Biden/Harris parting gift to the world: A World War

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Radiorum said:

That’s a ludicrous hypothetical, since Canada is a defender of democracy.

It doesn't matter what your opinion of Canada is. Would the US allow us to join such an alliance, yes or no?

The answer is, we'd be invaded, 100%. You just can't admit it.  

[Radiorum]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It doesn't matter what your opinion of Canada is. Would the US allow us to join such an alliance, yes or no?

The answer is, we'd be invaded, 100%. You just can't admit it.  

I deal in the real world, Come back when you are prepared to do the same.

[WestCanMan]

5 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Then I suggest you do some reading to understand what autocratic power is, specifically Putin’s.

I suggest you look up the word "geopolitics". 

Russia borders a dozen countries, including NoKo and China, and is within 50 miles of many more. They're not well-isolated from all their enemies like we are in NA. 

Ukraine is a terrible neighbour now. Ukraine couldn't have been any worse of an enemy to Russia than they were from 2009 onwards. Now there's war, and they're 100% responsible for their part in it. 

1 minute ago, Radiorum said:

I deal in the real world, Come back when you are prepared to do the same.

And in the real world, joining NATO is a dire threat to Russia, plain and simple. 

If you can't acknowledge that then grow up. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It doesn't matter what your opinion of Canada is. Would the US allow us to join such an alliance, yes or no?

The answer is, we'd be invaded, 100%. You just can't admit it.  

LOL. 

You keep making these same dumb arguments after you have ran away like a coward from others who call them out. 

I guess at some point you will find someone that can't respond or will agree with you and then you will declare victory. 

Might as well go talk to yourself in notepad. 

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

And in the real world, joining NATO is a dire threat to Russia, plain and simple. 

If you can't acknowledge that then grow up. 

Dire threat?

LOL. OMG this is so absurd. 

 

[Radiorum]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Now there's war, and they're 100% responsible for their part in it. 

This reminds me of blaming the victim of the bully. 

Do you also agree with Putin's assertion that it was Poland's fault that Hitler invaded them?

Give us your country!

No!

Then we must invade you. It's all your fault!

[WestCanMan]

15 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

This reminds me of blaming the victim of the bully. 

Of course it does, because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation. 

Why did Kennedy threaten war with Russia in 1962?

Was Kennedy a bully, Radiorum? Is that what happened? 

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, User said:

LOL. 

You keep making these same dumb arguments after you have ran away like a coward from others who call them out. 

I guess at some point you will find someone that can't respond or will agree with you and then you will declare victory. 

Might as well go talk to yourself in notepad. 

Dire threat?

LOL. OMG this is so absurd. 

 

I just don't talk to you anymore because you're an id10t, User.

You've shown time and time again that you can't even answer basic questions and you don't have a rudimentary understanding of the topic at hand.

When presented with facts and cites you turn your nose up and spew platitudes. 

There's no debating anything with you, you're a basic child. 

[Radiorum]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Of course it does, because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation. 

Oh dear, it's like you didn't read my posts, which are much more grounded in reality than anything you have said.

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Why did Kennedy threaten war with Russia in 1962?

He was protecting democracy. That's all the difference. I stand on the side of democracy, not autocracy.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Radiorum said:

He was protecting democracy. That's all the difference. I stand on the side of democracy, not autocracy.

So he was just protecting an ideology, and not his people?

Do you know how stupid that is Radiorum?

When you have to say something completely stupid to make your point, you know you're a leftist. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I just don't talk to you anymore because you're an id10t, User.

You've shown time and time again that you can't even answer basic questions and you don't have a rudimentary understanding of the topic at hand.

When presented with facts and cites you turn your nose up and spew platitudes. 

There's no debating anything with you, you're a basic child. 

Oh please. You ran away from our last discussion saying I was going on ignore because I kept asking you to explain what makes NATO a threat to Russia. 

You never explained. 

So, want to try now? What makes NATO a dire threat to Russia?

