• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Politics Is it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

Should the west declare war on Russia and deploy active troops in Ukraine.

  • Yes. The sooner we attack the better.

  • No. Ukraine will be able to defend themselves on their own.

  • It's what the lizard people want you to think.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?
In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?
I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged? Is it that they don't feel threatened enough? As for the U.S., the armed conflict now going on in Mexico (a nation on our border) between the government and the cartels should be more of a concern to the U.S. than the Ukraine. More Mexicans have been killed in that conflict than Ukrainians in the Ukraine, (possibly 250,000) which is at least an order of magnitude more than in the Ukraine.

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

We will be fighting for US military/security power and profit. We will be fighting for narratives that are lies.
 
How many armed conflicts going on in the world include a nuclear power as the criminal aggressor? A nuclear power who may have the firepower to singlehandedly send the entire planet into a nuclear holocaust and a 100 years of winter?

Let's see, in the last 20 years:
US v. Iraq
US v. Afghanistan
US v. Libya
US v. Syria

Just to name a few.
 
Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?
In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?
I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged? Is it that they don't feel threatened enough? As for the U.S., the armed conflict now going on in Mexico (a nation on our border) between the government and the cartels should be more of a concern to the U.S. than the Ukraine. More Mexicans have been killed in that conflict than Ukrainians in the Ukraine, (possibly 250,000) which is at least an order of magnitude more than in the Ukraine.

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

We will be fighting for US military/security power and profit. We will be fighting for narratives that are lies.
RVonse: did you read Craig's post? Third sentence: "Americans would be much freer if the US were conquered by Russia." Do you honestly believe that?
 
We will be fighting for US military/security power and profit. We will be fighting for narratives that are lies.

Yeah there’s that.
And then there’s the small matter of disallowing despots to invade neighbors with impunity.
Of course that would make us hypocrites if we wanted to invade and annex Mexico and Canada, so maybe we’d best let Putler have whatever he wants.

Geez Murkins are dumb.
 
Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?
In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?
I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged? Is it that they don't feel threatened enough? As for the U.S., the armed conflict now going on in Mexico (a nation on our border) between the government and the cartels should be more of a concern to the U.S. than the Ukraine. More Mexicans have been killed in that conflict than Ukrainians in the Ukraine, (possibly 250,000) which is at least an order of magnitude more than in the Ukraine.

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

We will be fighting for US military/security power and profit. We will be fighting for narratives that are lies.
RVonse: did you read Craig's post? Third sentence: "Americans would be much freer if the US were conquered by Russia." Do you honestly believe that?
Yeah, that was stupid on steroids. The whole short article was. It sounded like something written by an angsty college freshman.
 
For months now, Vladimir has been preparing paperwork and getting his affairs in order for a move to France.

A visa application process that was once relatively easy is now dogged with complexity, but the 37-year-old is confident that getting his family and employees out of Russia will be worthwhile.

“On the one hand, it’s comfortable to live in the country where you were born. But on the other, it’s about the safety of your family,” Vladimir told CNBC via video call from his office in Moscow.

For Vladimir, the decision to leave the country he has called home all his life “was not made in one day.” Under President Vladimir Putin’s rule, he has watched what he called the “erosion of politics and freedom” in Russia over several years. But the Kremlin’s invasion of Ukraine was the final straw.

“I think, in a year or two, everything will be so bad,” he said of his country.
But as the war rages on, more Russians are deciding to pack up and leave.

“The way migration works is that once the flow begins and people start finding out how to do things — get a flat, apply for asylum, find a job or start a business — that prompts more people to leave. It becomes a self-fulfilling cycle,” Batalova said.

An exodus in the hundreds of thousands​


There is no concrete data on the number of Russians who have left the country since the start of the war. However, one Russian economist put the total at 200,000 as of mid-March.
That figure is likely to be far higher now, according to Batalova, as tens of thousands of Russians have relocated to Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Israel, the Baltic states and beyond.

“If you look at the various destinations where people have gone, these numbers do ring true,” she said. And that’s not even counting Russia’s large overseas diaspora, many of whom are in Southeast Asia, who have chosen not to return home following the invasion. Batalova puts that figure at around 100,000.

In the tech sector alone, an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 professionals left in the first month of the war, with a further 70,000 to 100,000 expected to follow soon thereafter, according to a Russian IT industry trade group.

Some start-up founders like Vladimir, who runs a software service for restaurants, have decided to relocate their businesses and staff overseas, choosing countries with access to capital, such as France, the U.K, Spain and Cyprus. Vladimir is moving his wife and school-age child, as well as his team of four and their families, to Paris.

They follow more mobile independent Russia tech workers who have already flocked to low-visa countries including Indonesia, Thailand and Turkey.
 
Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?
In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?
I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged? Is it that they don't feel threatened enough? As for the U.S., the armed conflict now going on in Mexico (a nation on our border) between the government and the cartels should be more of a concern to the U.S. than the Ukraine. More Mexicans have been killed in that conflict than Ukrainians in the Ukraine, (possibly 250,000) which is at least an order of magnitude more than in the Ukraine.

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

We will be fighting for US military/security power and profit. We will be fighting for narratives that are lies.
And the guy also says: "Americans would be much freer if the US were conquered by Russia."

I think that's delusional.
 
Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?
In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?
I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged? Is it that they don't feel threatened enough? As for the U.S., the armed conflict now going on in Mexico (a nation on our border) between the government and the cartels should be more of a concern to the U.S. than the Ukraine. More Mexicans have been killed in that conflict than Ukrainians in the Ukraine, (possibly 250,000) which is at least an order of magnitude more than in the Ukraine.

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

We will be fighting for US military/security power and profit. We will be fighting for narratives that are lies.
And the guy also says: "Americans would be much freer if the US were conquered by Russia."

I think that's delusional.
PCR is still an advocate of supply-side economics so delusional is a good word to apply.
 
Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?
In a word, no. I also think maybe, hypothetically, the US was and is far more respectful of Ukraine's sovereignty than Russia is. The only way you can argue that the US was being provocative (incidentally, I'd love to hear some examples) would be if you believe Ukraine has no right to make diplomatic decisions without Russia's express approval. I don't believe that.

So again, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?
I believe the E.U. should do something if they feel threatened. Why isn't the E.U. engaged? Is it that they don't feel threatened enough? As for the U.S., the armed conflict now going on in Mexico (a nation on our border) between the government and the cartels should be more of a concern to the U.S. than the Ukraine. More Mexicans have been killed in that conflict than Ukrainians in the Ukraine, (possibly 250,000) which is at least an order of magnitude more than in the Ukraine.

And then there are at least twenty other armed conflicts going on in the world. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should get involved militarily in all of them too or only the one conflict that is currently being hyped by the media?

We will be fighting for US military/security power and profit. We will be fighting for narratives that are lies.
And the guy also says: "Americans would be much freer if the US were conquered by Russia."

I think that's delusional.
PCR is still an advocate of supply-side economics so delusional is a good word to apply.
Yea, he's a total piece of shit. He claims that the WW2 Nazi "death camps were in fact work camps." Just work camps. Those meanie Nazis couldn't help themselves because of the German work "shortage".
 
Secondly, if Ukraine had fallen early, most likely Russia would have attacked the Baltics and/or Poland; and NATO would be engaged in conventional combat against Russia (if we were lucky).

Evidence?
A guy on CNN said so.
Or Russian state-owned media, where invasion of NATO countries is a regular topic.

98gDy2V.jpeg
 
Secondly, if Ukraine had fallen early, most likely Russia would have attacked the Baltics and/or Poland; and NATO would be engaged in conventional combat against Russia (if we were lucky).

Evidence?
A guy on CNN said so.
Or Russian state-owned media, where invasion of NATO countries is a regular topic.

98gDy2V.jpeg
Of course it is, AFTER it became regular on CNN which is forever.
 
Secondly, if Ukraine had fallen early, most likely Russia would have attacked the Baltics and/or Poland; and NATO would be engaged in conventional combat against Russia (if we were lucky).

Evidence?
A guy on CNN said so.
Did I mention that the guy is working for neocon think tank paid by MIC?
You people need to to something with your generals being paid by MIC to lie in order to increase profits.
 
Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

Are you having problems purchasing an airline ticket to Ukraine to help them out?
Why do you think that is the opposite direction we should go?
Because, even if we assume that your current direction is kinda right (it isn't), throwing good money after bad is never a good idea. It's time to cut your losses.
Using Ukraine to hurt Russia has failed.
And again, your side are the bad guys, not Russia, eventually public will see that.
 
Because, even if we assume that your current direction is kinda right (it isn't), throwing good money after bad is never a good idea. It's time to cut your losses.
Using Ukraine to hurt Russia has failed.
And again, your side are the bad guys, not Russia, eventually public will see that.
Dude, you are literally becoming the "Are we the baddies" meme. It's just sad man.
 
Dude, you are literally becoming the "Are we the baddies" meme. It's just sad man.
Go find WMD in Iraq.
Reality is, public in the west is already aware that the king has no clothes.
Corrupt political establishment/media keep pretending that Russia is some galactic evil, but it does not correspond well to public opinion in the west, let alone the rest of the world where even their (corrupt) political establishment is not buying your shit.
 
Secondly, if Ukraine had fallen early, most likely Russia would have attacked the Baltics and/or Poland; and NATO would be engaged in conventional combat against Russia (if we were lucky).

Evidence?
My evidence is the comments from Putin; his cabinet; most of his government; the Chezenya nazis; and of course the Russian press. Alas, you are right though, my sources are mostly for shit.
 
Back
Top Bottom