“The guy was trolling me and harassing across thread boundaries while I was posting on this thread.”
- And that’s relevant to my posts because...?
“He’s on your side.”
- So opinions on a geopolitical conflict are now somehow the equivalent of being part of a political party? I’m supposed to be an arbiter for the behavior of other posters? I can only speak for myself; to pretend I can speak for other people is silly tribalism on your part.
“You quoted me. So there, you kinda did mention sides.”
- You’re the one talking about ‘sides’, not me. I only made a comparison of your posts with AC’s based on my observation of tone. That’s it.
“But look at what your side is doing this whole time. Feel free to admonish your own side, but I doubt you will.”
- I’m not responsible for anyone’s posts but my own. I don’t hold you responsible for anyone else’s posts but your own. That’s my final word on this whole silly talk about “sides” (as though the whole geopolitical conflict with Ukraine-Russia can be boiled down to *just* two sides).
“And if you continue to remain silent on that, you’re just bein’ a hypocrite. Go ahead, let me see how you roll, one way or another. What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.”
- You’re bringing up things I’ve literally had no involvement with. Keep me out of whatever beef you have going with other Freepers, because it’s just vapid drama that doesn’t do anyone involved any favors. The ones with jurisdiction are the FR Moderators; go complain to them if you believe you’re being genuinely harassed.
“Since when do you hold FReepers accountable to seeing your posts when it is most convenient to YOU?”
- You literally responded to other people after they pointed out to you that the Budapest Memo isn’t a legal treaty, and you kept calling it a treaty. Your rejoinder is irrelevant.
“I’m including your cohort you have surrounded yourself with.”
- How is having an opinion on Ukraine-Russia that you disagree with equivalent to surrounding myself with a “cohort”? What are you on about?
“Uhh, they HONORED it by giving up NUKEs which can kill tens of millions of people but you seem to wanna focus on nitpicky items...how about that there organization that monitors nuclear proliferation? Isn’t it more important to consider sumthin that could kill tens of millions of souls than some stupid monetary fund?”
- The ouster of a democratically-elected president in a foreign-backed coup is hardly nitpicky.
“America’s best interest is in preventing this, and the simplest path towards that is to defend the Ukes like we said we would.”
- We’re not the America of 1994. We not only lack the political will after two decades of drawn-out military endeavors overseas, but we’ve also displayed our current weakness with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that left the Taliban more powerful than when we first arrived. Not only do I not trust our current capacity to “defend the Ukes”, we never said that we *would* defend the Ukrainians, at least insofar as the Budapest Memo is concerned; it *never* provided for mutual defense of **any kind.**
“Should they treat it such a way? Or should they just bend over?”
- I think the Ukrainians should pursue whatever just means are available for them to defend their country, but America needs to stay out of it. I don’t think getting involved is in our national interest at this point in time.
“Should? Well, that’s a bit stronger than I would promote. I’d say they’re well within their rights to do so, since guys like you are saying they have no rights under that there non-treaty.”
- ...what? No one here has said the Ukrainians have no right to defend themselves. What are you talking about?
Also, I think ‘should’ was a perfectly appropriate word to use, given what you said in post 81: “If I were a Uke I’d be building a Nuke and I’d blow the hell out of Moscow with a suitcase bomb.”
“NOW are ya gonna consider that treating this thing like it’s just toilet paper to send down the river we sold the Ukes is not a very pretty idear?”
- **No one** has acted in good faith. Not America, not Ukraine, not Russia, and not the EU. America would have needed to have a lot more forces present and more political willpower to serve as a deterrent. But America’s not the same nation we were in 1994; we’re weaker, our military’s command staff has been consumed by wokeness, and our societal institutions are conducting cultural civil war against American citizens. We have more important things to worry about domestically in 2022 than getting involved in a conflict we have no business (or realistically, the capacity) to intervene in. Whereas American intervention in 1994 would reasonably have kept nuclear war from occurring if Russia had invaded Ukraine (all other things being equal), recent performance indicates that further military escalation on our part would only result in matters getting worse, not better.
“Not so hot, because it is true.”
