Fat Trudeau becomes unglued when a Canadian doesn't support his corrupt war in Ukraine

[Moonbox]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I don't think we put anywhere near enough effort into trying to avoid dictators. In fact the opposite is just as often the case.  The idea that they'd become more like us is questionable and even reasonable people will argue we're becoming more like them.

I agree, and I think with China and Russia in particular, we've seen the experiment prove a failure.  That doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with the Ukraine conflict, however, or Putin apologists.  

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

I agree, and I think with China and Russia in particular, we've seen the experiment prove a failure.  That doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with the Ukraine conflict, however, or Putin apologists.  

What if Putin got some sort of nod or handshake from Trump? Given the death and destruction that's ensued it's a handshake that's certainly on par with the results of handshaking other US administration's have engaged in. In any case there seems little doubt Putin is making some sort of hay out of the divisiveness surrounding America's and the West's response.  It seems there's something a little deeper than simple partisan contrariness motivating apologists and it's not just fear given the militant hawkishness often associated with the hard right. But who knows maybe it is no deeper than partisan bitterness.

Edited February 28, 2023 by eyeball

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Contrarian said:

he goes and praises Xi?

Maybe the issue here is that you're a simple man, and don't understand the nuances of the English language. 

FYI, I never said that brokering a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine would mean that Xi is a really swell guy. We know that he's anything but, and brokering a peace deal won't change that. 

Still, the fact remains, brokering a peace deal is like low-hanging fruit. He gets to do a very well-earned victory lap if he does it, and Biden will have no recourse but to sulk.

Subjective: Xi is always wrong no matter what, because he is a bad guy, and even if Biden's war gets stopped, he was still right to urge it on

Objective: Brokering a peace deal gets you a lot of Brownie points. The world will see China bring peace to an area were the US was fanning the flames of war. And not just 'local war', a war with massive implications for the amount of food, energy and fertilizer available to the rest of the world. 

The US has always acted like the protectors of the world, with their huge army and all its drone-striking capabilities. What if China hammers out a peace deal without ever firing a drone? Without even being responsible for the taking of a life? What does that say to the world, Contrarian? What does it say to a sentient AI being? "America - kill, kill, kill. China, big army, no kill..."

If you look at the situation objectively, China is winning.  

If you look at the situation objectively, the US and Russia are depleting their military while China is just building, building, building.

A very real concern is that China comes up with a reasonable deal, the US puts heavy pressure on Ukraine not to accept, and by not accepting the US and Ukraine lose credibility on the world stage. 

NATO is already strained due to Biden's/America's hawkish stance and belligerence: Turkey might already be leaving NATO, and Germany isn't backing NATO's aggression at all, they're not interested in war with Russia. 

You're not aware because our media won't tell you, but in other countries the truth isn't as hard to get access to. Leftist dolts here overwhelming accept and support every action and comment against Russia because of "COLLUSION COLLUSION COLLUSION!", but that's not the reality that is accepted abroad.

Other countries look at this more objectively than you do. They don't share your passion for US partisan politics. They'll be really happy to see peace in Ukraine and a return to global norms, like reasonably priced energy, food and fertilizer.  

Be scared of China dude. They're running circles around your dear leaders right now. Xi is winning. We don't want Xi to win, or at least I don't. The role of "Global Leader" is entirely up for grabs now, because Biden is not a leader, period. If Xi steps up and knocks this outta the park it's extremely bad for our "Western Civilization" brand.  

Quote

the same man that is doing damage in Canada

1) Any good leader is doing 'damage' in every other country they deal with. 

Trump wants a sweetheart deal for the US. So did Reagan. So did Obama. So did Merkel. So did Thatcher. They all do/did. (If they don't, it's usually because the leader of the country is selling their influence abroad. Like for example, if they have family members who are getting paid millions of dollars from a foreign gov't. Like China. Right?)

It's possible to work out a deal that's beneficial for both countries, most deals actually are because isolationism isn't beneficial, but every leader wants to brag to their people that they won a great deal for their side.

2) The US interferes in elections all over the world, all the time. Even with the use of violence. Get over it.

Leftists talk about 'white privilege' all the time, then they act like it's awesome for the US to intervene in every other sovereign nation's affairs, but at the same time they think it's morally wrong for China to spend a bit of money in Canada... Do you see the glaring hypocrisy there? 

Did China want Trudeau to be PM? Of course. Did they work towards that end? Of course. Is it wrong for them to do so? Of course not. It's only wrong for Canadians to accept their help. Get over it. 