Remember, NATO already exists on their border and has existed there for decades as well before that. 

[WestCanMan]

30 minutes ago, User said:

Oh please. You ran away from our last discussion saying I was going on ignore because I kept asking you to explain what makes NATO a threat to Russia. 

You never explained. 

You should know the answer to that, User. Why should I have to tell you?

Quote

So, want to try now? What makes NATO a dire threat to Russia?

Oh, I dunno. Stealth fighters, stealth bombers, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, tanks, drones, fighter planes, rockets, long-range missiles, anti-aircraft batteries, and strategic nukes, all long 3,000 km of border with Russia and Belarus, and the fact that people like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, G W Bush, and Kamala Harris would be controlling them. 

Try to tell me that you wouldn't be sh1tting your pants looking at that if you were Russian.

Quote

Remember, NATO already exists on their border and has existed there for decades as well before that. 

Wrong.

A very small fraction of that already exists on their border and has existed there for decades as well before that. 

A small % of the Russian/Belarusian borders are shared with NATO, not 100%. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

You should know the answer to that, User. Why should I have to tell you?

Its your argument. 

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Try to tell me that you wouldn't be sh1tting your pants looking at that if you were Russian.

That is not an explanation for how NATO is a threat to Russia. That is a description of some of the military assets of NATO countries. 

Russia has a shit ton of crap too... so I guess NATO should have just gone to war with them just because?

Why isn't Russia invading China? Have you seen all the crap they have?
 

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrong.

Nothing wrong with what I said. It is all factual. 

You have yet to explain how Ukraine joining NATO is different. How that all of a sudden makes NATO more of a threat that they have to invade Ukraine to stop. 

You got nothing. 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, User said:

Its your argument. 

Wrong. It's reality. You're denying reality. NATO has always OPPOSED RUSSIA DIRECTLY.

NATO defines itself by its opposition to Russia.

If we stopped pretending that Russia was intent on ruling the world, there would be no real justification of NATO as an alliance. 

Quote

That is not an explanation for how NATO is a threat to Russia. That is a description of some of the military assets of NATO countries. 

Russia has a shit ton of crap too... so I guess NATO should have just gone to war with them just because?

Why isn't Russia invading China? Have you seen all the crap they have?
 

Tell us how stupid you are without actually saying it...

Quote

Nothing wrong with what I said. It is all factual. 

🤣 Your IQ is 6 points lower than the avg houseplant. 

Quote

You have yet to explain how Ukraine joining NATO is different. How that all of a sudden makes NATO more of a threat that they have to invade Ukraine to stop. 

You got nothing. 

Your geopolitical awareness is astonishingly low. 

[User]

30 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrong. It's reality. You're denying reality. NATO has always OPPOSED RUSSIA DIRECTLY.

NATO defines itself by its opposition to Russia.

If we stopped pretending that Russia was intent on ruling the world, there would be no real justification of NATO as an alliance. 

Wrong?

Yes, you argue that NATO is a threat to Russia. It is on YOU to explain how. 

NATO is a defensive alliance. They are only a threat to Russia in as much as Russia attacks a NATO member. 

32 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Tell us how stupid you are without actually saying it...

It is your stupid argument that NATO was such a dire threat to Russia that they had to invade Ukraine. You have yet to offer anything substantive to support that. 

33 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Your geopolitical awareness is astonishingly low. 

Mine is just fine. Hell, before I brought up Estonia and Latvia, you didn't even seem to know NATO already bordered Russia. LMAO

 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, User said:

Wrong?

Yes, you argue that NATO is a threat to Russia. It is on YOU to explain how. 

NATO is a defensive alliance. They are only a threat to Russia in as much as Russia attacks a NATO member. 

It is your stupid argument that NATO was such a dire threat to Russia that they had to invade Ukraine. You have yet to offer anything substantive to support that. 

