Replies

Every single point you make is demonstrably false,
***Then demonstrate it. Just asserting it is completely wothless. It’s just pure bloviating.

complete non sequiturs.
***Total bullsnot. At least 2 other freepers have said I’m on target. Learn to reason. It’ll be good for you.

You might want to look that term up, maybe read a primer on logic.
***You might wanna do so yourself. And add puffery and bloviating.

Assurances on sovereignty mean nothing.
***It was enough for the Ukes to give up a third of Russia’s nukes. That right there was doing what you can’t do: demonstrably proving something wrong.

It proves nothing.
***It proves that the Ukes are the good guys, Russia are the bad guys, and we are the enablers of the bad guys.

It doesn’t mean that Ukraine is important.
***Where do you come up with this bullsnot?

It’s meaningless.
***Then why did the 3 biggest nuke powers on the planet sign it? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

It’s just political doublespeak which was used to help the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
***The Soviet Union was ALREADY disintegrating. That was why there were a bunch of nukes left in Ukraine. You obviously don’t even know your recent history.

They never “gave up nukes” - a very prevalent myth. They had them on their territory,
***Do you even LISTEN to yourself? They had them. They gave them up. Gigantic duhh factor. Gigantic.

but couldn’t use them - launch codes and control were exclusively with Russia, at all times.
***The Nukes had weapons grade fissionable materials and other exotic design elements one would use to build one’s own nukes. Dozens, hundreds of them.

Ukraine never, ever had nuclear weapons it could use.
***The Ukes had nukes that could be dismantled and turned into nukes they could use, in a matter of weeks.

They have no capability to go nuclear and never did.
***They have 15 nuke power plants, they have Chernobyl, they had all those Russian nukes. They had the easiest path to nuke powerhood of any nation on the planet.

And even if they had then - which they didn’t- they sure don’t now, so it’s irrelevant.
***They never gave up the KNOWLEDGE. They could BUY some and claim they never let them go in that nonbinding agreement. If I were them, that’s what I would be doing. But of course if I were them I’d have never given up those nukes in the first place, I woulda at least have kept a cool dozen or so for myself.

They have no nuclear material or capability.
***They have 15 nuke power plants. It is a short path from civilian nuclear capable to military nuke capable.

Also, learn to spell nuclear.
***It is spelled stfu. Deal with it.

Ukraine is of no real importance to the West.
***It was important enough to sign away assurances of sovereignty and borders against invaders. But now we’re reneging on that agreement.

Assurances be damned.
***Then the agreement was never valid, and when they drop nukes on Russians it will be completely within their rights as a nation just like we did on Nagasaki and Hiroshima during OUR existential war.

Did the West prevent the invasion or enter the war?
***No. Obviously.

So what assurances then!? Meaningless hot air.
***It’s like when you buy a car, and pay full price. The dealer fails to deliver it, claiming that you never bought it. He keeps the money. If you happened to, say... record your interaction with the dealer or have some other kept evidence, it becomes an extremely REAL deal. Not meaningless hot air. Or let’s say you run into that dealer while you are hanging out with your favorite mafioso badass who owes you a favor, mention it to him and he goes and ‘takes care of it’. What you would have labelled a meaningless agreement had plenty of pertinence. I know, I know, you’ll never address these hypotheticals because you’re simply hidebound stupid, but others will see the point, plain as day.

Pacifism doesn’t lead to nuclear war.
***It led to World War 2, which basically ended as a nuclear war at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Demonstrated incorrect. That’s how it’s done.

Please provide a single such example.
***Oh, look I provided it already. I shoulda read ahead.

Nor am I a pacifist.
***You’ll be needing to lay down more facts than assertions when it comes to that.

Had Russia been non nuclear Id be all for war.
***And had Ukraine been nuyclear, pootypoot wouldn’t have invaded. Your assertion just shows you’re a coward.

I’d also be for an immediate attack on China if they weren’t a nuclear power.
***You’re a huffer and a puffer and never blow anyone’s house down.

Your Hitler analogy is tired and predictable.
***Your argument from silence, your silence as a refutation, is far more tired and predictable.

This isn’t anything like the 1930s lead up with Germany,
***Sure it is. You wanna assert, then I’ll assert.

learn some history.
***Ridiculous bloviating.

It is a FACT that we shouldn’t be fighting Russia,
***Shoulds are not FACTs, dumbass. Learn the difference.

the greatest nuclear power on Earth.
***who happen to be on a tyrannical rampage through Europe right now, invading one of our friendly nations who have a Membership Action Plan [MAP] active for NATO. Learn some history.

