War in Ukraine

#44,527
#44,527
NorthDallas40 said:
Well you claimed them. But you didn’t support your claims. I know how you look them up thanks.

Look you are pushing a Putin appeasement narrative. 100% and it’s disingenuous to claim your posts don’t show that. A paraphrase of your statements is “just give Putin what he wants and people will be better off”. Like it or not that is pro Russian/Putin. You came in guns blazing with a hyperbolic “the Us invaded first from my experience”. That is patently false. So it’s on you to reconcile how you think you feel with what your posts imply.
Click to expand...
Strawman- claiming that Someone is arguing for something they are not
Ie- saying that I am pro Putin when I have explicitly said that I am not
False dichotomy/choice- arbitrarily and erroneously limiting the number of possible positions
Ie- claiming that the only position I could be arguing for is pro Putin when I have explicitly stated that the purpose of my pointing out the US’s involvement in precipitating this conflagration has to do with my being against war, not pro Putin/west.
 
#44,528
#44,528
bcmbvol said:
Strawman- claiming that Someone is arguing for something they are not
Ie- saying that I am pro Putin when I have explicitly said that I am not
False dichotomy/choice- arbitrarily and erroneously limiting the number of possible positions
Ie- claiming that the only position I could be arguing for is pro Putin when I have explicitly stated that the purpose of my pointing out the US’s involvement in precipitating this conflagration has to do with my being against war, not pro Putin/west.
Click to expand...
Nope, no strawman or false dichotomy here. But look up deflection while you’re there how about it? My statement is your claim is not supported by your post history. I’m not the only person to point that out to you. That’s on you not me.

Yes a Putin appeasement stance is pro Russian/Putin. And I don’t see how you can even try to claim otherwise.

And randomly throwing out logical fallacy labels that don’t apply doesn’t make it real for you. Ultimately you’re gauged by your posts. You are clearly pro Russian from what I’ve seen this far and no amount of protests from you will change that unless you change your post content.
 
#44,529
#44,529
NorthDallas40 said:
Nope, no strawman or false dichotomy here. But look up deflection while you’re there how about it? My statement is your claim is not supported by your post history. I’m not the only person to point that out to you. That’s on you not me.

Yes a Putin appeasement stance is pro Russian/Putin. And I don’t see how you can even try to claim otherwise.

And randomly throwing out logical fallacy labels that don’t apply doesn’t make it real for you. Ultimately you’re gauged by your posts. You are clearly pro Russian from what I’ve seen this far and no amount of protests from you will change that unless you change your post content.
Click to expand...
If you’re arguing some position, it is perfectly reasonable to point out the logical fallacies your opponent employs against your argument to demonstrate that their counter argument is lacking justification.
 
#44,530
#44,530
bcmbvol said:
Strawman- claiming that Someone is arguing for something they are not
Ie- saying that I am pro Putin when I have explicitly said that I am not
False dichotomy/choice- arbitrarily and erroneously limiting the number of possible positions
Ie- claiming that the only position I could be arguing for is pro Putin when I have explicitly stated that the purpose of my pointing out the US’s involvement in precipitating this conflagration has to do with my being against war, not pro Putin/west.
Click to expand...
Oh. Forgot to add on this little gem. You should try condemning the only aggressor in this whole fiasco if you’re really anti war. That is Putin and Russia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL_79
#44,531
#44,531
bcmbvol said:
If you’re arguing some position, it is perfectly reasonable to point out the logical fallacies your opponent employs against your argument to demonstrate that their counter argument is lacking justification.
Click to expand...
Sure. If you’re right in your claim. But you aren’t. Now mr anti war you need to condemn the only actual aggressor here. Russia.
 