Mine is just fine. Hell, before I brought up Estonia and Latvia, you didn't even seem to know NATO already bordered Russia. LMAO

I know that Estonia and Latvia border Russia, dummy. I know where NATO is, dummy. I've also explained the difference between NATO in two mini-countries and NATO ALL ALONG RUSSIA'S ENTIRE EFFING WESTERN BORDER to you but it's well beyond your ken.

Do you honestly think that:

• NATO in E & L
• is the same as
• NATO in E, L and Ukraine, Dummy? 

Sorry but no one has ever learned anything from you: you're a simpleton with a penchant for own-ass spelunking and that's it. 

Do you know what time is, User? Do you know how clocks work you effing m0r0n? Even if NATO was defensive now - which it clearly is not - how defensive might they be in 20 years? 50? Under the next Dem administration?

How defensive is NATO if they're so intent on expansion into Ukraine that they feel like it's worth a war? Russia was clear that there would be war if the Ukraine expansion idea wasn't shit-canned. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

 Unfortunately for Americans, a bunch of soft men are ruling the country. By definition, "soft men" show all the signs of moral turpitude (con men, thieves, sexual perverts, disloyal, etc). 

I thought you liked Biden?

[NAME REMOVED]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I thought you liked Biden?

*about to rule. My bad. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, DUI_Offender said:

*about to rule. My bad. 

Fair enough. I mean I disagree entirely but that's more in keeping with what I understood your position to be

[WestCanMan]

Sky News:

• According to Kyiv, Russia fired an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) but Western officials have disputed this.

• Russian-fired missile 'not ICBM', US official says

  We reported earlier on claims by Ukraine that Russia hit the city of Dnipro with what appeared to be an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

  Volodymyr Zelenskyy also claimed that Moscow used a "new type" of missile of Russian origin, and that it "has all the characteristics - speed, altitude - of an ICBM" (see post at 11.49am).

  Expert investigation was under way to confirm the type of missile, he added. 

  However, a US official has contradicted these claims and said it was an intermediate-range ballistic missile - not an ICBM.

   

  • Analysis: Storm Shadow missiles being used inside Russia 'clearly a red line' for Kremlin

  For the Kremlin, British-supplied Storm Shadow missiles being used inside Russia "is clearly a red line", our chief presenter Mark Austin says.

  Speaking on his interview with Russian ambassador Andrei Kelin, Austin says: "Interestingly, he is specifically linking the firing of those missiles into Russia to the decision by the Russians to lower the nuclear threshold.

  "He said it is in conjunction with the firing of the missiles that Russia has decided to change its nuclear doctrine.

  • Russian ambassador says 'UK directly involved in Ukraine war'

    The Russian ambassador to the UK has said in an interview with Sky News that "Britain in now directly involved in this war".

    Andrei Kelin told Sky's Mark Austin that "this fighting cannot happen without NATO and British stuff".

    Questioned on Russia's use of Chinese technology, Iranian drones and North Korean troops, he added: "We have plenty of mercenaries from different countries that are fighting right now on the side of Ukraine.

    "We have seen in the Kursk area the Polish unit so what does it matter?"

     

     

    It's looking more and more like a world war every day now. 

    Ukraine is firing missiles that apparently need to be guided by American forces, the Kremlin is accusing Britain of being involved, and there are Polish (NATO) boots on the ground inside of Russia.

[WestCanMan]

It seems like there's a brief pause now after the latest round of escalations from the US, UK, Ukraine and Russia. 

In the last 24 hrs there have been no major new developments, from what I can tell. 

In the age of Biden, any day that doesn't bring us closer to nuclear war is a good day. 

[WestCanMan]

From Sky News: https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-latest-putin-zelenskyy-live-sky-news-12541713

• 1,000-page document detailing German plans in case of war with Russia leaked

  A 1,000-page document which details how Germany would respond to a war breaking out with Russia has been leaked by local media. 

  The document, named Operations Plan Germany, had its rough outline laid out by Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

  The outlet said [1] it lists key commercial buildings and infrastructure that should be protected by the German armed forces, and [2] offers local businesses tips on how to respond to war - including preparing replacement staff should migrant workers leave Germany.

