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

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I see, so freedom is you, liking KGB bots that are exposed weaking the Commonwealth.

Here, your Communist Brethern:

Huh...you play an interesting game there Contrarian.

You whine and scream and make all sorts of nutty comments. But you fail to see the world as it is...through this haze of personal indignation you are saddled with. Seek help. I'm pretty sure a good analyst can help you.

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Oh, I kinda figured it was obvious from the start.

I agree. But its now the excuse du jour.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

hahaha look reinforcements.

Aside from the deranged lunatic fake militia troll, the snakes are the ones that promote mediocrity and such role models.

One such insecure man is @Zeitgeist, but he is not a bad man, just angry because of some personal issues, however because he is insecure and can not hold a debate he promotes creatures such as fake militia trolls to make a point.

Hello @Zeitgeist

Dude...he's defending your right to be a twit. Your right to be an overly zealous megaphone.

You right to be a nuisance.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Yes, this is what happens with weaklinks, when they can't hold with their insanity, they pretend to be moderate. ?

Dude I'm getting concerned for you. Seek help. You're going to hurt yourself.

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

The latest reason for NATO sending boots to Ukraine.

What NATO boots??

[Zeitgeist]

59 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Sure insecure disgruntled little man, whatever you say.

The Conservatives will win in this country without the help of ilk like you. Low lives uneducated troll that lies about working in Europe, another one, don't make me open that can of worms, because I can check mate you within 3 moves, too. 

What the Internet has produced for people like you to write, what is happening now, is just the reaction, uneducated one.

I haven’t lied about what I’ve done. I have nothing to prove. I would worry about your level of debate, however. I’m not sure you’re the sharpest knife in the drawer. It always comes down to your power of argument and ability to support your position with evidence. Right now you’re batting about .200.

Now that you’ve pumped yourself up as some kind of political savant, we’ll all be watching your commentary closely and critically.  No pressure.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

You certainly lack conviction. LOL

Nope, never changed my tune.

My comments are and is about economic benefits.

Edited March 6, 2023 by ExFlyer

[Nationalist]

10 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Listen, since every worm on the internet can write here, I can write too. I might be eccentric because I rattle the cage of internet trolls, but this can turn into a capitalistic idea.

• Is money at the end, don't think I do this for free.

And all I have to do is to show zero emotion and stand strong towards low-life messages such as "twit", "hurt yourself" and threats from bots domestically or/and abroad. 

You still think you are boxing with a weak-link youngster like yourself. 

???

Uhmmm...its "weakling". Moving on...

Yes Contrarian...you can indeed write here. You can write...write...write write write. And you do.

But you have to understand that everyone else can write back. To respond with their points of view. To identify the gaping holes in some lines of thinking.

Now...this claim you've made that you are working at this with "zero emotion" is frankly...nonsense. You have indeed, in the last little while, morphed from a rather level headed writer, to a clone of the infamous BeaverFever.

We all get passionate man...and I encourage passionate debate. But you're taking a dip in the deep end here.

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

What NATO boots??

LOL...

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Well, flip your bird. It does nothing and proves even less.

Oh sorry - i didn't realize you had no sense of humor at all. Humor is usually a sign of intelligence,  i mistakenly over estimated yours. My mistake, I apologize for the offense. I'll keep it basic from here on for you.

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

There is nothing incorrect about what I said. Just because you don't like it, does not make it wrong.

More amused than disliked. I thought you were making a bit of a joke, but as we've established you don't have a sense of humour so, my mistake. 

For your statement to remain true however you would have to define what 'war of convenience' meant. It would seem that a reasonably definition could be " a war that conveniently has benefits to a country".  If we accept the dictionary definition of 'convenient' as being something that's suitable to one's needs or purpose then in this particular context the terms 'war of convenience' and 'convenient war' would be synonymous.  So you'd have to explain the difference and justify your use of the term to actually make the argument.

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

You don't have to be on the front to be in the war. Clearly NATO and European Union countries are fully immersed in the war in the Ukraine. They could not care less about your bird or any other animal you want to flip.

