War in Ukraine

[volbound1700]

Of course you are okay with it, which is the same justification used by Russia or any foreign invader. Freedom, democracy, sovereignty, liberty, etc.

I mean right now the United States is liberating Syria from its oil.

The United States didn't scratch the peace talks between the Ukraine and Russia in 2022 due to democracy, the United States did it for its own interest.

Americans are evil (as far as foreign policy) which is why you are okay with it.

The United States is out of Syria. Russia is in Syria. You got your facts mixed up. USA did give weapons to the Kurds and had Obama's "redline" which was utterly stupid.

If that is your belief on the last statement, then show your anger at US policy and denounce your citizenship and leave. After all, we are a terrible/evil country. Back it up with your actions.

 

[volbound1700]

they had the same policy of appeasement that you want. give money and weapons to defending country. and the british even had a formal alliance to join the war in defense of another nation, which you also want. I would be careful about those glass houses.

might want to look at the timelines, and you will see how Churchills aggression to push the Allies forces further into belgium & holland over stretched their lines. that wasn't the plan before Churchill. the quick time in the changes of plans is one of the reasons it wasn't successful. He became PM on May 10th, Dunkirk was June 4th. plenty of time for him to get in there and meddle. if the British and French had stayed in France instead of overextending into Belgium & Holland they would have been in a far better place to defend. Churchill thought it was important to save Belgium.

You clearly know 0 about World War II.

Churchill became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940 as you stated. The operations in the Benelux, the general British operational strategy, the deployment of forces, etc. was already in place by his predecessor prior to all of this. Churchill had 0 input in the overall strategy of the Battle of France until after it had already started and was the focal point for Dunkirk which saved the BEF and a lot of French soldiers (basically he did the opposite of what you are stating and helped get the Allies out of the mess they were in).

Your ignorance of history is astounding.

You do know that in war, you can't just change battle plans and move forces around in 2-3 days (especially back then). You could have limited input but the BEF's deployment and strategy during the Battle of France was entirely on Chamberlain. Also, the UK (due to the numerical strategy of France) had delegated all battle strategy towards France so it really wasn't even on Chamberlain as well but rather failed military strategy by France. Had France, literally, counterattacked the German advance early or put a few more divisions at Sedan that could have held out, the operation could have been a major German disaster.

Of course if you seriously studied WW2, you would know all of this but everything you have said is way off. There are tons of World War II fan groups/videos, etc. out there. I suggest you join them. Facebook has some solid WWII pages/groups that you can join. Historians post videos on Youtube and articles regularly including actual speeches at major Universities on the topic.


Regarding your French Aggression argument, I present a summary of the following points:

1. The Little Entente treaties obligated France to defend newly independent nations in Eastern Europe from German Aggression
2. Germany illegally entered the Saar and Rhineland which was overlooked by France and violated the Versailles treaty
3. Germany broke the Munich Agreement by taking over all of Czechoslavakia
4. France was obligated to protect Poland (along with UK and Italy) under the League of Nations charter
5. France signed the Kasprzycki–Gamelin Convention as pointed out in this thread
6. France signed a military alliance with the UK indicating that if one goes to war, the other will follow

All 6 above are, individual, grounds to write off France as the aggressor


This also overlooks German violation of the Versailles treaty regarding military buildup, deployment of air force (which was forbidden), deployment of tanks (which was forbidden), and the building of U-Boats (which was forbidden).

Basically, Hitler crapped all over Versailles.

 

[LSU-SIU]

The United States is out of Syria. Russia is in Syria. You got your facts mixed up. USA did give weapons to the Kurds and had Obama's "redline" which was utterly stupid.

If that is your belief on the last statement, then show your anger at US policy and denounce your citizenship and leave. After all, we are a terrible/evil country. Back it up with your actions.

The United States has bases in Syria is protecting the oil revenue which doesn't go to the Syrian government. The United states has roughly 1000 troops there. Russia is there at the request of the Syrian government. The United States are foreign invaders, I actually have a cousin that got blown up in Syria about 4 years ago. (he recovered)

I am not sure what you are getting at.

