War in Ukraine

#45,528
#45,528
DonjoVol said:
Lol. You're one to talk. You, Dallas and the rest of the crew have been saying the same thing non stop day after day for months now. Maybe Dallas has some reruns of Guiding Light on VHS that you guys can watch together.
Click to expand...

Guiding light? wtf
 
#45,529
#45,529
DonjoVol said:
Lol. You're one to talk. You, Dallas and the rest of the crew have been saying the same thing non stop day after day for months now. Maybe Dallas has some reruns of Guiding Light on VHS that you guys can watch together.
Click to expand...

Edit: Erased my reply. I don't want anyone to know I wasted time on this moron.
 
Last edited:
#45,534
#45,534
Vol737 said:
Intended by whom, Ras? I mean, we're good at stirring the pot, I'm not sure if we're that good. Every one of these has had ethnic/religious/territorial wars in the past and tensions bubbling beneath the surface for years, decades, just waiting to boil over. Russia is already stretched and has their hands full, so I would agree it may be a consequence of that, that other countries want to take advantage of the timing.
Click to expand...

From a reliable source that you all have been promoting...

Overextending and Unbalancing Russia: Assessing the Impact of Cost-Imposing Options | RAND

Geopolitical Cost-Imposing Measures

Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.

Increasing support to the Syrian rebels could jeopardize other U.S. policy priorities, such as combating radical Islamic terrorism, and could risk further destabilizing the entire region. Furthermore, this option might not even be feasible, given the radicalization, fragmentation, and decline of the Syrian opposition.

Promoting liberalization in Belarus likely would not succeed and could provoke a strong Russian response, one that would result in a general deterioration of the security environment in Europe and a setback for U.S. policy.

Expanding ties in the South Caucasus—competing economically with Russia—would be difficult because of geography and history.

Reducing Russian influence in Central Asia would be very difficult and could prove costly. Increased engagement is unlikely to extend Russia much economically and likely to be disproportionately costly for the United States.

Flip Transnistria and expel the Russian troops from the region would be a blow to Russian prestige, but it would also save Moscow money and quite possibly impose additional costs on the United States and its allies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737
#45,536
#45,536
DonjoVol said:
Lol. You're one to talk. You, Dallas and the rest of the crew have been saying the same thing non stop day after day for months now. Maybe Dallas has some reruns of Guiding Light on VHS that you guys can watch together.
Click to expand...
Oh no the best entertainment thus far is going to be watching you stooges sell these sham referendums and the coming “attack on the Russian homeland” that is going to be some serious must see TV Curly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and Rickyvol77
#45,538
#45,538
LSU-SIU said:
They invade, bomb and kill people for no reason other than to install their own puppet government. Its annexing by a different name. Afghanistan was in annexation for 20 years, the sham eventually came to an end. Wordsmith doesn't change what happened.

The United States doesn't really care about free elections, heck ask Italy.

Once the Taliban took over in Afghanistan the United States froze all the central bank assets, why? Well, the puppet regime put into place by the United States fell, but the United States had already signed an agreement to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan.

Wordsmith.

The United States clearly has taken over those oilfields in Syria, exactly what do you call that? Its just words. Annex, taken over, captured, stole, etc. Does it really matter?
Click to expand...

Annexation for 20 years? Really? Did we make them hold a vote to join our nation?

Why the hell do we need Syria's oil fields? You are reaching big time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#45,541
#45,541
NorthDallas40 said:
Oh no the best entertainment thus far is going to be watching you stooges sell these sham referendums and the coming “attack on the Russian homeland” that is going to be some serious must see TV Curly.
Click to expand...

I'd bet my bottom dollar that we do indeed hear that when the newly annexed areas are attacked by Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#45,543
#45,543
norrislakevol said:
Lol! We gonna annex or liberate Syria?
Click to expand...
Looks like the US is robbing Syria.

I'm not sure what your point is. Again, look at each situation on a case-by-case basis. But since you brought up Syria, the Americans are clearly the invaders and the Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah are the liberators.
 
#45,546
#45,546
norrislakevol said:
I'd bet my bottom dollar that we do indeed hear that when the newly annexed areas are attacked by Ukraine.
Click to expand...

From 1897, genius... its been historically Russian or Soviet since the days of Catherine the Great. Where is the country called "Ukraine" on this map?

Novorossiya - Wikipedia

Novorossiya Governorate was formed (1764) from military frontier regions and parts of the southern Hetmanate, in anticipation of a war with the Ottoman Empire.[3] It was further expanded by the annexation of the Zaporozhian Sich in 1775. At various times, Novorossiya encompassed the Moldavian region of Bessarabia, the modern Ukraine's regions of the Black Sea littoral (Prychornomoria), Zaporizhzhia, Tavria, the Azov Sea littoral (Pryazovia), the Tatar region of Crimea, the area around the Kuban River, and the Circassian lands. The governorate was dissolved in 1783, but reestablished from 1796.

The region remained part of the Russian Empire until its collapse following the Russian February Revolution in early March 1917, after which it became part of the short-lived Russian Republic. In 1918, it was largely included in the Ukrainian State and in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic at the same time. In 1918–1920, it was, to varying extents, under the control of the anti-Bolshevik White movement governments of South Russia whose defeat signified the Soviet control over the territory, which became part of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, within the Soviet Union from 1922.

New_Russia_on_territory_of_Ukraine.png
 
#45,547
#45,547
Rasputin_Vol said:
1. So they returned to the rule of a monarchy. I thought we were there to liberate them?
2. Yeah, the US in Syria right now is an uncomfortable truth you can't explain away, so you laugh it off. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...

1) They did return to the rule of monarchy. Guess that is how they like it. the didn't want to be subjects of Saddam. Liberated.
2) I don't care about a whole 900 troops in Syria. Apples and Oranges big time. You are doing nothing but grasping at straws. You point out the speck in your brothers eye, but ignore the log in your own eye. Hypocrite.
 
#45,549
#45,549
norrislakevol said:
1) They did return to the rule of monarchy. Guess that is how they like it. the didn't want to be subjects of Saddam. Liberated.
2) I don't care about a whole 900 troops in Syria. Apples and Oranges big time. You are doing nothing but grasping at straws. You point out the speck in your brothers eye, but ignore the log in your own eye. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter of it is 900 or 9. It is still and invading and occupying force that was not invited in by the govt.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top