No, that's just silly.  to be "at war' you literally have to be in the war. Supplying goods to warring nations is not the same as being 'at war' or a participant in the war.

If that's how it worked we would already be referring to this as world war 3 - with most of the western nations giving at least some supplies and support to the war effort with china, iran and many of the other nations on that side of the curtain providing support as well. It's even more countries than ww2.

So again, for that to make sense the countries would have to be what is known as 'belligerents'. And at this time they are not.

Speaking of beligerant, you managed to take a small bit of humour and turn it into an opportunity to demonstrate you were wrong. Good "thinking".

[Nationalist]

29 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Nope, never changed my tune.

My comments are and is about economic benefits.

Now I know how you manage to have a pages long pedantic argument with others.

You dance about like a literary ballerina.

[Legato]

22 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

So what are you arguing with me, then? You write, I write. You say stuff, I check stuff. Is that easy. 

This is an arena. 

Oh, I know I am going into the deep, the Covid-19 pandemic affected all of us in different ways. It messed me up in the brain, I know that, HOWEVER, look at where this path lead me. A different type of purpose.

• Could have been worse, I could spend my days spamming the forum like you liking communist bots from the KGB, or talking about a conspiracy in regard to the vaccine. 
• I think I am ok. ?

Cmon Contrarian you sound a little 'off' today, did some nefarious basterd spike the brownies.

[ExFlyer]

19 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Now I know how you manage to have a pages long pedantic argument with others.

You dance about like a literary ballerina.

Nope.

No pages.

You are like my Wife, reads but does not comprehend

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

That's from a Ukraine paper. It doesn't mention making their land a testing ground for weapons.

Doesn't matter does it.  I never claimed people DIDN"T say that they thought it should be for democracy - i said they DID claim the things i said they did. They may have said 100 other things - i never said they ONLY said those things. But I did say the said them and proved it true.

YOU - YOU were the one who claimed they didn't and said  i was lying.  It wouldn't matter if anyone said anything else - if they said what i claimed then I was not lying and it was in fact you who were.

I proved that you were wrong and that you' were the dishonest person here when i showed that MANY sources all the way along DID discuss it.

So once again you're devolving into lying to try to prove your point. And crybabying about getting called names after calling me a liart start it off.

As to your childish example - you forget something very simple:  the allies are not actually fighting in ukraine and have no intent to do so.

Sooooo how did the kid get blown up exactly? It wasn't fighting a war, because we're not sending our boys to fight are we,

Once again - you resort to lies to try to prove your point - which means you probably didn't have a very good point to begin with.

Pathetic.

[ExFlyer]

33 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Oh sorry - i didn't realize you had no sense of humor at all. Humor is usually a sign of intelligence,  i mistakenly over estimated yours. My mistake, I apologize for the offense. I'll keep it basic from here on for you.

More amused than disliked. I thought you were making a bit of a joke, but as we've established you don't have a sense of humour so, my mistake. 

For your statement to remain true however you would have to define what 'war of convenience' meant. It would seem that a reasonably definition could be " a war that conveniently has benefits to a country".  If we accept the dictionary definition of 'convenient' as being something that's suitable to one's needs or purpose then in this particular context the terms 'war of convenience' and 'convenient war' would be synonymous.  So you'd have to explain the difference and justify your use of the term to actually make the argument.

No, that's just silly.  to be "at war' you literally have to be in the war. Supplying goods to warring nations is not the same as being 'at war' or a participant in the war.

If that's how it worked we would already be referring to this as world war 3 - with most of the western nations giving at least some supplies and support to the war effort with china, iran and many of the other nations on that side of the curtain providing support as well. It's even more countries than ww2.

So again, for that to make sense the countries would have to be what is known as 'belligerents'. And at this time they are not.

Speaking of beligerant, you managed to take a small bit of humour and turn it into an opportunity to demonstrate you were wrong. Good "thinking".

Your humour seems to have difficulty translating to print.

I never said war of convenience, that was one of your buddies.

