On February 27 2022 14:04 Jubinell wrote: This is just another reason North Korea desperately wants nuclear weapons. Look at what happened to Muammar Gaddafi when he voluntarily dismantled Lybia's nuclear facilities.
On February 27 2022 13:14 Zambrah wrote: War weariness and the threat of nuclear war, yes.
You think the result for Lybia would've been any different? It would have only accelerated the result if they continued nuclear developement. I see where your mind set is. And thankfully you have no political power. You'd be a disaster. To use Nuclear weapons as first strike option would be such a disastrous political outcome there would be no recovery. To use a first strike nuclear attack would come back 10 fold in the form of retaliation or ostracization. It would be a disaster for the attacking party more so than the victim in the confines of history. Only a truly insane leader would preemptively strike with nuclear weapons.
On February 26 2022 17:51 Jubinell wrote: I don't really take sides in this conflict. Both countries have their own intentions and reasons for their actions. I don't think Putin is the villain here as he is just doing the best for his country. It's only the innocent civilians stuck in the middle of the war, particularly in the Ukraine, who are suffering.
My thoughts and prayers for peace to be restored soon:
You don't think Putin is the villain here? With all due respect what the hell would cause you to come to such a ridiculous conclusion? He is actively invading a country without any cause other than greed. How does that not make someone a villain? Those innocent civilians are suffering only because of the actions of one man. Putin. He is causing massive economic damage to his own country. Get your head out of your ass sir.
Hey man no need to start a fight here... everybody is entitled to their opinions and we are in no position to definitively judge other people's opinions, let alone say offensive things.
Just to compare, Bush invaded Iraq on the context of protecting American people. There are plenty of people who believed in Bush's actions. Of course many others hate him. To me, Putin is just another Bush. NATO is Putin's terrorists. If you are Russia's position, you may see a sense in that logic. But because you are in the West, you don't.
It's just a difference of point of view and there is no need to fight over it. I didn't cause this conflict. Nor did I finance it with my money, effort, etc.
And btw I am for Ukraine in this matter, if you care
On February 27 2022 14:04 Jubinell wrote: This is just another reason North Korea desperately wants nuclear weapons. Look at what happened to Muammar Gaddafi when he voluntarily dismantled Lybia's nuclear facilities.
On February 27 2022 13:14 Zambrah wrote: War weariness and the threat of nuclear war, yes.
You think the result for Lybia would've been any different? It would have only accelerated the result if they continued nuclear developement. I see where your mind set is. And thankfully you have no political power. You'd be a disaster. To use Nuclear weapons as first strike option would be such a disastrous political outcome there would be no recovery. To use a first strike nuclear attack would come back 10 fold in the form of retaliation or ostracization. It would be a disaster for the attacking party more so than the victim in the confines of history. Only a truly insane leader would preemptively strike with nuclear weapons.
Yes I believe it would be different. The difference is that Gaddafi would still remain in power, just like Kim Jung Un is right now. No others would dare touch them because fear of nuclear attack. It's the same reason China, France, UK, India etc. want to get nuclear power. SELF PROTECTION above OFFENSIVE GOALS.
As for leaders striking first with nuclear weapons. You don't have to lecture me. Americans did it in 1945. Are they crazy leaders back then? Far from it... You may call it "not pre-emptive". But there is never anything that is truly pre-emptive in the sense. Every action leaders would do would be justified in one away another, and caused by a threat (direct or indirect) by another nation.
Btw if you study game theory (both history and theory), you will see that sometimes perfectly sane people will make what look like insane decisions, because THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE GAME. Take the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which is a game a chicken. Both players are escalading towards each other and whoever backs down first would be the loser. But if neither back down, we will have a disaster. And if you read historians opinions on the subject, you will see that most agree that it was by pure chance that nuclear deployment was avoided in the last minute. And those leaders were perfectly rational people, with tons of advisors behind them.
On February 26 2022 17:51 Jubinell wrote: I don't really take sides in this conflict. Both countries have their own intentions and reasons for their actions. I don't think Putin is the villain here as he is just doing the best for his country. It's only the innocent civilians stuck in the middle of the war, particularly in the Ukraine, who are suffering.
You don't think Putin is the villain here? With all due respect what the hell would cause you to come to such a ridiculous conclusion? He is actively invading a country without any cause other than greed. How does that not make someone a villain? Those innocent civilians are suffering only because of the actions of one man. Putin. He is causing massive economic damage to his own country. Get your head out of your ass sir.