- Kyle Rittenhouse literally did nothing wrong. The same can’t be said for Ukraine; their tensions with Russia have been brewing since 2014, likely even longer; the actions of Ukraine, Russia, *and* America have contributed to the current conflict to some degree or another.
“So now we can be anal about non-treaties and just toss around tens of millions of nuke-plume casualties like they mean nothing.”
- I’m not the one encouraging American involvement in a conflict that’s currently staying within conventional parameters.
“Bullsnot. 68 entries. I answered your post in order. I’ve been calling it a non-treaty ever since.”
- You kept calling it a treaty after *other* people pointed out that you were incorrect in doing so; it was a perfectly fair observation for me to make. It’s literally a matter of public record now. To put it another way: if I were to make a factually incorrect point on something and *keep* doing so after other posters contradicted me, you’d be perfectly within your right to call me out on it.
“Then how do we prevent this nuke war from happening. We caused it by acting in an untrustworthy manner, and here you are pushing to KEEP treating it in an an untrustworthy manner.”
- Telling you that the Budapest Memorandum isn’t a mutual defense treaty (because it factually isn’t) is somehow being untrustworthy? I can’t speak for the boneheaded decisions and the malfeasance of our government officials; the reality, like I’ve stated previously, is that the America of 2022 is not the America of 1994. I think getting involved militarily will only *increase* the chances of nuclear conflict; I don’t know why you think getting America involved in her current state will *decrease* the chances of nuclear war.
[insert more comments about Freeper tribalism that I’ve already dealt with above]
“You didn’t seem to have much interaction with those guys whose posts you counted in order and held a nitpicking review of, so why does it apply on one thing but not the other?”
- You’re the one who counted all mentions of the word treaty to begin with? I’m not sure what your complaint here is.
“Then pull yourself out of the crowd you are in.”
- I’m not part of a ‘crowd’.
“You don’t like it, then do something about the guys from your side who are harassing me. It’s not like you’re unaware of it now.”
- As I stated further above: if you believe you’re being genuinely harassed, escalate the matter to the Mods, because they’re the ones with jurisdiction. I’m not responsible for other Freepers; I’m only responsible for *my* content, just like you’re only responsible for *your* content.
“The guy was trolling me and harassing across thread boundaries while I was posting on this thread.”
- And that’s relevant to my posts because...?
***Because it’s all part of the context. Look how many posts I sent your way, “your side” right during the middle of you acting all nitpicky.
“He’s on your side.”
- So opinions on a geopolitical conflict are now somehow the equivalent of being part of a political party?
***Maybe, maybe not. Probably not material to our discussion.
I’m supposed to be an arbiter for the behavior of other posters?
***Now that you are aware of the context, and can see where you were inside that context, now you can find ways to separate yourself from the crowd of rioters that surround you.
I can only speak for myself; to pretend I can speak for other people is silly tribalism on your part.
***You can speak to others just by responding to those posts sent your way. Simple as that. You just don’t WANT to because you don’t MIND that they’re being jerks.
“You quoted me. So there, you kinda did mention sides.”
- You’re the one talking about ‘sides’, not me.
***Yes I am, and you were operating on one side. You quoted me about sides. If it’s so important for you to ignore then ignore it.
I only made a comparison of your posts with AC’s based on my observation of tone. That’s it.
***Comparison of YOUR SIDE. There was even one post on this thread I sent your way. Your Side.
“But look at what your side is doing this whole time. Feel free to admonish your own side, but I doubt you will.”
- I’m not responsible
***Just as I predicted. I doubted you’d do it, and here you are, not doing it. But somehow you want me to listen to your justification or somesuch yammering.
for anyone’s posts but my own. I don’t hold you responsible for anyone else’s posts but your own.
***You didn’t like that I brought up “sides”, you coulda just left it at that. But you didn’t. So you kinda had to comment on it, therefore it is commentable.
That’s my final word on this whole silly talk about “sides” (as though the whole geopolitical conflict with Ukraine-Russia can be boiled down to *just* two sides).