If that is your belief on the last statement, then show your anger at US policy and denounce your citizenship and leave.

You said you are in support of "democracy", it is my hope that the democratic process here will bring change although I don't feel like that is going to happen without collapse. Telling the truth should be a way of life for everyone, I don't see why I have to agree with my government to hope there will be change. Basically the words you are using is what every evil invader says, I'm not angry as you say - more an obvious observation. For me to absolutely have to agree with my government is the opposite of intent of "democracy", that's more akin to a communist government.

 

[LouderVol]

Aiding a country that is actively being invaded, is not "attacking without provocation" in any sense of the word or concept of what "warmongering" entails.

By your bizarre definition, NATO article 5 would make every country not directly attacked, an "aggressive warmonger" for aiding the member who was directly attacked.

Why do I need to a "address the Chinese in the Korean war", South Korea didn't invade the North, so no, China was not "joining in the defense of another nation", they joined the aggressor.

No the US was not the "aggressor" in Desert Storm.

You have some seriously bizarre takes on historical events, that aren't supported by reality.

I understand you are opposed to the United States aiding Ukraine, but there's no need to try to retcon history to support your position.

by the time the Chinese got involved the South Koreans had 100% invaded the North. not sure what history you think I am retconning with a statement like that. and once we entered Iraq we certainly were the aggressors. you are just buying the writer's of history whitewashing their own history to make sure the message is as positive to them as possible. it doesn't change the basic facts, just how YOU apply them.

I already addressed the NATO point. I said unless there was a formal alliance. in which case whoever the aggressor is is declaring war on the entire group, not an individual nation in the eyes of the alliance. that is why everyone gets involved. Article 5 is a perfect example of how NATO would be the aggressors to enter the war now. Article 5 only activates if a NATO nation was attacked first. otherwise the alliance itself is mum. the individual nations can choose to join in a war a member nation creates, but they aren't required. Which is why I pointed out that Britain wasn't an aggressor to Germany in 1939, they had a formal alliance BEFORE the invasion with Poland. France did not.

we have no formal alliance or treaty, largely thanks to slick willy changing the wording in English, with Ukraine. Russia didn't declare war on the US, or any US ally that would have drug us in. We are 100% choosing to enter the war. nothing is forcing us. that makes us the aggressor. doesn't matter if we are joining the defender, we aren't the defender. we are AN aggressor. as I said it is possible for there to be multiple aggressors on both sides of the fight. there is nothing justifying OUR potential act of violence, WE were not provoked. we are taking the aggressive act of getting involved in someone else's fight. its the same in football. two guys jawing and shoving just get separated, maybe one gets flagged. but if a third guy runs into defend his guy with another shove, he 100% gets the flag because he is AN aggressor, even if his guy didn't start the fight.

 

[BeardedVol]

might want to look at the timelines, and you will see how Churchills aggression to push the Allies forces further into belgium & holland over stretched their lines. that wasn't the plan before Churchill. the quick time in the changes of plans is one of the reasons it wasn't successful.

Seriously, where are you getting this nonsense?

France was in overall command of allied forces at the time of Germany's invasion of Belgium in 1940. It was the French general Gamelin, who committed the bulk of allied forces to Belgium north of the Ardennes, because he erroneously believed that it was the main thrust of Germany's attack, and was unprepared for the second phase that cut off the Allied forces in a sickle maneuver through the Ardennes forest.

Literally had nothing to do with Churchill at all.

 

[volbound1700]

The United States has bases in Syria is protecting the oil revenue which doesn't go to the Syrian government. The United states has roughly 1000 troops there. Russia is there at the request of the Syrian government.

I am not sure what you are getting at.



You said you are in support of "democracy", it is my hope that the democratic process here will bring change although I don't feel like that is going to happen without collapse. Telling the truth should be a way of life for everyone, I don't see why I have to agree with my government to hope there will be change. Basically the words you are using is what every evil invader says, I'm not angry as you say - more an obvious observation. For me to absolutely have to agree with my government is the opposite of intent of "democracy", that's more akin to communist government.