Hey man no need to start a fight here... everybody is entitled to their opinions and we are in no position to definitively judge other people's opinions, let alone say offensive things.
Just to compare, Bush invaded Iraq on the context of protecting American people. There are plenty of people who believed in Bush's actions. Of course many others hate him. To me, Putin is just another Bush. NATO is Putin's terrorists. If you are Russia's position, you may see a sense in that logic. But because you are in the West, you don't.
It's just a difference of point of view and there is no need to fight over it. I didn't cause this conflict. Nor did I finance it with my money, effort, etc.
And btw I am for Ukraine in this matter, if you care
Cheers!
The Iraq War is hardly a matter of "just a difference of point of view," neither is invading Ukraine, lmfao.
What Bush did then and Putin is doing now are both morally reprehensible things that should be condemned for all time.
On February 27 2022 14:04 Jubinell wrote: This is just another reason North Korea desperately wants nuclear weapons. Look at what happened to Muammar Gaddafi when he voluntarily dismantled Lybia's nuclear facilities.
On February 27 2022 13:14 Zambrah wrote: War weariness and the threat of nuclear war, yes.
You think the result for Lybia would've been any different? It would have only accelerated the result if they continued nuclear developement. I see where your mind set is. And thankfully you have no political power. You'd be a disaster. To use Nuclear weapons as first strike option would be such a disastrous political outcome there would be no recovery. To use a first strike nuclear attack would come back 10 fold in the form of retaliation or ostracization. It would be a disaster for the attacking party more so than the victim in the confines of history. Only a truly insane leader would preemptively strike with nuclear weapons.
Yes I believe it would be different. The difference is that Gaddafi would still remain in power, just like Kim Jung Un is right now. No others would dare touch them because fear of nuclear attack. It's the same reason China, France, UK, India etc. want to get nuclear power. SELF PROTECTION above OFFENSIVE GOALS.
As for leaders striking first with nuclear weapons. You don't have to lecture me. Americans did it in 1945. Are they crazy leaders back then? Far from it... You may call it "not pre-emptive". But there is never anything that is truly pre-emptive in the sense. Every action leaders would do would be justified in one away another, and caused by a threat (direct or indirect) by another nation.
Btw if you study game theory (both history and theory), you will see that sometimes perfectly sane people will make what look like insane decisions, because THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE GAME. Take the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which is a game a chicken. Both players are escalading towards each other and whoever backs down first would be the loser. But if neither back down, we will have a disaster. And if you read historians opinions on the subject, you will see that most agree that it was by pure chance that nuclear deployment was avoided in the last minute. And those leaders were perfectly rational people, with tons of advisors behind them.
Your arguments are all straw men nonsense. Gaddafi would never have reached nuclear weapons before he was ousted. Americans using nuclear weapons in 1945 was during a full scale global conflict - Total War. They justified it in a way that it would "save american lives", which I'm sure it did, it's still a choice I do not agree with no matter the pragmatist result. I would contend that the Cuban Missle Crisis was not rational. Despite the advisors and the mental soundness of those evolved despite their intelligence. There comes a point where moral reason outweighs political gain. Your line on that subject seems to be far different than mine. I do not need to lecture you, you're correct. However, you should probably attend a lecture or two from a professional historian You might learn something.
On February 26 2022 17:51 Jubinell wrote: I don't really take sides in this conflict. Both countries have their own intentions and reasons for their actions. I don't think Putin is the villain here as he is just doing the best for his country. It's only the innocent civilians stuck in the middle of the war, particularly in the Ukraine, who are suffering.
You don't think Putin is the villain here? With all due respect what the hell would cause you to come to such a ridiculous conclusion? He is actively invading a country without any cause other than greed. How does that not make someone a villain? Those innocent civilians are suffering only because of the actions of one man. Putin. He is causing massive economic damage to his own country. Get your head out of your ass sir.
Hey man no need to start a fight here... everybody is entitled to their opinions and we are in no position to definitively judge other people's opinions, let alone say offensive things.
Just to compare, Bush invaded Iraq on the context of protecting American people. There are plenty of people who believed in Bush's actions. Of course many others hate him. To me, Putin is just another Bush. NATO is Putin's terrorists. If you are Russia's position, you may see a sense in that logic. But because you are in the West, you don't.
It's just a difference of point of view and there is no need to fight over it. I didn't cause this conflict. Nor did I finance it with my money, effort, etc.
And btw I am for Ukraine in this matter, if you care
Cheers!
