InVOLuntary
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2012
- Messages
- 59,782
- Likes
- 138,727
I love this proof offered by the phone call. TN media heard discussing how a hurt Bryce Young would help TNs game against Bama two weeks before the injury. That must mean the Tennessee media did it, we have the phone call.Russia can play that conversation for the world. Hell, they did, and it didn’t change anyone’s opinion. We saw the Ukrainian people revolt and overthrow their president. The phone call didn’t make him flee the country.
And again, you are unable to separate or make a distinction between the Soviets and present day Russian Federation. And even then, I think there was a lot that could have been done during the Cold War that could havedriven down the anxiety and animosity between the 2 of us. No reason in the world why we couldn't and shouldn't be close allies with Russia. And truthfully, from the time of Catherine the Great until the Cold War, we were allies and friendly with each other. You lack historical perspective and are driven by your old Cold War biases.
Non-intervention, not isolationism. I don't know why you people continue to distort between the two. Some things simply don't require us to be involved. World War I is the perfect example. We had no business being involved in what amounted to a European circular firing squad. You people continue to use this weak narrative that "isolationism" only worked before modern warefare when the real truth is that a majority of conflict could easily be resolved with honest diplomacy and mutually beneficial commerce... the very things George Washington spoke about in his farewell address. Gunboat diplomacy and a rapacious foreign policy where we go across the globe and take advantage of sh^thole countries' resources requires us to be engaged in all of these bullsh^t conflicts.
We were never allies. Or at least I dont ever know of a time when we were. Maybe the Boxer Rebellion, I would love to see you jump in on THAT alliance being a good thing.
Yeah we were friendly until we had reason not to be. When we were friendly Russia had no intention of spreading across the Pacific towards us, or any of our actual allies. That changed with the Soviets. but we deserve the first strike because we favored the White RUSSIANS over the Soviets in Operation Polar Bear. You know the Russians we were friendly with, and not the Soviets that we pretend arent the same people as the Russians.
So should we have favored the Russians over the Soviets during their Revolution? Should we have just dropped our old friends and left them to their fate, and just picked up dealing with the new Boss as if he was the old boss? What would that say about our trust worthiness?
Then when the Soviets came they were more expansionist than we were. We were already established the world over by the time they really came to power. The Soviets had to expand far faster and more aggressively than we ever did. And they once again took stances counter to our existing friendships and alliances. That made them the enemy. They came into our existing sphere and started pushing.
Or maybe the afghani cave dwellers didnt have a reliable form of communication to transmit battlefield orders and thus a commanding officer had to be in the fight to command.I don't think the Islamic soldiers of Afghanistan are any more popular in Russian media than they are in American media. The combined Russian and Ukrainian forces lost just as badly in Afghanistan as the combined American and British forces did. That being said, I doubt the Russians would deny that Mohamed Omar was wounded four times as a commander when he fought against them on the front line.
Maybe you're right that the Afghan leadership didn't even have to send their commanders to fight us. Our boasts about killing their senior fighters on the battlefield were probably fish stories now that you mention it, lame attempts to mask how far away we were from ever achieving anything remotely resembling a decisive victory.
I'm not sure where you are going with this line of questions. What does that have to do with blacks in Russia?
Lol. Russia lost more people in 2 weeks in Ukraine than the US did in 20 years of Afghanistan. I get it, Russia wanted to show us up. Now they've even beaten our numbers in Vietnam. Good job comrade(s)!I don't think the Islamic soldiers of Afghanistan are any more popular in Russian media than they are in American media. The combined Russian and Ukrainian forces lost just as badly in Afghanistan as the combined American and British forces did. That being said, I doubt the Russians would deny that Mohamed Omar was wounded four times as a commander when he fought against them on the front line.
Maybe you're right that the Afghan leadership didn't even have to send their commanders to fight us. Our boasts about killing their senior fighters on the battlefield were probably fish stories now that you mention it, lame attempts to mask how far away we were from ever achieving anything remotely resembling a decisive victory.
Russia has lost more men in eight months than the US did in the entire Vietnam War, and he's crowing about American loses.
How long before it passes our losses in all wars since World War II?
I'm not sure I'm following. Are you putting words in my mouth about me making moral judgments today on practices that were done hundreds of years ago? I don't remember having this conversation or even stating a position on that idea.Not a damn thing. The point was that Russia didn't need to import slaves - they always had their own. Secondarily a different point was that Africa was a continent of slaves and slaveholders who sold their captives to those countries in need of labor. Before machinery the world was basically dependent on slave labor by any name (slave, serf, vassal, tenant, indentured whatever, ... people who owned their subsistence and allegiance to another. It's one of your points in time arguments but raised by someone on your side. You both (and others) tend to ignore that today is different from yesterday, and what was acceptable to yesterday's society may not be acceptable to today's society to argue that people of the past were wrong for following the custom of the time.
Non-intervention meaning that the first options are to remain neutral, rely on diplomacy first rather than military might, and to keep on lanes of commerce open. Engaging in commerce and diplomacy is more productive than doing like we did and taking a side and arming the British in WWII...So "non intervention" means you know something is going on but ignore it ... not my problem ... until it is; and "isolationism" means you stuff fingers in your ears, squeeze your eyes shout, and screech so you can pretend nothing else exists?
Not only are there fewer of them they have a population aging problem. And now hundreds of thousands of young Russians have fled the country. Many are educated and nearly all are entering their prime productive years. Way to go Vlad.Don't forget that Russia's population is on the decline, so those lives are precious to Russian leaders. Seems like it was Ras sometime back pointing out Russian lives are valuable now because there are fewer of them than in the past.
they are making the sr-72WOW. The United States of America, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, are "reportedly" publicly introducing the Darkstar. Also, in the Maverick movie, at an airshow at Edwards Air. The curves on this bitch can do unnatural things. NSFW.View attachment 500677View attachment 500678View attachment 500679
I hear this movie prop fooled China..shocker!WOW. The United States of America, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, are "reportedly" publicly introducing the Darkstar. Also, in the Maverick movie, at an airshow at Edwards Air. The curves on this bitch can do unnatural things. NSFW.View attachment 500677View attachment 500678View attachment 500679