We have been a force for Democracy across the globe. Europe has followed our example by kicking out their Kings and setting up Parliamentary or US based Democracies. Latin America has modeled a lot of their systems after USA Democracy.

Liberia (which I have intiment connections to) has an entire government system based on our process

South Korea has a system based on us.

Japan went from Dictatorship to Democratic system and their Constitution was designed by MacArthur's staff and is based of our system.

Tons of countries through the Pacific have references to the United States in their flag and government system.

The UN Charter of Rights is basically modeled after the United States and its Constitutional values.

I could keep going... whether you want to admit it or not, we live in a US-led world where Democracy is argued as the primary "good" form of government over Monarchies, Fascism, Communism, etc.

I get that our system is broken today. I think it is more than just our government but a massive change in our value system as a whole. The average American doesn't have the same view on life, morality, accountability, etc. that we had in the past. I think that is where you start with why we have gone astray.

 

[LouderVol]

You clearly know 0 about World War II.

Churchill became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940 as you stated. The operations in the Benelux, the general British operational strategy, the deployment of forces, etc. was already in place by his predecessor prior to all of this. Churchill had 0 input in the overall strategy of the Battle of France until after it had already started and was the focal point for Dunkirk which saved the BEF and a lot of French soldiers (basically he did the opposite of what you are stating and helped get the Allies out of the mess they were in).

Your ignorance of history is astounding.

You do know that in war, you can't just change battle plans and move forces around in 2-3 days (especially back then). You could have limited input but the BEF's deployment and strategy during the Battle of France was entirely on Chamberlain. Also, the UK (due to the numerical strategy of France) had delegated all battle strategy towards France so it really wasn't even on Chamberlain as well but rather failed military strategy by France. Had France, literally, counterattacked the German advance early or put a few more divisions at Sedan that could have held out, the operation could have been a major German disaster.

Of course if you seriously studied WW2, you would know all of this but everything you have said is way off. There are tons of World War II fan groups/videos, etc. out there. I suggest you join them. Facebook has some solid WWII pages/groups that you can join. Historians post videos on Youtube and articles regularly including actual speeches at major Universities on the topic.


Regarding your French Aggression argument, I present a summary of the following points:

1. The Little Entente treaties obligated France to defend newly independent nations in Eastern Europe from German Aggression
2. Germany illegally entered the Saar and Rhineland which was overlooked by France and violated the Versailles treaty
3. Germany broke the Munich Agreement by taking over all of Czechoslavakia
4. France was obligated to protect Poland (along with UK and Italy) under the League of Nations charter
5. France signed the Kasprzycki–Gamelin Convention as pointed out in this thread
6. France signed a military alliance with the UK indicating that if one goes to war, the other will follow

All 6 above are, individual, grounds to write off France as the aggressor


This also overlooks German violation of the Versailles treaty regarding military buildup, deployment of air force (which was forbidden), deployment of tanks (which was forbidden), and the building of U-Boats (which was forbidden).

Basically, Hitler crapped all over Versailles.

Might want to look into what Churchill's job was before being PM. He was the First Lord of the Admiralty, for the second time. the modern equivalent is the Secretary of Defense. you can easily see this because when they reworked their organization in the 60s the current First Lord of the Admiralty became their Secretary of Defense. Churchill was involved in the planning long before May 10th. he had also planned the disaster of the Dardanelles in WW1 as the First Lord of the Admiralty, so you are exposing your ignorance of two wars and how they were planned and the roles of the individuals involved.

of your six points, France ignored 4 of them, so you can't use them as justification when they eventually declared war sometimes 3 years later. one of them happened AFTER the invasion of Poland as I pointed out before. and the last one is a MILITARY alliance and not a DEFENSIVE alliance, which allows for one nation to call in the other even if the first isn't attacked. which doesn't preclude France from being an aggressor, in fact that is why they wanted an Military alliance and not a defensive one, to allow for acts of aggression within the format of the alliance.

