US and NATO escalation of conflict with Russia is leading to war

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Trutherizer

Executive Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
8,257
The US chose to invade Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam.

Just a few from recent history. They have no business with lands far away but that is deemed okay

The multilateral (not just the US) intervention in Libya had my full support. After the Arab Springs Gaddafi was threatening to go door to door and hunt down and kill every single person in Libya who took part in protests. I supported the intervention. It is nobody's fault that Russia and Libya had a relationship going back a fair while. Gaddafi was out of control. Plain and simple. Russia should maybe consider supporting fewer dictatorships. But... (yeah... Putin doesn't mind dictators. Helping them out comes with the added benefit of driving millions of refugees towards the rest of Europe - Tsk... If only he could start driving them towards China for a change.)
In Iraq the first gulf war was a coalition of over 30 nations in response to Iraq invading Kuwait. No problem there.
The second gulf war was shady as f***. Saddam was a brutal, oppressive dictator. A thoroughly evil man. That said the US Bush administration, to my eyes, did not act entirely in good faith. It seemed way more about securing the world's oil supply than anything else. To them. That they were looking for an excuse in any case. Yet... It's worth noting that both Russia and China (both members of the UN security council) walked away with fat oil contracts afterwards. For all that Russia did not support the war (Iraq owed them money after all).
Afghanistan. Both the US and Russia at some time invaded Afghanistan. Both affecting regime changes of some sort. In the US defence it formed the end of a legitimate response to 9/11. It dragged on way longer than it should have. But after dealing with their agenda they remained by invitation of the Afghan government and in the interest of security in the region. For all that it was in vain.
Vietnam was not simply an invasion by the US. It was fundamentally a war between the incumbent government and rebels forces in Vietnam. The US backed the incumbent government. Russia backed pro-communist rebels. Both countries took part. Russia had thousands of military personnel directly involved in that war. Boots on the ground.

All the countries you mentioned today are still sovereign nations in their own right. Maybe with a more pro-West government. Maybe with a more pro-Russia/China government. But the people can say they live in their own country. Ukraine is having a rather hard time saying the same.

The Ukraine conflict, all the way from 2014 when Russia flipped Crimea. Is in my firm opinion pure conquest. A return not only to something resembling the cold war. Thinly veiled threats of nuclear conflict and all. But a return to the days of colonialism. Of which Russia has a long tradition going back to the 1400s. Along with the rest of Europe. But seems to want to continue today.

I actually feel China's annexation of Tibet also counts as colonialism, and that China's ambitions for Taiwan is the same. Sadly Tibet was actually far away from anybody who would care to oppose them. Taiwan's conquest, I feel, will be opposed tooth and nail purely because of Taiwan's industrial role in the world.

I oppose this neo-colonialism. Because it is good when the world protects each others borders. As per international agreement which Russia is also signatory to and beneficiary of.

As far as NATO and the EU is concerned. Ukraine is right on NATO's doorstep. It IS a European nation. NATO and the rest of Europe WILL oppose the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Because they can. And it is in their very real existential interest. That is not hard to understand at all.
Anybody out there feeling that it's unfair that Russia doesn't get to play empire (actual territorial expansion) will not change that. You understand?
 

The Trutherizer

Executive Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
8,257
During his evening programme tonight, Russian state TV presenter Dmitry Kiselyov delivered a monologue in which he posed the question: "why do we need a world if Russia's not in it?"
He was considering President Putin’s announcement today that he is putting Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert.
"In total our submarines are capable of launching over 500 nuclear warheads, which guarantees the destruction of the US and all Nato countries to boot," he said on his Vesti Nedeli show.
"That's according to the principle 'why do we need a world if Russia's not in it?'
"Russia's nuclear weapons are also delivered by the fastest strategic bombers in the world," he said, adding that "we won't even talk about our Strategic Rocket Forces".
"In total, Russia's nuclear capability is the most powerful in the world," he said.
"Now Russia's entire nuclear triad has been placed on special alert. Putin warned them. Don't try to frighten Russia."

So what now? Should we believe Russia is now one big death cult?
Verily. Their cups runneth over. With cool-aid.

After that statement on Russian state news. I expect the US will mobilise. In full force. We should see that happening in the next few days.
Maybe if some people in the world survive this they will call this whole incident the Putin Escalator to Hell. (I'll take royalties)
What a legacy -_- Bravo... (slow clap) Stupid won stupid prizes.
 
Last edited:

The Trutherizer

Executive Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
8,257
If true, then I am ashamed.
 

Tun@

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
4,118

The short answer: it may have less to do with Ukraine and more to do with America. There is fear and suspicion among nations of being dragged into another Cold War showdown between the US and Russia. Kyiv may be the victim and Moscow the aggressor, but in the eyes of many, Washington is not totally innocent in all of this.
 

RonSwanson

Honorary Master
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
15,327
Too late. Russia already attacked due to our lack of support.

At the risk of derailing this thread, you do know that an STS crane did actually collapse in PE Harbor on 30 October 2018, the operator forgot to put the brakes on and the wind took it off its rails and straight into the sea.


