Scott75

Again, the whole truthnisnwhat I'm waiting for. These articles always slant reality to fit a narrative. You may recall that I asked you a question in the post of mine that you just responded to. To whit: "Aristides linked to 3 articles, not one. Did you read any of them?" I am -hoping- that you have now at least read the summary of the 1 article of Aristides that I quoted from. You may recall that I asked you to let me know if you found any errors in it. Did you?

Again, that is you trying to justify Russia starting a war... No, I'm trying to get you to realize that the war in Ukraine was started by what happened during Euromaidan. Some articles that are quite educational in this regard: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

My position is quite clear here. I am not suggesting anything. Russia started this war. Russia took advantage of the chaos going on with the Ukrainian government and annexed Crimea. Do you know -why- there was chaos in the Ukrainian government?

No, that is not a start to any war. Are you suggesting that if France helped overthrow Canada's Prime Minister and then proceeded to aid and abet the new regime's persecution of its English speaking population that the U.S. would just sit placidly by? Or, assuming that you realize that the U.S. would -not- just sit watching placidly, do you think that the world would agree that it was the U.S. that "started" a war when it went in to protect the English speaking population of Canada?

Is this better or worse than Biden trying to prosecute Trump lawyers for defending him from Joe's Banana Republic? Do 2 wrongs make a right? No, but three lefts do. You assume what is reported in the article is the whole truth. Until we see the whole truth, I'll stick to sarcasm and pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Aristides linked to 3 articles, not one. Did you read any of them? I'll quote from the summary from the first, let me know if you find any errors in it: ** 67 current and former general counsels submit legal brief Filing backs Perkins Coie in lawsuit against Trump administration Trump orders 'hijack' companies' ability to choose lawyers, brief says ** Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/former-top-lawyers-major-companies-decry-trump-orders-against-law-firms-2025-04-08/ When I first read that summary, I had no idea what Perkins Coie was. I do now. An article on the Perkins Coie lawfirm's win against Trump: https://www.reuters.com/legal/how-trumps-own-words-helped-him-lose-fight-with-law-firm-perkins-coie-2025-05-06/ Again, let me know if you find anything wrong with the summary of this article: ** Trump targets law firms he disfavors with punitive orders Judge Howell invalidates Trump's Perkins Coie directive Trump's public comments underpinned finding of retaliation **

Do 2 wrongs make a right?

No, you're wrong about that too. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs set the record straight on that in a speech he gave to European Parliament back in February. Quoting: ** Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet. It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity. Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly. ** Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/ That's not even the darkest part of what happened during Euromaidan. This is the darkest part: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684 Nothing in this speech you provided shows or explains how I am wrong. I have a feeling you'd see things differently if Russia were to help overthrow the elected President of the United States. How would that make me see things differently? So you're saying Americans wouldn't be hopping mad with Russia if that happened? The discussion we are having is not about how mad people would be. You're right, it was about who started the war. I'd say that the U.S.'s part in overthrowing Viktor Yanukovych, who was the elected Ukrainian President at the time, was what started it all. I mean tell me, if France helped overthrow Canada's Prime Minister, then the new government insisted that all government institutions and schools spoke French, causing the English part of Canada to rebel, you don't think that the U.S. would step in?

How would that make me see things differently? So you're saying Americans wouldn't be hopping mad with Russia if that happened? Actually, I think that Jeffrey Sachs gives a better example of a turnaround here. Quoting from his speech to European Parliament once more: ** Trump won the 2016 election and then expanded arms shipments to Ukraine. There were many thousands of deaths in the shelling by Ukraine in the Donbas. There was no implementation of the Minsk II agreement. Then Biden came into office in 2021. I hoped for better but was profoundly disappointed once again. I used to be a member of the Democratic Party. I now am a member of no party because both are the same anyway. The Democrats became complete warmongers over time, and there was not one voice in the party calling for peace. Just as with most of your parliamentarians, the same way. At the end of 2021, Putin put on the table a last effort to reach a modus operandi with the U.S., in two security agreement drafts, one with Europe and one with the United States. He put the Russia-U.S. draft agreement on the table on Dec. 15, 2021. Following that, I had an hour-long call with [National Security Advisor] Jake Sullivan in the White House, begging, “Jake, avoid the war. You can avoid the war. All the U.S. has to do is say, ‘NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine.’” And he said to me, “Oh, NATO’s not going to enlarge to Ukraine. Don’t worry about it.” I said, “Jake, say it publicly.” “No. No. No. We can’t say it publicly.” I said, “Jake, you’re going to have a war over something that isn’t even going to happen?” He said, “Don’t worry, Jeff. There will be no war.” These are not very bright people. I’m telling you, if I can give you my honest view, they’re not very bright people. They talk to themselves. They don’t talk to anybody else. They play game theory. In noncooperative game theory, you don’t talk to the other side. You just make your strategy. This is the essence of non-cooperative game theory. It’s not negotiation theory. It’s not peacemaking theory. It is unilateral, noncooperative theory, if you know formal game theory. That’s what they play. That kind of game theory started [in application] at the RAND Corporation. That’s what they still play. In 2019, there’s a paper by RAND, “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground.” Incredibly, the paper, in the public domain, asks how the U.S. should annoy, antagonize, and weaken Russia. That’s literally the strategy. We’re trying to provoke Russia, trying to make Russia break apart, perhaps have regime change, maybe unrest, maybe an economic crisis. That’s what you in Europe call your ally. So, there I was with my frustrating phone call with Sullivan, standing out in the freezing cold. I happened to be trying to have a ski day. “Oh, there’ll be no war, Jeff.” We know what happened next: the Biden administration refused to negotiate over NATO enlargement. The stupidest idea of NATO is the so-called open-door policy, based on Article 10 of the NATO Treaty (1949). NATO reserves the right to go where it wants, as long as the host government agrees, without any neighbor – such as Russia — having any say whatsoever. Well, I tell the Mexicans and the Canadians, “Don’t try it.” You know, Trump may want to take over Canada. So, the Canadian government could say to China, “Why don’t you build a military base in Ontario?” I wouldn’t advise it. The U.S. would not say, “Well, it’s an open door. That’s Canada’s and China’s business, not ours.” The U.S. would invade Canada. Yet grownups, including in Europe, in this Parliament, in NATO, in the European Commission, repeat the absurd mantra that Russia has no say in NATO enlargement. This is nonsense stuff. This is not even baby geopolitics. This is just not thinking at all. So, the Ukraine War escalated in February 2022 when the Biden Administration refused any serious negotiations. ** Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/

