Russia unleashes missile barrage on cities across Ukraine

a reply to: MidnightWatcher

I don't care.

a reply to: watchitburn

Ukraine is not the responsibility of the American people.

The Budapest Memorandum says otherwise. We gave our word and we have an obligation to hold true to it.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

Completely irrelevant. It was a legitimate pre-emptive operation against a violently mad government who has been murdering its own people since well before 2014 and increasingly so afterwards.

All the same exact justifications NATO used to invade Iraq, destroy Libya with airstrikes and have both of those nations leaaders executed on video. As a matter of fact, we kind of set the precedent in the 21st century for pre emptive action.

Had that 'violently mad' leader invaded anyone?

Did he even have the ability to invade anyone?

Ever threatened to invade anyone?




You appear to be confusing Zelinsky for putin again.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: MidnightWatcher

I don't care.

Then what exactly is there to negotiate?

BREAKING: Building housing german consulate in Kyiv was hit by russian strikes, German foreign ministry spokesperson says

Let me break out the world smallest violin for Ukraine. This is just the start of Russia taking the gloves off.

a reply to: MidnightWatcher
When has an invasion by another state actor been a pre requisite to pre-emptively attack another soveriegn in the 21st century?? Find me one conflict in the last twenty years by UN security council members that was perpetuated against a state that invaded another???

I get that Iraq invaded Kuwait at the end of the 20th century. But that is not why they were invaded 12 years later by NATO. And mind you, i am shedding no tears for Sadaam. Neither Iraq, nor Libya, nor Syria for that matter had invaded anyone before they themselves were invaded by NATO. The same justifications that were used then apply to Zelensky and the Ukraine government.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Maybe actually read the memorandum.

It does not require military action or assistance on our part.

originally posted by: Tarantula777
They are appeasing Putin because one in ten Jews are Russian.

I think you have got your demographics muddled. 1% of the Russian population are Jews, which ain't one in ten. The Russian have - through time - been unkind to the Jews, and there are c. 150K left out of a population in the 1940s of c. 4 million. Many Russian Jews ended up in Israel, so that's where there are some sympathies. That said, Israel is not on the side of Putin.

originally posted by: Echo007
Let me break out the world smallest violin for Ukraine. This is just the start of Russia taking the gloves off.

Oh, the old "glove" again. In other news, Russia's stockpile of missiles getting depleted!

If Russia "taking the gloves off" just means they are flattening a few buildings, then what was Mariupol - an act of kindness? Russia has spent the last few months destroying and killing.

Good for russia, it's about time the gloves came off.

May this happen more frequently. In fact I hope this happens every day.

May zelenskyy rot in hell.

originally posted by: angelchemuel

I remember the 'shock and awe' with the carpet bombing of Baghdad.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones comes to mind.
Rainbows
Jane

I saw the same thing as a kid, it's one of my more vivid memories.

It wasn't carpet bombing, it was missile strikes from cruise ships (they showed the launches) and 'smart bombs' from advanced platforms which weren't advertised at the time.

Not meaning to be an ass or anything, even with the west's advanced tech we still kill civilians. Russians evidently cannot achieve similar levels of accuracy and it's not like the general at the helm has much of a reputation for keeping the fight away from civilian life... Quite the opposite actually.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The second Gulf war (2003 ) was not under NATO banner.

Yes there where NATO members who where part of the coalition , but NATO had no role in it.

There where more NATO members not part of that coalition then there where.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Did the coalition's that committed to those conflicts not hold 'emergency security council meetings' and the likes?

I do not recall any 'training events' timed perfectly with an invasion as some kind of grand ruse that only other level 100 5d chess players could predict, maybe the likes of NATO can't pull it of?

There's a huge difference between the way Russia operates and anyone else, literally anyone else. That's not a western media slant either, Russia and Putin himself comes up with half of this wackadoodle nonsense.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
Depends on your definition of carpet bombed.

a reply to: angelchemuel

That’s like saying it depends on your definition of blue. Carpet bombing has a specific definition because of the way it’s done. What happened in Iraq were precision strikes. If they carpet bombed Baghdad, it wouldn’t have been standing after.

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
Depends on your definition of carpet bombed.

Mmmm.....no it doesn't.

They weren't 🤷‍♂️

a reply to: RAY1990
Actually the government fabricated a story about wmd's and some horse manure about Iraq being tied to 9/11, both admitted to be false after the fact after a couple years.

You probably still believe it though.