 

[volbound1700]

Since WW2 came up, I found this interesting:

Dimbleby is right – to understand the war in Ukraine, look to 1944

It’s uncomfortable to reflect that 80 years ago we had reason to be very thankful to the Russians for displaying on the Eastern Front the same characteristics we find so abhorrent in their conduct in Ukraine today. Chief among them is their pitiless treatment of their opponents, soldier and...

www.yahoo.com

 

[BeardedVol]

by the time the Chinese got involved the South Koreans had 100% invaded the North. not sure what history you think I am retconning with a statement like that. and once we entered Iraq we certainly were the aggressors. you are just buying the writer's of history whitewashing their own history to make sure the message is as positive to them as possible. it doesn't change the basic facts, just how YOU apply them.

I already addressed the NATO point. I said unless there was a formal alliance. in which case whoever the aggressor is is declaring war on the entire group, not an individual nation in the eyes of the alliance. that is why everyone gets involved. Article 5 is a perfect example of how NATO would be the aggressors to enter the war now. Article 5 only activates if a NATO nation was attacked first. otherwise the alliance itself is mum. the individual nations can choose to join in a war a member nation creates, but they aren't required. Which is why I pointed out that Britain wasn't an aggressor to Germany in 1939, they had a formal alliance BEFORE the invasion with Poland. France did not.

we have no formal alliance or treaty, largely thanks to slick willy changing the wording in English, with Ukraine. Russia didn't declare war on the US, or any US ally that would have drug us in. We are 100% choosing to enter the war. nothing is forcing us. that makes us the aggressor. doesn't matter if we are joining the defender, we aren't the defender. we are AN aggressor. as I said it is possible for there to be multiple aggressors on both sides of the fight. there is nothing justifying OUR potential act of violence, WE were not provoked. we are taking the aggressive act of getting involved in someone else's fight. its the same in football. two guys jawing and shoving just get separated, maybe one gets flagged. but if a third guy runs into defend his guy with another shove, he 100% gets the flag because he is AN aggressor, even if his guy didn't start the fight.

JFC...counterattacking on the territory of the country that invaded you, is not an aggressive invasion of that nation, when they are still actively conducting an invasion of your country. Again, North Korea invaded the South, it doesn't even really matter when China became involved, they were aiding the aggressor nation in the war.

A formal alliance is not required to aid a nation in defense, the US and UK had no formal defense alliance at the beginning of WW1 or WW2, and yet we still aided them in both, prior to entering ourselves. There's no world-wide rule that a country has to have a formal alliance, to aid another being invaded. Since you seem to be enamored with trying to use this nonsensical idea when it comes to judging US actions, I'll remind you that China and North Korea had no mutual defense treaty when China entered the Korean war on 11/1/1950.

 

[LSU-SIU]

We have been a force for Democracy across the globe. Europe has followed our example by kicking out their Kings and setting up Parliamentary or US based Democracies. Latin America has modeled a lot of their systems after USA Democracy.

That's called a global dictatorship i.e. evil. Basically, you are saying if the U.S. does evil, that you approve because its not being done to you. How do you think Hitler was put in charge ie democracy.

Freedom, democracy, liberty, sovereignty are words everyone uses when they are doing evil.

Freeeeedooooooommmmm!!!!

 

[volbound1700]

That's called a global dictatorship i.e. evil. Basically, you are saying if the U.S. does evil, that you approve because its not being done to you. How do you think Hitler was put in charge ie democracy.

Freedom, democracy, liberty, sovereignty are words everyone uses when they are doing evil.

Freeeeedooooooommmmm!!!!

I think you are confusing a leader with a boss. (I am going total work analogy here).

A leader is someone that people willingly, want to follow for a variety of reasons while a Boss commands people to follow them.

The USA was historically a leader. We didn't force UK, France, or others to change. They followed us. The closest thing that we have to forcing would be Germany, Japan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We called that "nation building". 2 have definitely failed (Afghanistan and Vietnam), one is looking like a failure (Iraq), and two were successful (Germany and Japan).

However, most nations, on their own, have willingly followed the United States. In fact, in all of the conflicts listed, including the controversial ones, the United States has had sizable UN Approval for intervention: Korea, Afghanistan, Desert Storm I, etc. The two major instances of not having UN Approval were Vietnam and the 2003 Iraq War with the 2003 Iraq War being the worse case.