***Good to know that’s the end of it from you.
“And if you continue to remain silent on that, you’re just bein’ a hypocrite. Go ahead, let me see how you roll, one way or another. What’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.”
- You’re bringing up things I’ve literally had no involvement with.
***Yup, that’s how you’re rolling. Justification. Not your problem, etc. What’s sauce for the goose aint necessarily sauce for you because you don’t care or whatever your justification is. Got it.
Keep me out of whatever beef you have going with other Freepers,
***You inserted yourself.
because it’s just vapid drama that doesn’t do anyone involved any favors.
***You don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I didn’t ask if YOUR mom was a whore, did I? But that didn’t stop you from commenting on my quote of the “be nice” video, did it?
The ones with jurisdiction are the FR Moderators; go complain to them if you believe you’re being genuinely harassed.
***I did. It’s well known that it’s against the rulez to cross thread boundaries in harassing a fellow freeper but the mods don’t seem to want to enforce it. Unless their “side” is offended, so we’re all somehow supposed to know which side the mods are on.
“Since when do you hold FReepers accountable to seeing your posts when it is most convenient to YOU?”
- You literally responded to other people after they pointed out to you
***AGain, I responded IN ORDER. And I pointed out that you were nitpicking, so now you’re doubling up on the nitpicking.
that the Budapest Memo isn’t a legal treaty, and you kept calling it a treaty.
***Bullsnot. I stopped when I GOT TO THAT POST. You keep going on and on about it, AFTER I HAVE STOPPED. You are TRIPLY Nitpicking here.
Your rejoinder is irrelevant.
***Your nitpicking is becoming a form of harassment. Are you here to debate the points in the article?
“I’m including your cohort you have surrounded yourself with.”
- How is having an opinion on Ukraine-Russia that you disagree with equivalent to surrounding myself with a “cohort”?
***I posted to you several times what “your side” was up to. that’s how.
What are you on about?
***I posted it to you, I explained it to you. It’s not my problem you don’t wanna see the issue. And of course, it doesn’t stop you from nitpicking.
“Uhh, they HONORED it by giving up NUKEs which can kill tens of millions of people but you seem to wanna focus on nitpicky items...how about that there organization that monitors nuclear proliferation? Isn’t it more important to consider sumthin that could kill tens of millions of souls than some stupid monetary fund?”
- The ouster of a democratically-elected president in a foreign-backed coup is hardly nitpicky.
***I don’t recall you saying “ouster of some prez”. Now you’re ADDING to what you wanted to say. Can I add a few more tens of millions of victims of those nukular interactions you guys are so nonchalant about?
“America’s best interest is in preventing this, and the simplest path towards that is to defend the Ukes like we said we would.”
- We’re not the America of 1994.
***Then let’s give back those nukes we accepted in 1994. Let’s allow this stupid country into NATO and flush out their worst corruption.
We not only lack the political will after two decades of drawn-out military endeavors overseas, but
***We have commitments. Our failure to keep those commitments, in particular nuke commitments, could lead to a nuke exchange. We have the means to do it, but like you say we lack the will. Changing minds like yours generates such political will. When your side can see that preventing nuke deaths of tens of millions is worth it to defend a nation we said we would defend, then things can fall properly into place.
we’ve also displayed our current weakness with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that left the Taliban more powerful than when we first arrived.
***Yeah, I see what you’re talkin about.
Not only do I not trust our current capacity to “defend the Ukes”, we never said that we *would* defend the Ukrainians,
***Oh, I’m certain we SAID it. But now that nitpickers like you are going over that nontreaty with a finetooth comb with an eye towards the exits, don’t be surprised if a Uke Nuke changes your entire viewpoint on that situation.
at least insofar as the Budapest Memo is concerned;
***There is a very distinct possibility I will be holding your feet to the fire on that item.
it *never* provided for mutual defense of **any kind.**
***That’s fine, just give the Ukes back their Nukes. They handed them over in good faith and we got guys like you negotiating in bad faith. They have enough nuke knowledge, it can get real ugly real fast because of appeasers like you.
“Should they treat it such a way? Or should they just bend over?”