SABC-News-Gale-Force-Winds-Facebook-Atlas-Security-page.png

MSM just ascribed it to "... gale force winds..." and nothing about the operator's lack of competence was reported, all in line with the ANC policy of "no consequences for incompetence"

The quality of the SABC's investigative journalist team is clear when there are at least 4 similar cranes which were miraculously not affected by these "...gail force winds...", despite being on the exact same track.


 

RonSwanson

Honorary Master
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
15,327
Fortunately as a young out of high school boy in the 80's i experienced first hand what media manipulation is via the good old BBC right here in SA. Guarding and escorting them during a peaceful protest in which no violence came from any side . Only to later receive an urgent call from my parents asking if i'm ok which suprised me. The footage they've put out to world was edited with different footage from other violent protests inbetween making it seem that we where firing at protesters. As a 18yr old politics and news wasn't on my priority list ( like the majority of 18yr olds ) but this incident made me skeptical about MSM from such a young age.
In the early eighties they placed food in dustbins and filmed black children taking it out and eating it. The narrative was "Life is very bad for black chilren in South Africa, who have to scrounge in dustbins every day for their food." It suited the narrative of their propaganda films at the time.
 

TEXTILE GUY

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
16,292
FIFA said it had engaged with the three associations and would remain in “close contact to seek to find appropriate and acceptable solutions together.”

Separately, the English Football Association announced that its national teams would refuse to play Russia for the “foreseeable future.” Russia has qualified for the Women’s European Championship which is being hosted by England in June.

The English FA said the decision was taken “out of solidarity with the Ukraine and to wholeheartedly condemn the atrocities being committed by the Russian leadership.”

The RFU’s president is Aleksandr Dyukov, who is chief executive of a subsidiary of state-owned energy giant Gazprom and also sits on the UEFA executive committee.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...ic-world-cup-28eda547fd8de260cf520af9913276efIn France, the football federation president Noël Le Graët told the Le Parisien daily Sunday that he was leaning toward excluding Russia from the World Cup.

“The world of sport, and in particular football, cannot remain neutral,” said Le Graët, who sits on the ruling FIFA Council and has recently been a close ally of the governing body’s president, Gianni Infantino.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...ic-world-cup-28eda547fd8de260cf520af9913276ef
 

TEXTILE GUY

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 4, 2012
Messages
16,292
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N.’s two major bodies -- the 193-nation General Assembly and the more powerful 15-member Security Council -- will hold separate meetings Monday on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a reflection of widespread international demands for an immediate cease-fire and escalating concern for the plight of millions of Ukrainians caught up in the war.

The Security Council gave a green light Sunday for the first emergency session of the General Assembly in decades. It will give all U.N. members an opportunity to speak about the war Monday and vote on a resolution later in the week that U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said would “hold Russia to account for its indefensible actions and for its violations of the U.N. Charter.”

French Ambassador Nicolas De Riviere announced that the Security Council will hold a meeting Monday afternoon on the humanitarian impact of Russia’s invasion, a session sought by French President Emmanuel Macron to ensure the delivery of aid to growing numbers of those in need in Ukraine.

Both meetings follow Russia’s veto Friday of a Security Council resolution demanding that Moscow immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops. The vote was 11-1, with China, India and the United Arab Emirates abstaining.
 

Wut

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
5,821
At the risk of derailing this thread, you do know that an STS crane did actually collapse in PE Harbor on 30 October 2018, the operator forgot to put the brakes on and the wind took it off its rails and straight into the sea.


SABC-News-Gale-Force-Winds-Facebook-Atlas-Security-page.png

MSM just ascribed it to "... gale force winds..." and nothing about the operator's lack of competence was reported, all in line with the ANC policy of "no consequences for incompetence"

The quality of the SABC's investigative journalist team is clear when there are at least 4 similar cranes which were miraculously not affected by these "...gail force winds...", despite being on the exact same track.


I also remember one being blown over onto a ship in the late 80s. My family took us down to the harbour to go see it. They kept the wreckage on the breakwater for years after that.
 

Wut

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
5,821
Already posted up above and they are sending them soviet mig 29s it seems. No training required as the Ukrainians are already familiar with them.
Where will they operate from? Apparently no operable runways left was the excuse given by the Ukrainian SU-27 pilots who flew to neighboring countries in their fully armed aircraft. Propaganda said they didn't run from the fight but they just couldn't land, so would the narrative now be that they actually did run?
 

Blu82

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
6,272
Where will they operate from? Apparently no operable runways left was the excuse given by the Ukrainian SU-27 pilots who flew to neighboring countries in their fully armed aircraft. Propaganda said they didn't run from the fight but they just couldn't land, so would the narrative now be that they actually did run?
It might depend on where the aircraft was based and if that runway got destroyed after take off.
 

Wut

Executive Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
5,821
It might depend on where the aircraft was based and if that runway got destroyed after take off.
One ran to Romania, which seems the opposite direction from the front. As a pilot, we are supposed to know where all your alternative runways are before you take off (just in case a NOTAM is issued during flight or the runway otherwise becomes unusable) and any other runways along your route for emergencies or diversions. His excuse was weak AF especially seen as though all pictures show the aircraft was fully armed. You drop your weapons load if you want to extend your range. Just ask all the B-52 pilots who dumped all their bombs over Laos when they couldn't find their targets in Vietnam.
 

supersunbird

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
60,142
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top