Even then, they still had backing and support from several nations including the UK, Australia, and Poland. The 2003 Iraq War is the best argument out there for a flat out US Aggression, at least in the modern era (you can definitely consider Mexican-American, Spanish-American or many wars in the 19th Century as wars of aggression).

 

[LouderVol]

JFC...counterattacking on the territory of the country that invaded you, is not an aggressive invasion of that nation, when they are still actively conducting an invasion of your country. Again, North Korea invaded the South, it doesn't even really matter when China became involved, they were aiding the aggressor nation in the war.

A formal alliance is not required to aid a nation in defense, the US and UK had no formal defense alliance at the beginning of WW1 or WW2, and yet we still aided them in both, prior to entering ourselves. There's no world-wide rule that a country has to have a formal alliance, to aid another being invaded. Since you seem to be enamored with trying to use this nonsensical idea when it comes to judging US actions, I'll remind you that China and North Korea had no mutual defense treaty when China entered the Korean war on 11/1/1950.

I never said a formal alliance was required. not sure what argument you think is going on, but its clearly not one I am making.

I have said that a formal alliance would preclude being the aggressor if your ally is attacked. but I didn't say it was required to come to the aid of someone else. just at that point, you are an aggressor. you are choosing to take a violent act against a nation that hadn't done anything to provoke YOU. ergo you are the aggressor. who invades who first is an incredibly weak way to claim who is the aggressor. if that was the case the French would still have been the aggressors because they entered Germany in the Phony War phase, before Germany entered the low countries.

try to stick to arguments I actually make and you may do a better job making a coherent argument.

giving aid doesn't make you the aggressor either. I have never said that, and that is Ras level of deluded. I have said from the start I would be fine selling Ukraine things they need, even at a heavily discounted rate. but any consideration of us joining the fight would still make us the aggressors without an attack on a NATO nation.

 

[BeardedVol]

I never said a formal alliance was required. not sure what argument you think is going on, but its clearly not one I am making.

I have said that a formal alliance would preclude being the aggressor if your ally is attacked. but I didn't say it was required to come to the aid of someone else. just at that point, you are an aggressor. you are choosing to take a violent act against a nation that hadn't done anything to provoke YOU. ergo you are the aggressor. who invades who first is an incredibly weak way to claim who is the aggressor. if that was the case the French would still have been the aggressors because they entered Germany in the Phony War phase, before Germany entered the low countries.

try to stick to arguments I actually make and you may do a better job making a coherent argument.

giving aid doesn't make you the aggressor either. I have never said that, and that is Ras level of deluded. I have said from the start I would be fine selling Ukraine things they need, even at a heavily discounted rate. but any consideration of us joining the fight would still make us the aggressors without an attack on a NATO nation.

No a formal alliance has no bearing on whether or not a country is the aggressor in an armed conflict. The US will not be 'the aggressor' when we aid Taiwan if China attempts to invade them, in spite of us having no formal defense treaty with them.

No matter who gets involved in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, nothing will change that fact. They violated half a dozen treaties with Ukraine, and the UN charter when they invaded, and the lack of any "formal treaty" with any country that aids them, in any way, shape, or form, will not turn that country into 'the aggressor' in this conflict.

Definition of Aggression | United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 - Diplo Resource

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) establishes a Definition of Aggression for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. It outlines acts that qualify as aggression, condemns war of aggression as a crime against international peace, and emphasizes that...

www.diplomacy.edu

You're attempting some Rasputin_Vol level mental gymnastics to try to substantiate a position, that literally no historian, or any lay person with general historical knowledge would entertain.

 

[Orangeburst]

@Orangeburst I'm not in this thread much but this is my vote as well.

Congrats on ur new Schwinn. Pick a color.

 

[LouderVol]

No a formal alliance has no bearing on whether or not a country is the aggressor in an armed conflict. The US will not be 'the aggressor' when we aid Taiwan if China attempts to invade them, in spite of us having no formal defense treaty with them.