- I think the Ukrainians should pursue whatever just means are available for them to defend their country,
***Then they are incentivized to build up those nukes they gave up.
but America needs to stay out of it.
***When America is staring at 20 million dead Russians and Ukes, because we nitpicked on a “non treaty”, I’ll be getting back to you on that. You are as wrong as the appeasers in 1938 were wrong.
I don’t think getting involved is in our national interest at this point in time.
***I do, since we pushed the Ukes into agreeing to this toilet paper nontreaty. We sold them down the river.
“Should? Well, that’s a bit stronger than I would promote. I’d say they’re well within their rights to do so, since guys like you are saying they have no rights under that there non-treaty.”
- ...what? No one here has said the Ukrainians have no right to defend themselves. What are you talking about?
***YOU said the nontreaty is nonbinding. So if they don’t have rights in that nontreaty, they’re free to pursue the nuke option of obliterating tens of millions. All because guys like you are too pipsqueaky to help them after we said we would help them.
Also, I think ‘should’ was a perfectly appropriate word to use, given what you said in post 81: “If I were a Uke I’d be building a Nuke and I’d blow the hell out of Moscow with a suitcase bomb.”
***There’s a difference but at this far down the thread, it becomes negligible.
“NOW are ya gonna consider that treating this thing like it’s just toilet paper to send down the river we sold the Ukes is not a very pretty idear?”
- **No one** has acted in good faith.
***Not YOU.
Not America, not Ukraine, not Russia, and not the EU.
***The Ukes did, they handed over their Nukes.
America would have needed to have a lot more forces present and more political willpower to serve as a deterrent.
***Baloney. 2 F35’s could have established air superiority, a few hundred Javelins and artillery batteries and the Russians would be stopped cold.
But America’s not the same nation we were in 1994;
***That’s no reason to sell a country down the river when we accepted their goodfaith measures to turn over nukes.
we’re weaker, our military’s command staff has been consumed by wokeness, and our societal institutions are conducting cultural civil war against American citizens.
***Yeah I see that. But it’s not a consideration up against tens of millions of lives lost in mushroom clouds.
We have more important things to worry about domestically in 2022 than getting involved in a conflict we have no business
***WE ARE ALREADY INVOLVED by accepting those Nukes and signing that agreement.
(or realistically, the capacity) to intervene in.
***We have the capacity. And we can just stop this whole thing by waving around one piece of appeasment paper & claim “peace in our time” by allowing Ukraine into NATO.
Whereas American intervention in 1994 would reasonably have kept nuclear war from occurring if Russia had invaded Ukraine
***We had plenty of forces to deter Russia from invading this year. We have a larger air force, larger army, all kinds of stuff bigger than muh Russia.
(all other things being equal), recent performance indicates that further military escalation on our part would only result in matters getting worse, not better.
***That’s nonsense. Just as it was nonsense in 1938 with Sudetenland. Sickening pantywaist appeasers.
“Not so hot, because it is true.”
- Kyle Rittenhouse literally did nothing wrong.
***He defended himself with lethal force.
The same can’t be said for Ukraine;
***They gave UP their lethal force for empty promises from us.
their tensions with Russia have been brewing since 2014,
***They were invaded in 2014, with a large portion of their country annexed.
likely even longer; the actions of Ukraine, Russia, *and* America have contributed to the current conflict to some degree or another.
***Now you’re delivering mumbly pablum.
“So now we can be anal about non-treaties and just toss around tens of millions of nuke-plume casualties like they mean nothing.”
- I’m not the one encouraging American involvement in a conflict that’s currently staying within conventional parameters.
***This conflict wouldn’t even happen if the Ukes had kept the Nukes, or if the Ukes had joined NATO. Either path would have saved lives.
“Bullsnot. 68 entries. I answered your post in order. I’ve been calling it a non-treaty ever since.”
- You kept calling it a treaty after *other* people pointed out
***This again? Why all the obsessive nitpicking? Does it bolster your case for Ukraine somehow? I got to it when I got to it, and I’ve been calling it a NONtreaty ever since so shut the hell up about it.
that you were incorrect in doing so; it was a perfectly fair observation for me to make.