The UN guy Kofi Annan said a year later that it was an illegal invasion contrary to the UN charter. And most of us did not care for the Bush admin at the time either.

Brookings
ORDER FROM CHAOS
9/11 and Iraq: The making of a tragedy
Bruce Riedel Friday, September 17, 2021
ORDER FROM CHAOS
Editor's Note: Obsessed with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration misled the American public into believing that Iraq was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks, Bruce Riedel writes. This piece originally appeared in Lawfare.
20th anniversary 9_11 graphic (1)Twenty years after the al-Qaida attack on September 11, 2001, the United States is still involved in a war in Iraq that it started. President George W. Bush was obsessed with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and deliberately misled the American people about who was responsible for the 9/11 attack.

I was in the White House on September 12, 2001, on the staff of the National Security Council. I recently came across my pocket diary for 2001. In it, I wrote brief notes on each day’s activity in the White House where I was senior director for the Near East. I met with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice every day and Bush almost as frequently because of the second intifada. We were constantly trying to contain the violence and prevent a wider regional conflict. In reviewing the diary I was intrigued by two notes.


Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology Director - The Intelligence Project
On September 14, I was with Bush when he had his first phone call after 9/11 with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Bush immediately said he was planning to “hit” Iraq soon. Blair was audibly taken aback. He pressed Bush for evidence of Iraq’s connection to the 9/11 attack and to al-Qaida. Of course, there was none, which British intelligence knew.

On September 18, a week after 9/11, Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan came to the White House to see Bush. The meeting took place on the Truman Balcony. Vice President Richard Cheney and Rice were there as well. My note says the president “clearly thinks Iraq must be behind this. His questions to Bandar show his bias.” Bandar was visibly perplexed. He told Bush that the Saudis had no evidence of any collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. Indeed their history was of being antagonists.

Afterward, Bandar told me privately that the Saudis were very worried about where Bush’s obsession with Iraq was going. The Saudis were alarmed that attacking Iraq would only benefit Iran and set in motion severe destabilizing repercussions across the region. The Saudis pressed Bush to come out publicly in support of a Palestinian state as he had privately promised Crown Prince Abdullah Al Saud.

On September 28, Bush received Jordan’s King Abdullah. The king pressed the president to take action to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. He argued that the Palestinian conflict was the driving force behind al-Qaida’s popularity and legitimacy. But the president was focused on Iraq.

The United States did go to war with Iraq soon enough. The Bush administration was eager to mobilize the anguish of the 9/11 attack to support the war. Despite the intelligence community’s unequivocal conclusion that Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or al-Qaida, the administration let Americans believe the contrary.

Consequently, the United States went to war in Iraq on a false pretense that it was somehow avenging those killed by al-Qaida. A Washington Post poll conducted two years after 9/11 dramatically illustrated the story: 69% of Americans at the time believed Saddam Hussein was “personally” involved in the 9/11 attack. Even more staggering, 82% believed Saddam provided assistance to Osama bin Laden. Both were utterly false.

One lesson of the past 20 years is the imperative of an informed public. Sadly, we are still a long way from an enlightened public

Yea, thenpublic is becoming more informed, but we got a ways to go. Despite warnings about regional destablization back in 2001, the intel community using its media assets openly lied to the American public to jjustify an Iraq invasion.
Well, it has in fact led to just that now for nearly 2 solid decades. And now the cattle cannot wait to consume more half truths and whole lies to justify supporting the most corrupt state in Europe that may likely lead to regional destablization for decades to come as well.

I wonder at what point people will finally be able to thinl for themselves again. Its gotten so muxh worse since the Bilderbergs 2019 meeting where they discussed the weaponization of social media.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

How about there's no good sides but one side atleast invested in the process and some propaganda that fools a few people.

That's if you want to say this is all a two-sided affair. I'm not that naive.

I wonder at what point people will finally be able to thinl for themselves again. Its gotten so muxh worse since the Bilderbergs 2019 meeting where they discussed the weaponization of social media.

I like to think I am...

Stick to the basics, what nations say and do. What lines they cross, the reasonings and how they went about it. Russia holds a veto at the highest table around so don't go pulling my leg about how it's backed in a corner without a voice, it has opportunity yet it chooses to huddle in the corner with it's cronies ranting about the great devil to the west.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

So does your suggestion of capital punishment or 'cage fighting' for that manner. It's all a bit detestable in the 21st century. Bit of a downer really since most of the world doesn't aspire to be on that level.