3) Is the gov't of Canada trying to influence the goings-on on Iran? Yes. Is that right or wrong? Depends on your POV:

If you value the lives of women, you like it. If you value islam more, then Canada is blaspheming. FYI lots of women side with the Iranian gov't. Are they wrong? Are they not entitled to an opinion in Contrarian's world? 

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Still, the fact remains, brokering a peace deal is like low-hanging fruit. He gets to do a very well-earned victory lap if he does it, and Biden will have no recourse but to sulk.

It's a little more complex than that. I agree if his deal was accepted by both sides then sure. But it won't be. And in the end biden will probably be necessary to get any deal done, as he controls the flow of arms to Ukraine and they don't want to compromise.

Xi will still look good and get his lap but i suspect biden will still get his glory moment too,

20 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The US has always acted like the protectors of the world, with their huge army and all its drone-striking capabilities. What if China hammers out a peace deal without ever firing a drone? Without even being responsible for the taking of a life? What does that say to the world, Contrarian? What does it say to a sentient AI being? "America - kill, kill, kill. China, big army, no kill..."

It will say nothing of the sort   America has not fired a shot yet. Who did america shoot? China has already been supplying components to make weapons and supporting the Russian war of agression and is now looking at shipping lethal weapons - if china hasn't fired a shot neither has the us.

The message to the world is that the us is still the arsenal of democracy and you better have them on your side if there's any chance you might have to defend yourself.

China will still get prestige points for their negotiating skills and will win major points with peaceful people around the world. They will be seen to be influential. That's also important and valuable. But more importantly - they will be seen as being stronger than the Russians, and it will give them more clout in areas of influence that normally the russians prevail in.

Both will do well.

Then the US will get rich rebuilding ukraine and china will get rich exploiting russia.

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It's possible to work out a deal that's beneficial for both countries,

Ha! no.  No - the two actual combatants are going to walk away from this worse off than they were when they started no matter what happens. What we're looking for now is a deal where both sides walk away equally unhappy.

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

What if Putin got some sort of nod or handshake from Trump?

There's not really any what if about it.  He did get that from Trump.  The only reason it didn't go any further than that is 80 years of US/Russian antagonism and a bi-partisan anti-Russian ethos.  

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

In any case there seems little doubt Putin is making some sort of hay out of the divisiveness surrounding America's and the West's response.  It seems there's something a little deeper than simple partisan contrariness motivating apologists and it's not just fear given the militant hawkishness often associated with the hard right. But who knows maybe it is no deeper than partisan bitterness.

No doubt about that.  

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's a little more complex than that. I agree if his deal was accepted by both sides then sure. But it won't be. And in the end biden will probably be necessary to get any deal done, as he controls the flow of arms to Ukraine and they don't want to compromise.

Because the US wants war.

This isn't going well for the US and for NATO though. 

Quote

Xi will still look good and get his lap but i suspect biden will still get his glory moment too,

Canada should be working on a peace deal there, but we're just as bad as the US.

Biden, yikes. He just needs to stay quiet now.

Quote

It will say nothing of the sort   America has not fired a shot yet. Who did america shoot? China has already been supplying components to make weapons and supporting the Russian war of agression and is now looking at shipping lethal weapons - if china hasn't fired a shot neither has the us.

Americans are always killing someone. Trump was the first POTUS to not start a war since Jimmy Carter.

When was China's last war? how many Chinese weapons have been used in this war so far? The threat of supplying Russia does two things: 1) back's Russia in a very real way politically, 2) lends more weight to their peace deal. Ukraine gets to choose between peace or escalation from China.

Quote

The message to the world is that the us is still the arsenal of democracy and you better have them on your side if there's any chance you might have to defend yourself.

Here: 

Go rub one out now.

[Moonbox]

59 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Because the US wants war.

This isn't going well for the US and for NATO though. 

Yeah Kiev fell in 3 days!  ?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Because the US wants war.

This isn't going well for the US and for NATO though. 

It would be arguably true that the us wants war, but it would be insane to think it isn't going well. They coudln't ask for it to be going much better. One main rival is being ground down and having their reputation and military arsenal completely trashed, another quesitonable nation is now so indebted to them it isn't funny and will be well within their sphere of influence

How is that anything less than awesome for them?

 

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Canada should be working on a peace deal there, but we're just as bad as the US.

Biden, yikes. He just needs to stay quiet now.

Trudeau does not want to stand against what he perceives as the prevalent sentiment in nato. Hell he didn't even buy OUR troops anti air gear and he's buying it for ukraine.

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

When was China's last war? how many Chinese weapons have been used in this war so far?