#44,532
#44,532
62684689-11238049-image-m-5_1663833564722.jpg

A dramatic night time picture from Vnukovo airport in Moscow shows men trying to escape the country before they are prevented

62684667-11238049-image-a-6_1663833593394.jpg

Queues of cars trying to get out of Russia form on the country's border with Georgia hours after Putin announced mobilisation

62684683-11238049-image-a-8_1663833663657.jpg

Heavy traffic has formed near border crossings, driven by fears the country might lock down and send more civilians to war

Desperate Russian wives threaten to break their husbands' BONES so they are unfit to join war | Daily Mail Online
 
#44,534
#44,534
bcmbvol said:
Yes I gladly condemn the actions of Putin
Click to expand...
Great! Progress! Because in all of this only one country has invaded Ukraine and annexed their territory in Crimea. It’s Russia. This all started with Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 and it will only end when Russia is pushed back out. Because as long as people are willing to let Putin annex Ukraine one area at a time he’ll continue to do so until Ukraine is all Russian again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
#44,536
#44,536
NorthDallas40 said:
Great! Progress! Because in all of this only one country has invaded Ukraine and annexed their territory in Crimea. It’s Russia. This all started with Russia invading Ukraine in 2014 and it will only end when Russia is pushed back out. Because as long as people are willing to let Putin annex Ukraine one area at a time he’ll continue to do so until Ukraine is all Russian again.
Click to expand...
Alright well I want to be clear that I don’t affirm all of that and I don’t know about your speculation there. Condemning Putin is absolutely congruent with my world view.
 
#44,537
#44,537
bcmbvol said:
Alright well I want to be clear that I don’t affirm all of that and I don’t know about your speculation there. Condemning Putin is absolutely congruent with my world view.
Click to expand...
And I’ll condemn the US even though I’m unapologetically pro US. This whole scenario started in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum. The US once again was trying to tell other countries they can’t have nuclear weapons while we are the only ones to ever use them. We are unabashed hypocrites on our nuclear weapon proliferation stance.

That interference resulted in the Budapest Memorandum signed by the US, UK, Russia, and Ukraine and resulted in them giving up the worlds third largest stockpile of nuclear arms at the time.

Over the years many countries have had a hand meddling in Ukraine including us. But all of them doesn’t add up to justifications for Russia invading Ukraine and annexing any single bit of Ukrainian territory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#44,538
#44,538
NorthDallas40 said:
And I’ll condemn the US even though I’m unapologetically pro US. This whole scenario started in 1994 with the Budapest Memorandum. The US once again was trying to tell other countries they can’t have nuclear weapons while we are the only ones to ever use them. We are unabashed hypocrites on our nuclear weapon proliferation stance.

That interference resulted in the Budapest Memorandum signed by the US, UK, Russia, and Ukraine and resulted in them giving up the worlds third largest stockpile of nuclear arms at the time.

Over the years many countries have had a hand meddling in Ukraine including us. But all of them doesn’t add up to justifications for Russia invading Ukraine and annexing any single bit of Ukrainian territory.
Click to expand...
That’s right
 
#44,539
#44,539
bcmbvol said:
Yanukovych was one of ours, too. I don’t want to assume too much here, but I see people (idk if you’re one of them) who would decry election meddling in 2016, going so far as to call it an act of war. Yet, when I point out that, since 2004, the US government or its proxy organizations have worked to change the make up of Ukraine’s government with great effect, it is ridiculous. As an aside, I have no association with Ras.
Click to expand...
Yanukoych being ours has been argued here, and ignored by the pro Russians.

He ran on a pro western campaign. He had a big economic deal ready to sign with the EU that was very popular. Then pretty much day of that alleged signing he tears it up, not popular, and signs a deal with the Russians, also not popular. It's not that he also signed with the Russians after no word of this Russian deal, it was that he ONLY signed with the russians after running a pro West campaign and government.

That pissed off the locals. And got his butt ran out of town. The Russians then helovacced his butt back to Russia to enjoy an early retirement.

That screams that he was bought off by Russia. We probably did support him and his pro Western Campaign. But guess what he won that election on pro western ideas, and I have yet to see anyone argue that his Western backed Campaign was rigged or unlawful. It only became "unlawful" when their government essentially impeached his butt. Which they are in their right to do, so thus it wasnt an unlawful act to kick him out.