  It also reportedly contained [3] tips on awareness on drone surveillance, cyberattacks and other forms of espionage in local communities.

  Additionally, it detailed how Germany would logistically manage hosting tens of thousands of NATO troops should that be required. 

I get that we have rules about posting content. Theoretically I'm supposed to read it, interpret, and discuss it here, while only posting what's necessary to aid in conversation, but these are important topics and my own commentary is less relevant to other posters here than the content of the article itself, and I'm not interested in controlling what people think about this. This is just info, or at least alleged info from a source that I read, and I prefer to let Sky News speak for themselves right now than filter their words through my brain, thereby imparting my own biases on it.

As far as plagiarism concerns go, I'm sure that Sky News would rather have their content promoted than not, and my opinions are not likely welcome lol. 

Take it fwiw, people. 

My own musings:

1. Talk about "Is my business important, or just fluff" 🤣. I'm guessing that stores that just sell fancy soaps aren't protected, but I wanna know if they're protecting breweries, wineries, and liquor stores... Our gov't considered providing booze an essential service, even after schools were closed lol. 
2. Thought-provoking, to say the least
3.  Thats actually a pretty huge topic. Due to the high levels of immigration into western countries, we're all chock-full of potential saboteurs, regardless of what country we go to war with.

[Radiorum]

On 11/20/2024 at 2:30 PM, WestCanMan said:

Wrong. It's reality. You're denying reality. NATO has always OPPOSED RUSSIA DIRECTLY.

NATO defines itself by its opposition to Russia.

This was not always the case. There was a real period of co-operation between Russa and NATO after the fall of the USSR and before Putin took power. Mid-1990s, Russian military even operated under NATO command in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1997, The NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security was signed by Russia and NATO at the NATO summit in Paris, France. The act was:

Quote

… a road map for would-be NATO-Russia cooperation. The act had 5 main sections, outlining the principles of the relationship, the range of issues NATO and Russia would discuss, the military dimensions of the relationship, and the mechanisms to foster greater military-military cooperation.

Russia and the US even shared intelligence post 9/11.

Then Putin began with his hostile trade actions, threats, and military actions (Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, Turkey, Kazakhstan), and of course assassinations of Putin’s opponents by Russian intelligence on NATO territory.

Putin is the corrupt imperialist, not NATO.

[Nationalist]

On 11/20/2024 at 12:54 PM, Radiorum said:

I deal in the real world, Come back when you are prepared to do the same.

Run away...Run away...

[Nationalist]

On 11/20/2024 at 12:56 PM, User said:

LOL. 

You keep making these same dumb arguments after you have ran away like a coward from others who call them out. 

I guess at some point you will find someone that can't respond or will agree with you and then you will declare victory. 

Might as well go talk to yourself in notepad. 

Dire threat?

LOL. OMG this is so absurd. 

 

Actually...if you think about it...it's not absurd at all.

NATO and in particular the USA, need an enemy to justify their continued existence. 

I was in Czech when the US put missiles in and pointed them at Russia. Most Czechs were opposed to this. It made no sense since Russia was not threatening anyone in the west at the time.

What do you think the Russian people thought of that? Think they simply figured it was a big nothing-burger? Or do you kind o' figure they found that threatening?

I know the Czech found it an undue provocation. 

[User]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Actually...if you think about it...it's not absurd at all.

Yes, it is absurd. You explain then, how they are a dire threat. 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

NATO and in particular the USA, need an enemy to justify their continued existence. 

The USA would continue to exist with or without an enemy, what an absurd comment. NATO's existence would also continue, as they are a defensive alliance. While they were created to confront the threat of the Soviet Union and the ongoing threat of Russia, the nature of a defensive alliance doesn't stop if Russia goes away. 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

I was in Czech when the US put missiles in and pointed them at Russia. Most Czechs were opposed to this. It made no sense since Russia was not threatening anyone in the west at the time.

What missiles are you talking about?