, the sum total of your suggestion is that 'Putin didn't do it' and 'the death toll was close to zero before NATO showed up'. But apart from that you are not suggesting anything at all, and have no idea of anything else. Just those two comments.

I am a bit surprised if that is all you think. I would have thought there would be logic behind these comments, and if Putin didn't do it, who did. If there were almost no deaths before NATO got involved, what are you implying?

I can only surmise that you are thinking 'Putin's aunty did it' and 'before NATO arrived on the scene the Russias were using supersoakers as weapons'.

I get it now.

Or it could be the usual conspiracy theorist thing about a bunch of random brain farts, no logical reasoning, and then pray that one of your abstract theories comes true enough to say "I told you so".

Hmm, let's see. America has gained the most out of this. Maybe they saw a problem that had existed for 8 years and decided to pretend it had only just started so their war machine could capitalise on it. Makes sense. All the pieces fit. And it's their usual M.O.. Not sure I can dumb down the possibilities and likelihood any more.
We've also seen Putin defending expats during civil unrest in South Assetia only years ago, so it's just more of the same, packaged as something new by western media.

Okay, so you are saying America is behind this. Why. What did they get out of it?

It's funny that you say this stuff, as its pretty clear that Putin just did it and it's not like they are trying to hide the fact that they are invading the Ukraine.

I don't think Putin has said the USA is the problem has he? Has he tried to justify it at all other than 'getting rid of the Nazis'? Maybe it was a bad translation?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova

So, the sum total of your suggestion is that 'Putin didn't do it' and 'the death toll was close to zero before NATO showed up'. But apart from that you are not suggesting anything at all, and have no idea of anything else. Just those two comments.

I am a bit surprised if that is all you think. I would have thought there would be logic behind these comments, and if Putin didn't do it, who did. If there were almost no deaths before NATO got involved, what are you implying?

I can only surmise that you are thinking 'Putin's aunty did it' and 'before NATO arrived on the scene the Russias were using supersoakers as weapons'.

I get it now.

Or it could be the usual conspiracy theorist thing about a bunch of random brain farts, no logical reasoning, and then pray that one of your abstract theories comes true enough to say "I told you so".

Hmm, let's see. America has gained the most out of this. Maybe they saw a problem that had existed for 8 years and decided to pretend it had only just started so their war machine could capitalise on it. Makes sense. All the pieces fit. And it's their usual M.O.. Not sure I can dumb down the possibilities and likelihood any more.
We've also seen Putin defending expats during civil unrest in South Assetia only years ago, so it's just more of the same, packaged as something new by western media.

Okay, so you are saying America is behind this. Why. What did they get out of it?

It's funny that you say this stuff, as its pretty clear that Putin just did it and it's not like they are trying to hide the fact that they are invading the Ukraine.

I don't think Putin has said the USA is the problem has he? Has he tried to justify it at all other than 'getting rid of the Nazis'? Maybe it was a bad translation?

Putin speaks fluent English. If you want nothing lost in translation, then just watch the speeches he gives in English. In either language, he's the most well spoken world leader I've ever heard.
In the two minutes of the only part speech I listened to, he said his presence was reactionary. So no, not an invasion as such.

His presence was reactionary?
Not an invasion?

Really?

Remember the weeks leading up to the invasion, when Ukraine were saying that they thought he would invade because he was concentrating large numbers of troops on the border?
And his response to the rest of the world was "no, we are just doing military exercises, I have no intention of invading"

(To use an appropriate modern vernacular)

Next minute......

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
See. I thought you'd be across this by now. Here's a link about why NATO doesn't belong in Ukraine. Let's not forget, the death toll was very close to zero before NATO showed up.

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Interesting reading, talks about events and political environment of 1990 as Germany was being reestablished as a single country.

Couple of things are very different with situation these days compared to 30 years ago.

When Baker said "not one inch eastward" trying to reassure Gorbachev that the west was only interested in stable Europe, Ukraine was still part of the USSR.

Since then there has been plenty of unrest in eastern Europe, not least the fact USSR doesn't exist anymore and can not be relied upon for stability.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova said..

psychojoe said..

FormulaNova

So, the sum total of your suggestion is that 'Putin didn't do it' and 'the death toll was close to zero before NATO showed up'. But apart from that you are not suggesting anything at all, and have no idea of anything else. Just those two comments.

I am a bit surprised if that is all you think. I would have thought there would be logic behind these comments, and if Putin didn't do it, who did. If there were almost no deaths before NATO got involved, what are you implying?

I can only surmise that you are thinking 'Putin's aunty did it' and 'before NATO arrived on the scene the Russias were using supersoakers as weapons'.

I get it now.

Or it could be the usual conspiracy theorist thing about a bunch of random brain farts, no logical reasoning, and then pray that one of your abstract theories comes true enough to say "I told you so".

Hmm, let's see. America has gained the most out of this. Maybe they saw a problem that had existed for 8 years and decided to pretend it had only just started so their war machine could capitalise on it. Makes sense. All the pieces fit. And it's their usual M.O.. Not sure I can dumb down the possibilities and likelihood any more.
We've also seen Putin defending expats during civil unrest in South Assetia only years ago, so it's just more of the same, packaged as something new by western media.

Okay, so you are saying America is behind this. Why. What did they get out of it?

It's funny that you say this stuff, as its pretty clear that Putin just did it and it's not like they are trying to hide the fact that they are invading the Ukraine.

I don't think Putin has said the USA is the problem has he? Has he tried to justify it at all other than 'getting rid of the Nazis'? Maybe it was a bad translation?

Putin speaks fluent English. If you want nothing lost in translation, then just watch the speeches he gives in English. In either language, he's the most well spoken world leader I've ever heard.
In the two minutes of the only part speech I listened to, he said his presence was reactionary. So no, not an invasion as such.

Yeah. I guess its not too surprising that he speaks English. English has become the defacto language of business, and it makes me feel lazy that that is all most of us speak. But its not too big a deal as we don't need to speak any other language as a lot of the world are keen to learn English and prefer we don't butcher their languages.

English is taught so often in schools now that it is not unusual to hear young kids from other non-english speaking countries, speaking it easily.

I don't think it's a crime that lots of English speaking presidents do not speak another tongue. They just don't need to.

A 'reactionary' presence? Well, who is to question a supreme leader? They can tell you anything they want, and as I have mentioned in the past, none of their staff are going to argue with it.

Please note, you seem to be accepting the word of a President on a foreign country at his word, but seem to be more critical of other Presidents of other countries? None of them lie of course, you know that, and have definitely told us that before.

I wonder if I can legally rob a bank now? Only as a reaction to my impending shortfall of cash, though, so it should be okay, right?