War in Ukraine

#2,477
#2,477
MontyPython said:
:rolleyes:

The analogous situation today is if the US/NATO doesn't prevent offensive missile weapons systems from being placed in NATO-wannabe Ukraine or other countries bordering Russia, Russia will have no option but to defend itself.

Where exactly Russia attacks in Ukraine and how, who knows. But the point is such action will invariably illicit an attack from Russia.
Click to expand...

Not analogous at all. We simply stopped selling Japan oil and scrap metal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and tvolsfan
#2,478
#2,478
MontyPython said:
As a practical matter, this isn't true. You can argue about the target and objective that Japan was going to attack, but they absolutely were forced into war.

On November 26, 1941 Secretary of State Hull presented "peace terms" to the Japanese. The terms presented by Hull were such that in order for Japan to agree to them they would have had to withdraw from China, and essentially end all hostilities, something that the administration knew was not going to happen.

FDR forced the Japanese into a corner. His hope and intent was 100% that they would attack us.

He was right.
Click to expand...
Why is stopping the invasion of China some unreasonable demand for lifting sanctions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolsAgainstTheWorld15 and hog88
#2,482
#2,482
MontyPython said:
:rolleyes:

The analogous situation today is if the US/NATO doesn't prevent offensive missile weapons systems from being placed in NATO-wannabe Ukraine or other countries bordering Russia, Russia will have no option but to defend itself.

Where exactly Russia attacks in Ukraine and how, who knows. But the point is such action will invariably illicit an attack from Russia.
Click to expand...
How is attacking a sovereign country "Defending"?

Do you think that Europe and the Ukraine plan to attack Russia?
 
#2,485
#2,485
Rasputin_Vol said:
That is a POS move by the United States. And you see no problem with us breaking our word... that is problematic.
Click to expand...

Yes I see a problem with breaking our word but without a treaty clarifying something of that magnitude I don't consider anything Baker said as binding.
 
#2,488
#2,488
tvolsfan said:
Especially because everyone except Putin fangirls and conspiracy theorists understand those countries all want to be in NATO because they don’t trust Moscow, and shouldn’t.
Click to expand...
And yet you have people in this very conversation talking about not having an agreement in writing and using that as justification for expanding NATO, highlighting exactly why our side shouldn't be trusted.
 
#2,490
#2,490
Sandman 423 said:
How is attacking a sovereign country "Defending"?

Do you think that Europe and the Ukraine plan to attack Russia?
Click to expand...

In 1962, Russia placed nuclear missiles in Cuba. JFK threatened to invade Cuba if they weren't removed.

Was JFK "defending" the United States by threatening to attack Cuba?
 
#2,491
#2,491
Sandman 423 said:
How is attacking a sovereign country "Defending"?

Do you think that Europe and the Ukraine plan to attack Russia?
Click to expand...
Yes. Not necessarily Ukraine doing the planning, but there is no doubt in my mind that they specifically expanded NATO and are pushing military assets into these areas with the purpose of staging some event in the future. Russia has been problematic for The UK ever since the mid 1800s (The Great Game) and had become a focus of US interests since World War I. This is all documented and can be easily proven.
 
#2,493
#2,493
Sandman 423 said:
The only problem is that Russia already invaded them and annexed part of their country. They should be allowed to protect themselves any way they see fit. We should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
And again, they annexed Crimea after the US State Department initiated a coup and destabilized Ukraine in 2014. You act as though Crimea was annexed in a vacuum and conveniently ignore the US staged Kiev coup. It was a reactive move, not a proactive move.
 
#2,494
#2,494
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yes. Not necessarily Ukraine doing the planning, but there is no doubt in my mind that they specifically expanded NATO and are pushing military assets into these areas with the purpose of staging some event in the future. Russia has been problematic for The UK ever since the mid 1800s (The Great Game) and had become a focus of US interests since World War I. This is all documented and can be easily proven.
Click to expand...

That's some tinfoil hat **** right there. NATO isn't invading Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#2,496
#2,496
Rasputin_Vol said:
And again, they annexed Crimea after the US State Department initiated a coup and destabilized Ukraine in 2014. You act as though Crimea was annexed in a vacuum and conveniently ignore the US staged Kiev coup. It was a reactive move, not a proactive move.
Click to expand...
Oh boy.

Does Vlad blame us for the Holodomor, too?
 
#2,497
#2,497
Rasputin_Vol said:
And again, they annexed Crimea after the US State Department initiated a coup and destabilized Ukraine in 2014. You act as though Crimea was annexed in a vacuum and conveniently ignore the US staged Kiev coup. It was a reactive move, not a proactive move.
Click to expand...
That shouldn't prevent the Ukraine from being able to defend itself. Again..... WE SHOULD STAY OUT OF OTHER COUNTRIES AFFAIRS.
 
#2,499
#2,499
hog88 said:
That's some tinfoil hat **** right there. NATO isn't invading Russia.
Click to expand...
That isn't tinfoil hat. That is a proper understanding of their long term strategy. Answer me this, when the USSR collapsed in the 1990s and was far weaker than any point since 1917, why wasn't NATO disbanded then? What was the purpose of NATO at that point? And why expand eastward in the 1990s even as Russia was being driven in the ground by Yeltsin and robbed and pillaged by Western interests and their Russian oligarch collaborators?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top