Financing a was is being at war.

[Nationalist]

51 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

So what are you arguing with me, then? You write, I write. You say stuff, I check stuff. Is that easy. 

This is an arena. 

Oh, I know I am going into the deep, the Covid-19 pandemic affected all of us in different ways. It messed me up in the brain, I know that, HOWEVER, look at where this path lead me. A different type of purpose.

• Could have been worse, I could spend my days spamming the forum like you liking communist bots from the KGB, or talking about a conspiracy in regard to the vaccine. 
• I think I am ok. ?

You don't "check" stuff. You see an opposing viewpoint and you howl KGB. That's your "shtick". Your method.

Now...I don't know of anyone in this site, who is a real communist. And if someone is...so what? You accuse people of being traitors for nothing more than writing some rather inconvenient truths about this little skirmish. Here's a few to chew on:

1. I don't believe this silly claim that the great Ukrainian military, forced the Russian column away from Kiev...oh and IT'S KIEV...not Keev or whatever that stupid mispronunciation is spelled... More I would believe they found themselves in a shitty position and retreated to re-group. The fact is, if Putin wanted to level Kiev, it would now be a pile of rubble. I "suspect" the Russians didn't really want to destroy Kiev in the first place.

2. Ukraine cannot...I repeat...cannot win a war of attrition with Russia, no matter how many short range missiles, tanks or even fighter jets the NATO nations send them. The math is so lop sided that to think this is beyond wishful thinking.

3. While I cannot condone the actions of Moscow, I can be rational enough to understand that this war was avoidable and that all parties involved, had a hand in firing it all up.

4. Ukraine cannot win this war without more soldiers. If NATO send in soldiers, I believe the gloves will come off and Russia will begin assaulting NATO nations. That would be known as a "bad" consequence of "poor" execution.

Edited March 6, 2023 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Your humour seems to have difficulty translating to print.

Not for people with a sense of humor.

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I never said war of convenience, that was one of your buddies.

Go read the conversation again, it'll all make sense. Hopefully. If not, get someone from grade 5 or higher to read it for you.

18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Financing a was is being at war.

Said nobody ever.  Financing a war is not being at war, not legally  or morally or ethically. Being at war is being at war. That's why the US will send money and gear but not troops. They don't want to be at war with the russians.

This isn't complicated. If i give you 10 dollars to run off and have sex with a hooker, i'm not having sex.  If the US gives guns to the ukraine so it can fight a war that it's having,  the us is not at war. it's childish to pretend otherwise.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I agree. But its now the excuse du jour.

You don't agree you advise capitulation.  Meanwhile I've been suggesting Canada should at least put troops on the ground to deliver some much needed humanitarian aid - we could partner up with the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders or something.  Be there to represent the Human Nation - the only nation on the planet without borders. We could even offer to put troops into Russia for the same reason to help human beings not countries.

The idealism makes you want to puke doesn't it?  But there's really only a lack of imagination preventing anyone.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You don't agree you advise capitulation.  Meanwhile I've been suggesting Canada should at least put troops on the ground to deliver some much needed humanitarian aid - we could partner up with the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders or something.  Be there to represent the Human Nation - the only nation on the planet without borders. We could even offer to put troops into Russia for the same reason to help human beings not countries.

The idealism makes you want to puke doesn't it?  But there's really only a lack of imagination preventing anyone.

I don't know about that - i'm not sure of what the legal ramifications are for having actual military people involved in the conflict even as medics only. I seem to recall reading at some point in the past that there's a serious problem with that and it would potentially make you a belligerent nation.

Not to mention if our people were involved anywhere there's fighting some could get killed by russians which creates a problem.

If you ONLY provided assistance to civilians it might be different.

[ExFlyer]

16 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not for people with a sense of humor.

Go read the conversation again, it'll all make sense. Hopefully. If not, get someone from grade 5 or higher to read it for you.

Said nobody ever.  Financing a war is not being at war, not legally  or morally or ethically. Being at war is being at war. That's why the US will send money and gear but not troops. They don't want to be at war with the russians.