Now there were referendums held in the east in 2014 to join Russia that Putin rejected. But those referendums were held months after a WHOLE bunch of modern Russian equipment showed up in the hands of "locals". Like radar guided anti Air missiles that shot down that civilian airliner. The average Ivan over there is not working that equipment. It was Russian regulars/spec ops. And in those months they were there they rounded up and killed, or imprisoned every pro Ukrainian they could find before the referendum. So that referendum was bs to start.

Now to the fighting the 14,000 dead is the total dead since 2014. Not just "pro Russian" civilians. That includes the "rebel" military, rebel civilians, Ukrainian civilians in the areas loyal to Ukraine and Ukrainian soldiers. Both sides were shooting at each other. I dont care who started it, I always assumed it was the Ukrainians because they were fighting invaders. But both sides fired and killed civilians.

There would have been no dead civilians if Russia at the least doesnt arm the local rebels, and at worst if the Russians themselves werent fighting over there in that time period.

Russia lost the long game in Ukraine and if you want to pull some tit for tat bs on when the actual start of the non shooting war, common sense says russia has been interfering in ukraine a lot longer than the west has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel, 825VOL, tvolsfan and 2 others
#44,540
#44,540
LouderVol said:
Yanukoych being ours has been argued here, and ignored by the pro Russians.

He ran on a pro western campaign. He had a big economic deal ready to sign with the EU that was very popular. Then pretty much day of that alleged signing he tears it up, not popular, and signs a deal with the Russians, also not popular. It's not that he also signed with the Russians after no word of this Russian deal, it was that he ONLY signed with the russians after running a pro West campaign and government.

That pissed off the locals. And got his butt ran out of town. The Russians then helovacced his butt back to Russia to enjoy an early retirement.

That screams that he was bought off by Russia. We probably did support him and his pro Western Campaign. But guess what he won that election on pro western ideas, and I have yet to see anyone argue that his Western backed Campaign was rigged or unlawful. It only became "unlawful" when their government essentially impeached his butt. Which they are in their right to do, so thus it wasnt an unlawful act to kick him out.

Now there were referendums held in the east in 2014 to join Russia that Putin rejected. But those referendums were held months after a WHOLE bunch of modern Russian equipment showed up in the hands of "locals". Like radar guided anti Air missiles that shot down that civilian airliner. The average Ivan over there is not working that equipment. It was Russian regulars/spec ops. And in those months they were there they rounded up and killed, or imprisoned every pro Ukrainian they could find before the referendum. So that referendum was bs to start.

Now to the fighting the 14,000 dead is the total dead since 2014. Not just "pro Russian" civilians. That includes the "rebel" military, rebel civilians, Ukrainian civilians in the areas loyal to Ukraine and Ukrainian soldiers. Both sides were shooting at each other. I dont care who started it, I always assumed it was the Ukrainians because they were fighting invaders. But both sides fired and killed civilians.

There would have been no dead civilians if Russia at the least doesnt arm the local rebels, and at worst if the Russians themselves werent fighting over there in that time period.

Russia lost the long game in Ukraine and if you want to pull some tit for tat bs on when the actual start of the non shooting war, common sense says russia has been interfering in ukraine a lot longer than the west has.
Click to expand...
Agree with all except one minor nit. I believe the 2014 Donbas referendums were only for independence not Russian annexation. Yes there was discussion of the referendums going full Russian annexation but even Putin intervened that it was too far too soon and the actual referendums were just for regional independence. Which absolutely no one except Russia recognizes.

If my statement is incorrect and data shows that the actual referendums were for Russian annexation I’ll gladly withdraw my statement

Edit: Wikipedia’s take on the referendums

2014 Donbas status referendums - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
#44,541
#44,541
I don't have an insta, is it back up? If not, that would mean a couple of troubling things. One, meta is working with IRAN. Two, there are mass murders happening in Iran.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top