Well - quite a few actually  Here's a list for the PRC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China

and here's some history. THey've pretty much always been killing someone too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_wars_and_battles

to be fair tho - it's basically us and the netherlands who are not out there constantly picking a fight with someone. And even then we tend to hitch a ride whenever everyone else gets worked up.

[Moonbox]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It would be arguably true that the us wants war, but it would be insane to think it isn't going well. They coudln't ask for it to be going much better.

Bbb-bu-but that's not what they're saying on Russia Today, or on Syrian news!  ? 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Bbb-bu-but that's not what they're saying on Russia Today, or on Syrian news!  ? 

There is a chance... a SMALL chance but a chance nonetheless.... a chance that those sources are not completely unbias.

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It would be arguably true that the us wants war, but it would be insane to think it isn't going well. They coudln't ask for it to be going much better. One main rival is being ground down and having their reputation and military arsenal completely trashed, another quesitonable nation is now so indebted to them it isn't funny and will be well within their sphere of influenceHow is that anything less than awesome for them?

We don't really know what's going on in Ukraine because all we hear is our propaganda. 

This is a very dangerous war though, and now it's escalating, as drone strikes are hitting Russia. 

As a young person growing up, my only criteria when I was evaluating US presidents was "Which one of these guys is least likely to start a war with Russia?"

Biden is the worst of all possible candidates: he's easily provoked to the point of hostility, he's egotistical, he's stupid, and he's constantly getting outmanoeuvred, which triggers his ego and his anger.

Who's being ground down? It's not just Russia, it's the US as well. They're spending money like a drunk sailor while their enemies are getting stronger and NATO is getting weaker, and destroying NATO's reputation. 

Quote

Trudeau does not want to stand against what he perceives as the prevalent sentiment in nato. Hell he didn't even buy OUR troops anti air gear and he's buying it for ukraine.

Turkey and Germany are not at all in favour of this war, and Germany is either #2 or 3 in NATO. Prominent Turks are talking openly about leaving. 

Leftards freaked out that "Trump is destroying NATO" when he just chastised them for not honouring their commitments, but Biden has NATO at the brink of war with Russia, possibly China as well, and countries are openly talking about leaving. It's a disaster.

Quote

Well - quite a few actually  Here's a list for the PRC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Are you kidding me? They're a partner in some battles against terrorists and pirates and that's about it since 1979.

China doesn't even have any troops that you could consider "battle-tested", their last skirmishes were over 40 years ago. 

Do you know how many US troops have seen action in the last 40 years? Do you know how many civilians have been drone-striked, bombed, killed by landmines, etc in the last 40 years by the US? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

China has a baby list, and all the 'wars' on it are small by comparison to the US. There's a massive difference between how war-like these two nations have been over the last 110 years, or the last 60 years, or the last 20 years, or the last ten years...

Edited March 1, 2023 by WestCanMan

[Moonbox]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Biden is the worst of all possible candidates: he's easily provoked to the point of hostility, he's egotistical, he's stupid, and he's constantly getting outmanoeuvred, which triggers his ego and his anger.

It sounds like you're describing someone else entirely.  ?

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

We don't really know what's going on in Ukraine because all we hear is our propaganda. 

Well that's not quite true. Without a doubt much information is filtered and some is withheld but there is much that is verified by independant sources or even the russians. Putin didn't draft 300k people because he was winning.

So while we have to take everything with a grain of salt we can get a fairly good overall picture.

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

This is a very dangerous war though, and now it's escalating, as drone strikes are hitting Russia. 

There are no safe wars.

22 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

As a young person growing up, my only criteria when I was evaluating US presidents was "Which one of these guys is least likely to start a war with Russia?"

Biden is the worst of all possible candidates: he's easily provoked to the point of hostility, he's egotistical, he's stupid, and he's constantly getting outmanoeuvred, which triggers his ego and his anger.

Bullshit. Biden is a pushover and a wimp. That's why putin went. IF the russians had actually succeeded in their plan to win the war in 7 days the US would have done nothing at all. When russia failed, the us and biden saw an opportunity and they've taken it.

24 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Who's being ground down? It's not just Russia, it's the US as well. They're spending money like a drunk sailor while their enemies are getting stronger and NATO is getting weaker

The opposite is true, and that's entirely demonstrable. They are spending PENNIES. This is a TINY FRACTION of their military budget, barely a blip.  And for that they've seen thousands of russian tanks destroyed that the russians can't replace quickly, hundreds and hundreds of aircraft they can't replace quickly, probably upwards of 70 - 80 thousand dead (nobody believes the 'official' numbers) which will have an insane impact on their people (the us lost 45 thousand in the whole vietnam war).  Their economy is being seriously negatively impacted and they're being forced to do deals with China - you might as well sign your soul to satan as deal with china from a position of weakness.