This isn't complicated. If i give you 10 dollars to run off and have sex with a hooker, i'm not having sex.  If the US gives guns to the ukraine so it can fight a war that it's having,  the us is not at war. it's childish to pretend otherwise.

I apologize for trying to have a discussion with you. You are right about everything. So smart, so knowledgeable, so worldly, so above me and others on this forum. I am humbled.

Please do not wast your valuable time with me anymore, it is beneath you.

[Nationalist]

58 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Doesn't matter does it.  I never claimed people DIDN"T say that they thought it should be for democracy - i said they DID claim the things i said they did. They may have said 100 other things - i never said they ONLY said those things. But I did say the said them and proved it true.

YOU - YOU were the one who claimed they didn't and said  i was lying.  It wouldn't matter if anyone said anything else - if they said what i claimed then I was not lying and it was in fact you who were.

I proved that you were wrong and that you' were the dishonest person here when i showed that MANY sources all the way along DID discuss it.

So once again you're devolving into lying to try to prove your point. And crybabying about getting called names after calling me a liart start it off.

As to your childish example - you forget something very simple:  the allies are not actually fighting in ukraine and have no intent to do so.

Sooooo how did the kid get blown up exactly? It wasn't fighting a war, because we're not sending our boys to fight are we,

Once again - you resort to lies to try to prove your point - which means you probably didn't have a very good point to begin with.

Pathetic.

OK...let's just explore what has been said then...

You said:

Quote

You may not have said it or meant it but yet it's largely true. This is a VERY convenient war for the us and allies. Putin was completely retarded to start it.

Without wasting a single allied life, the russians are being severely depleted militarily and will be years building back up to where they were before, if they can at all.  THat's pretty convenient.

As you say, the allies get to get rid of aging  weapons systems AND they get to test them in real combat doing so, so they can learn how to make the next ones better and even more effective. They get to see how they can be used effectively in the field. That's VERY convenient. You can't pay for that kind of testing .

The russians are losing credibility globally which will help the US negotiating in foreign areas such as the middle east. That's convenient as well.

This whole thing comes with a package price of a few billion a year - which is NOTHING. The US's defense budget is about 819 billion dollars when it's at peace! Fighting a war and running your enemy into the ground for a few billion dollars is a super mega bargain!  That's not just convenient, it's frugal!

And of course unless russia manages to take all of the ukraine, from now on whatever is left of it will be solidly in the US's corner and control, so the russians have basically handed  a major military and economic asset to the US. The US won't even have to let them join nato to get fully miliary access to the country moving forward. Ukraine sold itself to the us for the arms it needed.

Meanwhile the Russains are selling themselves - to china. Who is going to be a MUCH less pleasant overlord

When asked if this was just a war of convenience and opportunity...you claimed it was

Quote

That's been an argument since the beginning.

Then when I pushed, you backed that up...supposedly...with...

https://www.kxan.com/news/international/why-does-the-us-care-so-much-about-ukraine-ut-experts-break-down-the-conflict-with-russia/

An article which was

Posted: Feb 23, 2022 / 05:17 PM CST - Updated: Mar 2, 2022 / 11:57 AM CST

and this from December 15, 2022

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/top-5-reasons-america-must-support-ukraine-help-defeat-russia

in which the FIRST of the top 5 reasons for war is...

Quote

1. Ukraine keeps the war from spreading

World wars start in Europe and the Russian Army rolling westward is a clear and present danger to the U.S. and its NATO allies. The restoration of peace depends on Ukraine pushing the Russians back into their territory. Because our support would allow Ukraine to finish the job, we would prevent a larger European conflict that would drag the U.S. into a world war.  

So...neither being terribly old...or even near "since the beginning". Not published anyway. Did people think it? I'm sure they did. But publicly they could not say it...until now apparently. It almost smells like some people have run out of reasons for war.

You had 2 other links. 1 was from January 28, 2022. Hardly new.