Nothing in this speech you provided shows or explains how I am wrong. I have a feeling you'd see things differently if Russia were to help overthrow the elected President of the United States.

No, you're wrong about that too. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs set the record straight on that in a speech he gave to European Parliament back in February. Quoting: ** Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet. It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity. Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly. ** Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/ That's not even the darkest part of what happened during Euromaidan. This is the darkest part: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

This is the absolute dumbest lie in the world. No, it's the truth. Even Zelensky is now pining for a 30 day ceasefire at this point. Putin is having none of it: https://meduza.io/en/news/2025/04/29/moscow-rejects-proposed-30-day-ceasefire-says-putin-s-three-day-offer-is-only-way-forward-without-preconditions So, first you say its the truth and then go on to say Putin is having none of it... You seem to have forgotten what I was saying was the truth, so I'll summarize what's in the nested quotes above. I said that Russia doesn't want a ceasefire but a permanent peace agreement. You said that was the "dumbest lie in the world" and -that's- when i said it was the truth, after which I provided evidence for my belief with a linked article. I suspect you don't generally bother to look at nested quotes, so again, that linked article is here: https://meduza.io/en/news/2025/04/29/moscow-rejects-proposed-30-day-ceasefire-says-putin-s-three-day-offer-is-only-way-forward-without-preconditions

Very sobering, thanks for sharing.

This is the absolute dumbest lie in the world. No, it's the truth. Even Zelensky is now pining for a 30 day ceasefire at this point. Putin is having none of it: https://meduza.io/en/news/2025/04/29/moscow-rejects-proposed-30-day-ceasefire-says-putin-s-three-day-offer-is-only-way-forward-without-preconditions Haven't you heard? Russia had referendums in the 4 regions it now mainly controls and they all voted to join Russia. The concept of a "New Russia" has been around since 2014, an idea that rebels in the Donbass area have been considering since that point: https://newrepublic.com/article/117284/federalized-ukraine-could-mean-return-novorossiya Ukraine tried to destroy the idea with its 8 year civil war on the Donbass Republics, but it's clearly risen from its ashes: https://www.eurasiareview.com/13032024-novorossiya-rising-from-ashes-like-phoenix-oped/ The only way I see this changing is if there's a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, at which point most people will have larger concerns then who controls what part of Ukraine.

1- Russia doesn't want a ceasefire, it wants a comprehensive peace plan. Trump is the one who wanted a 30 day ceasefire. 2- There's plenty of evidence that Russia had absolutely no interest in any Ukrainian territory, with the exception of Sevastopol, prior to Euromaidan in 2014. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs made this clear in a speech he gave to European Parliament in February 2025: ** As you know, Viktor Yanukovych was elected as president of Ukraine in 2010 on the platform of Ukraine’s neutrality. Russia had no territorial interests or designs in Ukraine at all. I know. I was there off-and-on during these years. What Russia was negotiating during 2010 was a 25-year lease to 2042 for Sevastopol naval base. That’s it. There were no Russian demands for Crimea, or for the Donbas. Nothing like that at all. The idea that Putin is reconstructing the Russian empire is childish propaganda. Excuse me. If anyone knows the day-to-day and year-to-year history, this is childish stuff. Yet childish stuff seems to work better than adult stuff. So, there were no territorial demands at all before the 2014 coup [in Ukraine]. Yet the United States decided that Yanukovych must be overthrown because he favored neutrality and opposed NATO enlargement. It’s called a regime change operation. ** Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/ It was only -after- the regime change that the dominoes started to fall. As I've said many times, I don't see any way that Ukraine can "win" this war, as I don't see any circumstances wherein Russia stops fighting to meet its objectives. As Trump rightly pointed out to Zelensky during their oval office meet, Zelensky's "gambling with World War III", but they can only do so with American support and Trump has made it clear he's not interested. So perhaps the Trump Administration will finance Ukraine for another 100 days as Vance recently suggested, and Zelensky will finally realize that while he will regain none of the territory he's lost, he -could- hold on to what's left of Ukraine if he finally removes the ban on negotiations with Russia and gets to negotiating an end to this war.