I'm glad to hear you support Ukraine. However, you are clearly misinformed on Bush's real reason for invading Iraq. It was not for protection, it was for profit. Cheney ( his vice president) had massive ties to Blackwater. A miltary consultant and execution company. Before the Iraq war that company's stock was worth 3 dollars a share. By the end of the Iraq war it was worth 65 dollars a share. They used the "war on terror" as an excuse for personal profit for the supporters of the Bush administration. Iraq had no ties to 911. Not everything is as simple as you want it to be. Putin is only another Bush in the sense that he doesn't mind sacrificing innocent people and starting a war to enrich himself and his wealthy supports. They are both terrible leaders and terrible people. They both did it with fabricated reasons that turned out to be complete lies(or were plain lies from the beginning). It's not a difference in point of view it's your ignorance and the resistance by you to educate yourself. Cheers to you as well.
On February 26 2022 17:51 Jubinell wrote: I don't really take sides in this conflict. Both countries have their own intentions and reasons for their actions. I don't think Putin is the villain here as he is just doing the best for his country. It's only the innocent civilians stuck in the middle of the war, particularly in the Ukraine, who are suffering.
You don't think Putin is the villain here? With all due respect what the hell would cause you to come to such a ridiculous conclusion? He is actively invading a country without any cause other than greed. How does that not make someone a villain? Those innocent civilians are suffering only because of the actions of one man. Putin. He is causing massive economic damage to his own country. Get your head out of your ass sir.
Hey man no need to start a fight here... everybody is entitled to their opinions and we are in no position to definitively judge other people's opinions, let alone say offensive things.
Just to compare, Bush invaded Iraq on the context of protecting American people. There are plenty of people who believed in Bush's actions. Of course many others hate him. To me, Putin is just another Bush. NATO is Putin's terrorists. If you are Russia's position, you may see a sense in that logic. But because you are in the West, you don't.
It's just a difference of point of view and there is no need to fight over it. I didn't cause this conflict. Nor did I finance it with my money, effort, etc.
And btw I am for Ukraine in this matter, if you care
Cheers!
The Iraq War is hardly a matter of "just a difference of point of view," neither is invading Ukraine, lmfao.
What Bush did then and Putin is doing now are both morally reprehensible things that should be condemned for all time.
Absolutely. There's a difference though. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and a terrible man so it made the Iraq war easier to justify. There is no justification for the war in Ukraine. Even from a naïve point of view. Which is why almost all of the world has denounced Russia so strongly. Some countries denounced the Bush administration as well(warranted), but it was not as pronounced. They are both the definition of imperialist war mongers though.
For as much bullshit as Iraq was, there was at least political theater and a drum up argument to the invasion. It’s hard to believe anything Putin says because there was never an attempt to at least pretend he exhausted all other possibilities. We didn’t know why he invaded until 2 seconds before he did.
On February 26 2022 17:51 Jubinell wrote: I don't really take sides in this conflict. Both countries have their own intentions and reasons for their actions. I don't think Putin is the villain here as he is just doing the best for his country. It's only the innocent civilians stuck in the middle of the war, particularly in the Ukraine, who are suffering.
You don't think Putin is the villain here? With all due respect what the hell would cause you to come to such a ridiculous conclusion? He is actively invading a country without any cause other than greed. How does that not make someone a villain? Those innocent civilians are suffering only because of the actions of one man. Putin. He is causing massive economic damage to his own country. Get your head out of your ass sir.
Hey man no need to start a fight here... everybody is entitled to their opinions and we are in no position to definitively judge other people's opinions, let alone say offensive things.
Just to compare, Bush invaded Iraq on the context of protecting American people. There are plenty of people who believed in Bush's actions. Of course many others hate him. To me, Putin is just another Bush. NATO is Putin's terrorists. If you are Russia's position, you may see a sense in that logic. But because you are in the West, you don't.
It's just a difference of point of view and there is no need to fight over it. I didn't cause this conflict. Nor did I finance it with my money, effort, etc.
And btw I am for Ukraine in this matter, if you care
Cheers!
I'm glad to hear you support Ukraine. However, you are clearly misinformed on Bush's real reason for invading Iraq. It was not for protection, it was for profit. Cheney ( his vice president) had massive ties to Blackwater. A miltary consultant and execution company. Before the Iraq war that company's stock was worth 3 dollars a share. By the end of the Iraq war it was worth 65 dollars a share. They used the "war on terror" as an excuse for personal profit for the supporters of the Bush administration. Iraq had no ties to 911. Not everything is as simple as you want it to be. Putin is only another Bush in the sense that he doesn't mind sacrificing innocent people and starting a war to enrich himself and his wealthy supports. They are both terrible leaders and terrible people. They both did it with fabricated reasons that turned out to be complete lies(or were plain lies from the beginning). It's not a difference in point of view it's your ignorance and the resistance by you to educate yourself. Cheers to you as well.