***At one time, but we are 2 times past that so shut the hell up. You are trolling.
It’s literally a matter of public record now.
***Then do the math. Look at when I was responding to EACH post, you’ll see the ORDER I was responding, You’ll see that I responded IN ORDER that I got to it, You’ll see I’ve been calling it a non-treaty ever since, contrary to your bullshiite assertions that I have been INSISTING. Now your nitpicking is just being disingenuous trolling.
To put it another way: if
***to put it one more way, you are trolling like a complete jerk, knowing what the context you were in when you responded so it is time to shut the hell up and focus on the issues of Ukraine instead of how good a nitpicking troll you are. How’s that for addressing your hypothetical? Care to nitpick further or are you gonna drop your trolling?
I were to make a factually incorrect point on something and *keep* doing so after other posters contradicted me,
***I responded IN THE ORDER the posts came in. This is the 4th time you haave trolled on this nitpicking issue so shut the hell up.
you’d be perfectly within your right to call me out on it.
***Then I AM calling you on your nitpicking trolling behavior. Shut the hell up about it.
“Then how do we prevent this nuke war from happening. We caused it by acting in an untrustworthy manner, and here you are pushing to KEEP treating it in an an untrustworthy manner.”
- Telling you that the Budapest Memorandum isn’t a mutual defense treaty (because it factually isn’t) is somehow being untrustworthy?
***Yes. Absolutely. You blithely overlook that the Ukes lived up to their side of the bargain, removing tens of millions of possible casualties from the equation. But it is SO IMPORTANT to you to talk about how it is not a treaty. So that opens it up wide for them to do their own nuke program, just because nitpicking appeasers like you don’t care enough to prevent tens of millions of nuclear casualties.
I can’t speak for the boneheaded decisions and the malfeasance of our government officials;
***And yet you are defending them with your nitpicking and focus on nontreatiness.
the reality, like I’ve stated previously, is that the America of 2022 is not the America of 1994.
***You like to repeat yourself. It is a form of trolling.
I think getting involved militarily will only *increase* the chances of nuclear conflict;
***And I think Russia would have backed off. History proves that appeasement like yours doesn’t work, so you are risking tens of millions of lives here.
I don’t know why you think getting America involved in her current state will *decrease* the chances of nuclear war.
***Because Russia won’t invade NATO, wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if it were in NATO, wouldn’t have invaded if the Ukes kept their Nukes, and wouldn’t have invaded if we set up a deterrent force with only half a dozen F35’s.
[insert more comments about Freeper tribalism that I’ve already dealt with above]
***Well thank God you aren’t repeating it here, which is your tendency.
“You didn’t seem to have much interaction with those guys whose posts you counted in order and held a nitpicking review of, so why does it apply on one thing but not the other?”
- You’re the one who counted all mentions of the word treaty to begin with?
***Yes because I was defending against your insistent, trolling, 5th-time-now nitpicking.
I’m not sure what your complaint here is.
***I have plenty of complaints against you. You repeat yourself. You nitpick. You ignore the context. You blithely overlook simple facts. You’re long winded. You troll. You focus on nitpicky interactions rather than the issues at hand. You don’t care about tens of millions of possible nuke casualties because you’re an appeaser. There’s more.
“Then pull yourself out of the crowd you are in.”
- I’m not part of a ‘crowd’.
***Yes you are.
“You don’t like it, then do something about the guys from your side who are harassing me. It’s not like you’re unaware of it now.”
- As I stated further above: if you believe you’re being genuinely harassed,
***You can’t pretend you’re unaware of it any more.
escalate the matter to the Mods, because they’re the ones with jurisdiction.
***you can admonish your side all ya want. But you won’t. Because you don’t want to, you don’t mind that the guys next to you are first class jerks. You are quickly becoming indistinguishable from them.
I’m not responsible for other Freepers;
***We shall keep that in mind. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I’m only responsible for *my* content, just like you’re only responsible for *your* content.
***Then start posting on the issue. You started commenting on my treatment of other posters on this thread. That goes directly against what you just said. MYOB.
I believe this is a duplicate post.