No matter who gets involved in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, nothing will change that fact. They violated half a dozen treaties with Ukraine, and the UN charter when they invaded, and the lack of any "formal treaty" with any country that aids them, in any way, shape, or form, will not turn that country into 'the aggressor' in this conflict.

View attachment 639433

Definition of Aggression | United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 - Diplo Resource

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) establishes a Definition of Aggression for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. It outlines acts that qualify as aggression, condemns war of aggression as a crime against international peace, and emphasizes that...

www.diplomacy.edu

You're attempting some Rasputin_Vol level mental gymnastics to try to substantiate a position, that literally no historian, or any lay person with general historical knowledge would entertain.

I never said Russia wouldn't be the aggressor. just another argument you are making up.

I have said multiple times it is possible for there to be multiple aggressors, and on each side, of the conflict. points which you have not even attempted to argue. instead you just throw out straw man after straw man.

even when quoting a post of mine calling out one of your straw men you resort to another instead of addressing what I actually said.

 

[82_VOL_83]

No a formal alliance has no bearing on whether or not a country is the aggressor in an armed conflict. The US will not be 'the aggressor' when we aid Taiwan if China attempts to invade them, in spite of us having no formal defense treaty with them.

No matter who gets involved in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor, nothing will change that fact. They violated half a dozen treaties with Ukraine, and the UN charter when they invaded, and the lack of any "formal treaty" with any country that aids them, in any way, shape, or form, will not turn that country into 'the aggressor' in this conflict.

View attachment 639433

Definition of Aggression | United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 - Diplo Resource

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) establishes a Definition of Aggression for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. It outlines acts that qualify as aggression, condemns war of aggression as a crime against international peace, and emphasizes that...

www.diplomacy.edu

You're attempting some Rasputin_Vol level mental gymnastics to try to substantiate a position, that literally no historian, or any lay person with general historical knowledge would entertain.

You proved his point by the way.

 

[PKT_VOL]

My gawd, you guys are not only delusional, but don't even know how to read the chessboard right now.

Just one example... in your fantasy scenario, do you think India is going to stand by and watch China turn Russia into a puppet state?

What exactly is India going to do about it?

Everything else you guys are saying is just nonsense. No way Europe is winning. No way Japan is winning. Hell, you can't even say right now that Israel is winning.

Europe - Europe is getting a severely weakened arch enemy. If Russia had ran through Ukraine in a week, there is a high likelihood Europe would have been drawn into a conflict closer to home with their own troops. That's a win for Europe.

Japan - I said that Japan was winning indirectly. This is due to the war making China rethink taking Taiwan by force. Even a delay in the timetable is a win for Japan to prepare (which they are scrambling to do at the moment).

Israel - They are winning tactically but most likely losing strategically. One could easily make the argument that both Israel and Hamas are both winning respective to their own separate goals. Time will tell.

 

[BeardedVol]

I never said Russia wouldn't be the aggressor. just another argument you are making up.

I have said multiple times it is possible for there to be multiple aggressors, and on each side, of the conflict. points which you have not even attempted to argue. instead you just throw out straw man after straw man.

even when quoting a post of mine calling out one of your straw men you resort to another instead of addressing what I actually said.

No, there are not multiple aggressors on 'both sides' of a conflict. The aggressor is the party that initiates armed conflict. Full stop.

Armed defense and retaliation against the aggressor, does not shift that status at all.

France did not become the 'aggressor' when it declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland.

The US did not become the 'aggressor' when it crossed the 38th parallel after North Korea invaded South Korea.

The US did not become the 'aggressor' after it invaded Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Subsequently, no country aiding Ukraine would become the 'aggressor' should they choose to aid Ukraine in defending itself from Russia.

 

[Rocky_Top_Vol13]

 

[PKT_VOL]

OK, can you clarify this, because I'm not following this. Your talking about railroads and China/Taiwan. Flush that out further or clean it up so it is clear to understand.

The famous quote from General Bradley "amateur's talk strategy, professionals talk logistics". From a logical standpoint, Ukraine should have been a slam-dunk for the Russians. They rely heavily on their rail system for their logistics. Ukraine and Russia are neighbors and share rail networks. On the other hand, Taiwan and China are separated by 100 miles of water. That is a massive difference.