All knowledgeable authorities agree.
***Appeal to authority. Logical fallacy. You sure use a lot of them fallacies. You should take a critical thinking class.

Even Biden agrees.
***Biden’s appeasement is what got us in this mess. As well as obambam’s. Feel free to side with obambam and Biden all year long, libtard.

Are you stupider than an old man in a diaper?
***Are you dumber than a 5th grader? Yes you are.

You sure sound it.
***You sure use a lot of logical fallacies for someone throwing around insults like that. It would make YOU dumber than dumb.

NATO has said it.
***Said what? Did they reject the MAP for the Ukes? NO. Learn some history.

The US and Canada say it. Germany and Britain say it. Even Poland has said it.
***Take a writing class. Learn when to use the word “it”. Incredibly tedious writing.

You know better than all the leading authorities of the leading NATO governments and militaries?
***Wow, that’s a perfect example of the classic fallacy of appeal to authority, with mumble-mumble buildup to your usage of it. You absolutely suq as a writer.

Grow up.
***Learn to write. Take a critical thinking class.

I think you misread the arguments against war.
***I think you’re simply a one-tone jerk.

It’s not love of Putin.
***It’s fear of pootypoot, the same kind of fear that enabled Hitler in 1938. Geez you’re predictable.

It’s realpolitik based on our interests.
***Our interests were expressed and signed in 1994. But reneging on a commitment to a country which has shown good faith in one of the most important matters of life-or-death is acceptable to you. You’re a first class jerk.

Also we NEVER gave Ukraine assurances we would fight alongside them.
***Golly gee gosh, if it was SO clear then why the frack did the Ukes give up their nukes? You guys are just trying to niggle away our commitment to a country that is under an existential threat from a tyrant because you guys are simply cowards.

Provide proof of such an agreement or shut up.
***The URL is in my tagline. Time for YOU to stfu.

We have no military alliance with Ukraine.
***We have an obligation. And if we successfully sell them down the river & they blow the hell out of Moscow with a suitcase nuke, people will be looking in askance at pantywaist panzies such as yourself for the blame.

Repeat nuclear powers don’t fight directlly.
***Dog. Vomit. Returning to. Look it up. Quit doing it.

Even if Putin invaded Ukraine.
***He DID. Everyone knows it. How incredibly stupid are you, anyways?

Heck we wouldn’t even fight to protect Finland or Sweden I would guess.
***Red herring. Also combined with yet another argument from silence. We OBVIOUSLY aren’t fighting to protect Ukraine. No silence there. And you are GUESSING we probably wouldn’t do it somewhere else, which is bringing up a silent hypothetical in the FACE of an ACTUAL, existing situation. Hypotheticals aren’t nearly as compelling as demonstrable FACTs. But of course, you label your own ASSertions as Facts, so you obviously can’t tell the difference.

There is no nuclear Ukrainian solution.
***You are a panzy.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4044173/posts

They will NEVER have nukes.
***Argument from silence. Classic fallacy. In this case the silence is from the future, and demonstrably wrong because they HAD nuke weapons, they HAVE 15 nuke power plants, they HAVE experience with deadly nuke accidents because Chernobyl is there.

Get over it. Never.
***Blind assertion. Basically your entire argument is this, a blind assertion.

The invasion of Ukraine is a complex matter based on expansion of NATO and a weak US administration.
***Sure, I agree with that. But you’re gonna probably commit some logical fallacy based on past performance, so let’s see...

There is no existential struggle here except for Ukraine.
***Ukes had nukes. They never gave up their nuke KNOWLEDGE. They could have kept some nukes [pretty doubtful]. They could have been enriching nuke material into weapons grade in their 15 nuke power plants. They could buy nuke material on the black market. The A-Bomb kid built his nuke bomb in a matter of weeks. So if the Ukes get Nukes and Use the Nukes on the Rukes, then Russia has an existential struggle. And then if Pootypoot survives, he’s likely to be pissed at the US so this whole thing becomes an existential struggle... all because of pantywaist pukes like you.

Not for us. For THEM. They are not us. Comprende?
***I showed how it quickly becomes an existential crisis for them, for Russia, and for us... above. You won’t comprende because you’re stuck on stupid.

By encouraging this war to continue you are going the Ukies slaughtered.
***By enabling a tyrant you are appeasing him into escalating towards greater warfar just like Hitler did in 1938.

Is that your goal?
***Is it YOURS?