So the us is spending very very little money to absolutely trash the hell out of a serious threat to them and it's going great! You think the us is spending money? Do you have any idea how much it costs to build 3000 tanks? or replace those airplanes and other equipment and build back the war stocks they've used up? You're into the trillions at that point. Trillions that russia just doesn't have. They're crippled for quite some time to come now.

And meanwhile the US gets to test out it's weapons systems, see what really works and what doesn't, and their next versions will have improvements that will be significant. And the Ukraine is doing all taht testing for them for free!

Plus the us gets jobs from replacing the stuff sent over with the latest versions for themsevles, and then will make craptonnes of money rebuilding ukraine after the conflict.

It does not GET any better than this as far as war goes. For pennies on the dollar they're cripping their enemy, improving their own defense systems, and rebuilding what the russians knocked down will pay for it all And no us soldiers had to die or even be at risk.

[WestCanMan]

44 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's not quite true. Without a doubt much information is filtered and some is withheld but there is much that is verified by independant sources or even the russians. Putin didn't draft 300k people because he was winning.

He drafted 300k people because why, Cdn Fox? Because he's preparing for a larger war? And what types of ordnance will he use? Good times, hey?

Quote

So while we have to take everything with a grain of salt we can get a fairly good overall picture.

There are no safe wars.

Picking on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria was pretty safe. Goats don't cross the ocean very quickly. 

A war against a country with half the earth's nukes...?

Quote

Bullshit. Biden is a pushover and a wimp.

An angry wimp with nukes and chemical weapons that he talked about using.

 

Quote

The opposite is true, and that's entirely demonstrable. They are spending PENNIES. This is a TINY FRACTION of their military budget, barely a blip.  And for that they've seen thousands of russian tanks destroyed that the russians can't replace quickly, hundreds and hundreds of aircraft they can't replace quickly, probably upwards of 70 - 80 thousand dead (nobody believes the 'official' numbers) which will have an insane impact on their people (the us lost 45 thousand in the whole vietnam war).  Their economy is being seriously negatively impacted and they're being forced to do deals with China - you might as well sign your soul to satan as deal with china from a position of weakness.

OMG you're delusional. 

Thousands of tanks? Hundreds of aircraft? 70-80,000 dead? 

Get a life ffs. 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He drafted 300k people because why, Cdn Fox? Because he's preparing for a larger war? And what types of ordnance will he use? Good times, hey?

So he's losing.

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Picking on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria was pretty safe. Goats don't cross the ocean very quickly. 

A war against a country with half the earth's nukes...?

A war that country chose. That country does not vanish if you ignore them. They started this war, and if they win it they'll start the next war. There is GOING to be a confrontation, Better to have it now

Your logic is the same logic that Chamberlain used. "If we just give them poland, they'll be happy and we'll have peace."  no. that's not how it works.

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

An angry wimp with nukes and chemical weapons that he talked about using.

Give me a break. that guy couldn't concentrate long enough to enter the launch codes 

The russians started this war, it's to everyone's advantage for them to suffer defeat and be depleated.  If they're going to pick a nuclear fight over this war then they were going to sooner or later anyway.

But at the end of the day you do NOT promote peace by appeasing bullies. They and every other bully out there has to know if you pick an aggressive war, it may not go the way you like .  I'm sure if putin could rewind the clock he'd never have started this in the first place now.

[Dougie93]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Because the US wants war.

no, America was winning, there was no impetus for America to go to war

America was in fact war weary from the GWOT

but what happened was, the Bush Administration unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty

then the Obama Administration deployed Aegis Ashore Ballistic Missile Defense to Romania

America shifted from a countervalue doctrine to a counterforce doctrine therein

counterforce as in a preemptive first strike backed by BMD to shoot down whatever survives

the Russians cannot react to what America is likely or not likely to do

they can only react to what America is capable of doing

same thing for America, America cannot simply ignore a massive all out attack in the Black Sea Theatre

contrary to popular sentiment, the Cold War was not about ideology

it was simply a dispute over the Potsdam Agreement

which then spiralled out of control due to the paranoia inherent to a thermonuclear stand off

[Moonbox]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your logic is the same logic that Chamberlain used. "If we just give them poland, they'll be happy and we'll have peace."  no. that's not how it works.

Poland was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the point stands.  Sadly they've all heard this before and don't care.  They're both ignorant of history and too willing to rationalize the contradictions their viewpoints represent for any of this type of reasoning to matter. 