There are many purported reasons to the war in Iraq. Yours was one of them (which I know about). Many others believed it was a war on terror. Again, I resist asserting that what I think is right and what others think are wrong. There is no point in that. And I hope you would stop calling me "ignorant".
My arguments are plain and simple: 1. There are many people who believe Putin's war is right. 2. There are many people who believe Bush's war is right. 3. Each of those people have their own reasoning. They may be wrong in your point of view. 4. I started this thread to hope that peace is to be restored soon, without feeling the need to denounce anybody.
If you feel like denouncing Putin, go and do that. Don't attack me. I am not related to him in any way.
Or go and fight in the battlefield for what you believe in.
There were many reasons who believe Bush’s war was right, AT THE TIME. But in retrospect it is looked back as one of the worst decisions in American history.
Who says Bush’s war was right NOW? No one. This Russian invasion is going to be worse than that because at least Bush tried to convince the world to go to war, even if it was bullshit. There is no pretense for Putin.
On March 01 2022 21:23 Jubinell wrote: Hey man no need to start a fight here... everybody is entitled to their opinions and we are in no position to definitively judge other people's opinions, let alone say offensive things.
I love how people throw a variation of this statement out there and use it as a blanket excuse whenever they realize they have a bad take on a situation.
On February 26 2022 17:51 Jubinell wrote: I don't really take sides in this conflict. Both countries have their own intentions and reasons for their actions. I don't think Putin is the villain here as he is just doing the best for his country. It's only the innocent civilians stuck in the middle of the war, particularly in the Ukraine, who are suffering.
You don't think Putin is the villain here? With all due respect what the hell would cause you to come to such a ridiculous conclusion? He is actively invading a country without any cause other than greed. How does that not make someone a villain? Those innocent civilians are suffering only because of the actions of one man. Putin. He is causing massive economic damage to his own country. Get your head out of your ass sir.
Hey man no need to start a fight here... everybody is entitled to their opinions and we are in no position to definitively judge other people's opinions, let alone say offensive things.
Just to compare, Bush invaded Iraq on the context of protecting American people. There are plenty of people who believed in Bush's actions. Of course many others hate him. To me, Putin is just another Bush. NATO is Putin's terrorists. If you are Russia's position, you may see a sense in that logic. But because you are in the West, you don't.
It's just a difference of point of view and there is no need to fight over it. I didn't cause this conflict. Nor did I finance it with my money, effort, etc.
And btw I am for Ukraine in this matter, if you care
Cheers!
I'm glad to hear you support Ukraine. However, you are clearly misinformed on Bush's real reason for invading Iraq. It was not for protection, it was for profit. Cheney ( his vice president) had massive ties to Blackwater. A miltary consultant and execution company. Before the Iraq war that company's stock was worth 3 dollars a share. By the end of the Iraq war it was worth 65 dollars a share. They used the "war on terror" as an excuse for personal profit for the supporters of the Bush administration. Iraq had no ties to 911. Not everything is as simple as you want it to be. Putin is only another Bush in the sense that he doesn't mind sacrificing innocent people and starting a war to enrich himself and his wealthy supports. They are both terrible leaders and terrible people. They both did it with fabricated reasons that turned out to be complete lies(or were plain lies from the beginning). It's not a difference in point of view it's your ignorance and the resistance by you to educate yourself. Cheers to you as well.
There are many purported reasons to the war in Iraq. Yours was one of them (which I know about). Many others believed it was a war on terror. Again, I resist asserting that what I think is right and what others think are wrong. There is no point in that. And I hope you would stop calling me "ignorant".
My arguments are plain and simple: 1. There are many people who believe Putin's war is right. 2. There are many people who believe Bush's war is right. 3. Each of those people have their own reasoning. They may be wrong in your point of view. 4. I started this thread to hope that peace is to be restored soon, without feeling the need to denounce anybody.
If you feel like denouncing Putin, go and do that. Don't attack me. I am not related to him in any way.
Or go and fight in the battlefield for what you believe in.
1. Actually, there are not. There is hardly anyone who believes Putin's war is right. And those few that do believe it, most are afraid to speak up against it.
EPT