This final link

https://www.csis.org/analysis/united-states-aid-ukraine-investment-whose-benefits-greatly-exceed-its-cost

Posted November 21, 2022. Finally discusses the concept openly. Yet...it too is rather well into the war. So no...nobody's been claiming this is a convenient opportunity for anybody, until recently.

However...I will grant you this...you are quite good at name calling and making false accusations for the sound-byte effect.

Did you learn that one from some ranting Progressive?

Edited March 6, 2023 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

Just now, ExFlyer said:

I apologize for trying to have a discussion with you. You are right about everything. So smart, so knowledgeable, so worldly, so above me and others on this forum. I am humbled.

Please do not wast your valuable time with me anymore, it is beneath you.

Not at all. I train dogs, you can't be THAT much harder.  If i can teach a puppy not to piddle on the carpet, i'm sure i can teach you not to crap the bed posting online.

Here's a start. Next time before you reply to someone actually think about what they wrote.

Because if you act like a jerk and a pretentious troll where it's not justified, they're probably going to smak you around and make you look silly. It's fine to disagree and such but just being a douche for no reason invites reprisal.

[Nationalist]

45 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Let us attempt to debate like human beings:

It is a fact that the Russian military invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea, which was a violation of international law. The Ukrainian military has been engaged in a conflict with Russian-backed fanatics like you in eastern Ukraine since then. it is not fair for you, a communist sympathizer to dismiss the Ukrainian military's successes as "silly claims." As for the pronunciation of Kiev, there are different accepted ways to say it, and it is not fair to criticize someone for using a different pronunciation. It just shows your ignorance again, like the time you questioned citizenships on boards. 

The consequences of direct NATO involvement in the conflict are uncertain and would depend on a number of factors, including the nature and extent of the involvement. 

I don't personally think that will happen, it will be the KGB's worst nightmare. For them and for their fans, which pass around free communist literature in the Commonwealth via Redacted.

You're like a record with a bad scratch in it.

What makes you think I am a "communist sympathizer"? Or that I'm some "Russian-backed fanatic"?

These are interesting accusations. Can you support them or are you just freaking out again?

Edited March 6, 2023 by Nationalist

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

OK...let's just explore what has been said then...

Yes - but this time lets do it honesty, not with the attempted bait and switch below.

I responded to this comment by you in reply to another poster.:

15 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Hilarious...a war of convenience and opportunity. That's the latest argument. 

With:
 

Quote

That's been an argument since the beginning.

You then replied -
 

Quote

 

Really? I think you're just fibbing a bit here. All anyone sees is...

"We have to defend Democracy and besides...he's coming here next"

Ya...I'm-a-gonna have t' call complete BS to that.

 

So you call me a liar and claim the "only" reason given was for democracy etc etc.

I then posted SEVERAL articles - some new some old some in between.

They all gave reasons why this war was convenient for the US. Including testing weapons systems and tactics, weakening an adversary, improving their position legally, etc etc.  And pointed out that all of those were given as reasons all the way through from beginning to end.

So. You were entirely wrong. You had no business calling me a liar as it turns out i was quite correct. You had no business claiming that no other reason than 'democracy' had ever bee given.

In fact it turned out you were the liar.

i get you like to play this game where when you're caught out you try to change the order and meaning of what was said - but there  it is in a straight line.

You called me a liar for saying that reasons of convenience were given from the start of the war. They were. So you lied about that.

You also said nobody every hears anything other than the 'democracy' argument. There are hundreds of articles that never mention it as a reason, i posted a few.  You were lying about that.

And instead of owning up to it and saying "sorry - guess i was wrong" you try to lie YET AGAIN and pretend somehow that i said they never mentioned democracy at any time. Which we both know is  untrue.
 

You're not a very good person are you.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

What makes you think I am a "communist sympathizer"? Or that I'm some "Russian-backed fanatic"?

These are interesting accusations. Can you support them or are you just freaking out again?

Your comments here certainly don't argue against the idea.  You lie like a cheap rug attempting to defend the russian position and attack the us one.