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The russians started this war, it's to everyone's advantage for them to suffer defeat and be depleated.  If they're going to pick a nuclear fight over this war then they were going to sooner or later anyway.

Nonono the nazi-jew leader Zelensky started it by committing genooocide in the Donbaaaass!

[Dougie93]

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The russians started this war, it's to everyone's advantage for them to suffer defeat and be depleated.  If they're going to pick a nuclear fight over this war then they were going to sooner or later anyway.

it goes well beyond mere advantage

this is existential threat now

because we are still locked in a thermonuclear standoff at fifteen minutes notice to launch on warning

in that situation, backing off is the most dangerous thing you can do

the Balance of Terror must be maintained

thus, the Russians have left us with no choice but to drive them back away from the brink

Edited March 1, 2023 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This isn't going well for the US and for NATO though.

American & NATO objectives are being met

because the Russian maximalist objectives have been derailed

they can't have Ukraine, all they can do is destroy it

which is a Pyrrhic victory for the Kremlin and a win for NATO therein

it is true : we will fight to the last Ukrainian, so long as they are willing, God bless them

Edited March 1, 2023 by Dougie93

[WestCanMan]

50 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Your logic is the same logic that Chamberlain used. "If we just give them poland, they'll be happy and we'll have peace."  no. that's not how it works.

Oh my God, you're so sucked in by propaganda that you don't even realize when you're saying something entirely stupid.

FYI that analogy only makes sense from Russia's POV: Do we want to deal with this issue now, or wait 'til NATO's already here with their shiny Article 5, komrades? 

Russia wasn't on an empire expansion tour, regardless of what CNN and the power behind the US throne would have you believe.

Russia just can't have NATO on their doorstep, period. 

All it would have taken to avoid this war was for Ukraine to sign away their NATO intentions. That's it.

FYI when Germany was still split in two, German kids got more NBCD training before they were done elementary school than members of the Canadian Forces did in their entire careers. That's the cost of having a military fault line of that magnitude on your doorstep. Kids shouldn't live like that in Germany or Russia and I don't give a f about your stupid "Russian collusion" BS. This isn't politics anymore, it's people's lives. Get your head out of your ass.

Quote

The russians started this war,

They did not start this war. Ukraine's intent to put NATO on the 3,000kms of border between Ukraine/Russia and Ukraine/Belarus started this war.

Did Kennedy start the Cuban Missile Crisis when he invaded Cuba in '61? Did he start it when he discovered the missile silos in '62? Or did Russia start that confrontation just by providing missile silos to a country that wanted them? 

Quote

Give me a break. that guy couldn't concentrate long enough to enter the launch codes  

Nuclear war humour is too dark for me.

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

American & NATO objectives are being met

because the Russian maximalist objectives have been derailed

NATO has never seen this level of disunity before

Quote

it is true : we will fight to the last Ukrainian, so long as they are willing, God bless them

They can all go to hell

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Oh my God, you're so sucked in by propaganda that you don't even realize when you're saying something entirely stupid.

No ser, that's what's happening to you.  That's why you're arguing on behalf of a dictator from a shithole dictatorship with no free press, no free elections and a recent history of bullying its neighbours.  ?

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

FYI that analogy only makes sense from Russia's POV: Do we want to deal with this issue now, or wait 'til NATO's already here with their shiny Article 5, komrades? 

Again, the opposite.  Ukraine hasn't invaded any of its European neighbours, nor has NATO.  Only Russia has.  ?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

NATO has never seen this level of disunity before

oh, it's been much worse than this

back in the 80's when President Reagan ended Detente to instead confront the Soviets

the Europeans went Anti-Nuclear Anti-American apeshit

this is the most pro-American pro-confronting the Russians NATO that has ever been

[myata]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

"Which one of these guys is least likely to start a war with Russia?"

And here we go again. Which one of the two is it:

A. US is fighting a war in Russia

B. Russia broke into an independent European country (and a few more) and committed numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity

Is it really so hard to have eyes and connected brain, to take in and understand the visible reality? Why should it be?

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

They can all go to hell

well I think they are already there

but as Stephen Kotkin says "Russian atrocities + Ukrainian valour = Western unity"

Putin's plan was to break NATO

but actually, he's achieved the opposite

in the First Cold War, the left was vehemently opposed to confronting the Soviets

but all of sudden, the dirty Hippies have become the Hawks

America could have won the Vietnam War if that had happened in 1967

America won the Second World War because the left became the Hawks

the left becoming the Hawks, is a nightmare scenario for the Kremlin