Something to be said about a division of labour. Canada should focus on what it can make at a competitive price. I think Dave Chappelle did a good skit on this:

Zelensky's already rejected it: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/zelensky-calls-putin-s-three-day-ceasefire-offer-manipulation/ar-AA1DQUqu

What are you talking about? "The west" was not walking all over anyone here. Russia started this war and has been pushing it for over a decade now with the take over of Crimea, then their shadow war in the Donbas to full scale invasion. No, the U.S. started this war when it helped overthrow Viktor Yanukovych during Euromaidan back in 2014, the elected President of Ukraine at the time. There's a great article on the subject if you'd like to learn more. It can be seen here: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ After that happened, Crimeans held a referendum wherein they decided to request to rejoin Russia. Russia granted their request and annexed Crimea shortly thereafter. A good article on that can be seen here: https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/ A little after, the Donbass region rebelled, instigated by the new Ukrainian regime's intolerance towards Russian ties and the Russian language. Russian historian Evgeny Norin wrote an article on this shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began which I found to be quite compelling on how the Odessa massacre played a pivotal role in this. His article can be seen here: https://www.rt.com/russia/554860-burned-alive-2014-odessa/ There's an old saying that lies can get half way around the world before truth gets the chance to get its pants on, but after a while, people can finally learn of it. There was a recent court case that shows a bit of the truth of this massacre, which can be seen here: https://alethonews.com/2025/03/18/european-court-of-human-rights-finds-ukraine-guilty-of-the-odessa-massacre/ From what I've read, the main reason the U.S. and its western allies isn't giving much more munitions to Ukraine is that they're running low. I think that's a good thing, because I don't think any amount of munitions would get Ukraine to win. As I've said in the past, I firmly believe that either Russia achieves its objectives or everyone loses via a nuclear war. If I'm right, I think it should be obvious as to which outcome any rational person would prefer.

I think you know that fractional reserve banking means that banks don't lend out money they have on hand- instead, they're allowed to lend out money they don't actually have at all, which is why banks fear "runs on the bank", because they simply don't have all the money they lend out. If anyone should have the power to lend out money they don't have, it should be the governments themselves, as they are at least elected by the people, unlike banks. The way things are now, governments borrow money from banks (which banks get to make out of thing air) and governments actually pay interest on all this borrowed money. There's absolutely no need for this- governments can borrow from themselves if need be. This is what Abraham Lincoln did with his greenback dollars and it worked quite well.

I think a good start would be to stop allowing banks the ability to create money out of nothing. If anyone should have that power, it should be the government itself, as it would essentially be a tax, which governments do anyway. A good documentary on the economic system that the world uses, focusing in on the U.S. can be seen here:

It's certainly true that certain western -elites- have some skin in the game. Russia's victories in Ukraine are making it clear that the west can't just walk all over anyone it pleases. From what I've read, there's no way that Ukraine can win. Either Russian wins completely, or the west goes to war with Russia, in which case -everyone- loses.

So what? Are you saying that justifies the persecution of outliers? No, just that in most cases, people can say that their sex is either male or female. Again: SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? My point is that when most people are asked if their sex is male or female, they shouldn't have to say neither, or some variation of that.

So what? Are you saying that justifies the persecution of outliers? No, just that in most cases, people can say that their sex is either male or female. Ah ok, yes, that's a good point.

I can agree with all of that, but from what I've read, most people are either biologically male or biologically female.

I definitely think that creating fair international trade rules sounds like a good idea, regardless of who's proposing the idea.

Escalation to what? Mutually assured destruction? Yep, I think that Biden was dangerously close to that and I suspect that Kamala may have continued along those lines. Trump, on the other hand, seems to be backing away from such a possibility. I don't see it that way. I see the conflict of Ukraine the same way most Americans saw the Cuban Missile Crisis. Did you know that of the 9 times the U.S. and the USSR almost started a nuclear war, 4 of those times were during the Cuban Missile Crisis? There's an article about it here: https://www.businessinsider.com/when-nuclear-war-almost-happened-2018-4?op=1 From what I've heard, it looks like there's already been once such incidence during the Ukraine war: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/19/scott-ritter-72-hours/ There should be no more and it looks like Trump is taking steps to ensure this. Yeah, Trump's done a real doozy there, I agree. You may well be right. It probably depends on whether Kamala would have started a nuclear war with Russia.