Posted on 05/19/2024 2:05:49 PM PDT by Mariner
Mariner says: “There’s more than one anti American, Ukrainian partisan on this site that supports her position 100%. And they’ll be on this thread.”
Zeeper responds: “You rang?”
I kinda think you hit the nail on the head.
Most war supporters have never been to war or observed first hand how a war torn country is devastated in so many ways.
Video games and movies show death and destruction without the emotional trauma that sets in when this is encountered for real first hand.
They have no idea what it’s like to be without electricity, communications, food, safe water or plentiful gasoline.
They have no idea what it’s like to be sound asleep having pleasant dreams when awoken by an ear shattering explosion to realize the neighbor’s home was hit by a rocket and they are all dead.
Go nuclear and it’s 10 times worse than I described.
People trying to poke the bear into a large scale war are morons to the 10th power.
Thanks Rocco for calling out a charlatan and a fraud.
Where did you hear Gulf War I and II were like a video game.
Maybe she’ll get a polonium smoothie!
It would be more damaging and useful to drop Victoria Nuland onto the bases.
They can have her.
Maybe the Russians will put some missiles in Cuba.
I really never looked at it that way. I always looked at it as we are the best. I imagine Russia feels the same way too. Something to think about as the world gets more dangerous by the day.
#FAFO with nukes. Sounds cool. Just multipy the find out scale by about 1,000,000. Could be they do nothing. Could be they launch a tidal wave up the Potomac. I am still trying to figure out the down side.
I'm pretty certain that she cannot.
Lets put a couple of tactical nukes on Moscow just to see what the Russians will do.
“”Sounds cool””
I just knew you’d think that was a good idea.
An incredibly dishonest woman. She’s even pushing the nonsensical idea that Putin wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union.
That’s what I was hoping...
Lets put a couple of tactical nukes on Moscow just to see what the Russians will do.
Sounds like a plan. Maybe we can have a nice chianti and a plate of fava beans with that.
These FR Ukraine threads invariably make me feel like I’m in a bar at 2 AM - the few regular drunks in the place are acting the fool and saying their same stupid BS, and the management and sober customers are trying to talk sense to them, to no avail.
Good analogy. 😏
Lots of people are pulling with all they have for a world war. They have seen too any WW II re0imagined movies, where Nazis are easy to kill and always miss when they shot at the heroes. They believe the fantasy war we have constructed. WW II was a hell hole. WW III will be worse. Why?
1. The Rule of unintentional Consequences. Things can go in very strange ways.
2. The People of 2024 are not like the people of 1941. It will be hard to get modern Americans on the same page. Obama’s divisions along race—helped him and Dems get elected but how many blacks will fight for America?
3. Filling the land with foreigners will make it hard to tell friend from foe. Why should they fight for their new land against their homeland? Loyalty isn’t in abundance today?
4. We have wasted our edge in distant empire building wars in the 3rd and 4th world. The enemy knows what we got and how we will use it.
5. We have pooped on our allies and many have left us. They see us as untrustworthy and no longer a paragon of virtue.
Many see China or Russia as more admired than the USa. We have become the Ugly Americans.
6. World war will dramatically change everything—some things for the better, many for the worst.
If the USA hadn't disarmed Ukraine in the 1990s Putin would never have been able to invade it in 2014 or now.
Providing weapons to Ukraine so that they can defend themselves is appropriate for any nation including the USA since it helps deter tyrants like Putin from attacking their neighbors.
Russians want to hide behind their border and launch rockets at Ukraine. Why shouldn't Ukraine shoot back?
It is in the best interest of the US and every other nation to provide arms so that nations can defend themselves from invasion.
Seriously, where is it written that Russia gets to start a war against anyone and those people don’t get to hit back at Russia?
Seriously, where is it written that a nation can supply military equipment to one side of an armed conflict without violating neutrality?
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10735
International Neutrality Law and U.S. Military Assistance to Ukraine
April 26, 2022
Congressional Research Service, Legal Sidebar
• the Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V) and• the Hague Convention (XIII) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII).
Under Hague V and XIII, neutral states cannot provide “ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever” to belligerents.
You have been reading or listening to too many Russian propaganda talking points. Don't be fooled into believing what some Russian sitting in a cubicle in St. Petersburg wants you to believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.