Much of the military technology and strategy of China and Russia are divergent from the USSR. Seeing Russia struggle on a slam-dunk inevitably forces China to revaluate the feasibility of an invasion of Taiwan.

A relatively benign country for 99% of the planet except for Russia. They share cultural ties and NATO has been openly trying to use Ukraine as a proxy since the OSS/CIA were supporting Stepan Bandera in the mid-1940s.

Which is a problem because Taiwan is not relatively benign.

The semiconductor nonsense is already past its shelf life. The Chinese are making their own chips/semiconductors. And don't think that there have not Taiwanese going to the Mainland to assist in their development.

You are free to have your opinion on that. Just know that virtually every country in the world disagrees.

 

[PKT_VOL]

@PKT_VOL welcome to LSU Karen’s ignore list. I’d guess at this point all she sees is her and Ras’s posts

You know the president of the Will Wade fan club is still reading everyone's posts and just seething in silence.

Blocking someone for pointing out that Russia's treatment towards other USSR republics wasn't in their long-term best interests is Charmin soft.

I feeling it will last as long as LG taking his ball and going home.

 

[LouderVol]

No, there are not multiple aggressors on 'both sides' of a conflict. The aggressor is the party that initiates armed conflict. Full stop.

Armed defense and retaliation against the aggressor, does not shift that status at all.

France did not become the 'aggressor' when it declared war on Germany after Germany invaded Poland.

The US did not become the 'aggressor' when it crossed the 38th parallel after North Korea invaded South Korea.

The US did not become the 'aggressor' after it invaded Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Subsequently, no country aiding Ukraine would become the 'aggressor' should they choose to aid Ukraine in defending itself from Russia.

It has always been possible for there to be multiple aggressors. nothing you have argued says otherwise.

its funny how you had to drop the definition argument after I pointed out the definition of aggression points out that it is without provocation.

Germany did not provoke France. ergo France is the aggressor. It doesn't matter that Germany was the aggressor elsewhere, that doesn't have anything to do with France vs Germany.

never said the US was the aggressor in Korea, so thats at least the third straw man.

Iraq didn't do anything to provoke the US, so yes we were the aggressor when we crossed into their territory. invading iraq had nothing to do with defending or freeing Kuwait. that war was done within a few days, but we chose to stay on the attack AS THE AGGRESSOR. It doesn't matter that Iraq was the original aggressor, we chose violence that went beyond a defensive nature and invaded Iraq without any provocation to the US.

once you take a violent action without direct provocation you are the aggressor.

we aren't part of the fight. choosing to take part in the fight makes us an aggressor. doesn't matter if we are choosing to defend someone else, we are still choosing unprovoked violence. you don't get to claim 3rd party provocations UNLESS you have a formal agreement.

your entire argument argues for every single conflict to be WW3, because everyone should get involved in everyone else's business. it also implies that the nature of conflicts never changes. especially when conflicts last for several years and roles can easily be reversed. You have also argued against common sense and legal standard practices that one can post date agreements to justify actions that happened before the agreement was in place. you are the one reaching all over the place, dropping arguments and creating straw men to hold a non-sensical point of view.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Blocking someone for pointing out that Russia's treatment towards other USSR republics wasn't in their long-term best interests is Charmin soft.

I feeling it will last as long as LG taking his ball and going home.

LSU Karen cannot be bothered by factual retorts and reality checks. She has made a decree and thus it is the law.

Yeah I really think that’s the way that mind works. And yeah it’s Charmin soft

 

[MontyPython]

View attachment 639436

Congrats on ur new Schwinn. Pick a color.

Dang. Brings back great memories.

I had the red Schwinn Sting-ray myself with the banana seat.

Damn seat would always slip down... terribly designed... but still rode that bike into the ground.

 

[Orangeburst]

Dang. Brings back great memories.

I had the red Schwinn Sting-ray myself with the banana seat.

Damn seat would always slip down... terribly designed... but still rode that bike into the ground.

deleted joke