The Brink has been reached.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

That's still more of an actual choice than Russians get.

I was talking about the West.

Other countries are available.

It's not more choice it's the illusion of choice.
Actually worse.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Funny how people like you are so quick to say something was off topic that you were literally talking about before I asked you.

But it is what it is, you will continue to grind on in your echo chamber of "I'm right, you're wrong" and nobody here can stop you.

GFSF

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: PorkChop96

originally posted by: BedevereTheWise

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

If you want to say people have a "confirmation bias" for voicing their opinion, you might as well go ahead and give us your reasoning instead of just saying "lots of reasons".


Do you believe that Trump had every right to say the election was stolen from him, and to want to look into the results?

his opinion.

See this? That right there is how things work, just because you disagree with someone's opinion does not make it a confirmation bias.

Trump has the right to whatever opinion he wants. He doesn't have the right to use illegal means to overturn the results.

What illegal means did Trump take to "overturn" the election?

We know he filed lawsuits to check state voting, he called for people to show up at the capital but not to attack anyone, he questioned TPTB as to why certain things were kept secret or done in a shady way.


If you condemn all of that by Trump, would you condemn the left for doing the same thing?

Trump has been covered on dozens of threads and not the topic.

Confirmation bias was based on what he posted. He believes the results are more legitimate because he agreed with the result. That isn't disagreeing with his opinion, it is pointing out the flaw is reasoning.

Like I said - you have no idea what confirmation bias is.

What I said was that I have no confidence in either US or Russian elections, BUT because Crimea is a region 70% populated by Russians, I am more likely to believe that they would prefer Russian affiliation.

When you use terms you do not understand and then worse, change what people have said to try and cover for that lack of knowledge, it really is poor form.

What it tells me is that you lack both integrity and intelligence and as such, there is no point in engaging with you.

What like saying people with different opinions are brainwashed?

As I already pointed out Crimea already voted for Ukrainian independence.

I would be hurt by your final paragraph if I had any respect for your opinion. luckily...

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Funny how people like you are so quick to say something was off topic that you were literally talking about before I asked you.

But it is what it is, you will continue to grind on in your echo chamber of "I'm right, you're wrong" and nobody here can stop you.

GFSF

We were talking about legitimacy of refendum in Crimea.

Not Interested in this becoming yet another trump thread. Feel free to post on any of them.

a reply to: UKTruth

Trump approved arming the Ukranians with Javelin missiles in 2018.

All the other Trump acolytes - Yes, I know you say you've changed your mind about Trump but until recently you were a staunch supporter of him and his policies - have been spending the last two years telling us that if he was in power none of this would have happened. Now you're saying that he and his policies share a great deal of the responsibility?

The Javelin missiles were meant to act as a deterrent.....unfortunately Putin was determined to invade regardless of what anyone said or did. That's why The Kremlin funded nationalist militia's to provoke, agitate and at time attack throughout the Donbas. Its why Putin has offered up numerous spurious reasons to justify the invasion.

Of course its more than 'just a land grab' and as Andy quite clearly stated its far more nuanced than that with many contributory factors....but none more so than Putin's desire to regain some sort of perceived former Russian glory and a Great epithet for himself.

And nothing can justify the initial invasion and its ongoing operation.
The least he could do is call an immediate ceasefire, the best he should do is withdraw to the former internationally recognised borders and seek negotiations without any preconditions.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump approved arming the Ukranians with Javelin missiles in 2018.

All the other Trump acolytes - Yes, I know you say you've changed your mind about Trump but until recently you were a staunch supporter of him and his policies - have been spending the last two years telling us that if he was in power none of this would have happened. Now you're saying that he and his policies share a great deal of the responsibility?

The Javelin missiles were meant to act as a deterrent.....unfortunately Putin was determined to invade regardless of what anyone said or did. That's why The Kremlin funded nationalist militia's to provoke, agitate and at time attack throughout the Donbas. Its why Putin has offered up numerous spurious reasons to justify the invasion.

Of course its more than 'just a land grab' and as Andy quite clearly stated its far more nuanced than that with many contributory factors....but none more so than Putin's desire to regain some sort of perceived former Russian glory and a Great epithet for himself.

And nothing can justify the initial invasion and its ongoing operation.
The least he could do is call an immediate ceasefire, the best he should do is withdraw to the former internationally recognised borders and seek negotiations without any preconditions.

Javelin missiles are also offensive weapons.
I call people out regardless of who they are and Trump made a serious error in agreeing to arm Ukraine with US weapons.

I disagree with you
Overthrowing a govt and then moving in and arming the new Govt you selected is grounds for war.
In fact, it makes war inevitable
Consider the reverse. The US would be at war in an instant.

a reply to: UKTruth

Javelins are short range. By definition, they can only be used defending against Russian armour. Which has no business being in Ukraine.

a reply to: UKTruth

I disagree with you

And I disagree with you.
At least your arguments are reasoned and considered unlike many....each of us has a right to our opinions and I'm not into this cancelling # or suppressing alternative points of view.

Overthrowing a govt and then moving in and arming the new Govt you selected is grounds for war.

No it isn't.
Nothing justifies war.
And if what you say did happen and Russia had as big a problem with it as you say they should have took it up with those who allegedly 'overthrew' the government - NATO and its allied countries.

Consider the reverse. The US would be at war in an instant.

And if a similar situation were to occur on the US's border and they reacted the same I can assure you I personally would be just as vocal in my opposition to that as I am to this.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

Javelins are short range. By definition, they can only be used defending against Russian armour. Which has no business being in Ukraine.

Nonsense
They can be used to take out tanks and armaments in defensive positions.
They are battlefield missiles that can be launched by a soldier.

a reply to: Freeborn

Fair enough
In terms of what justifies war, there is a moral answer to that and a real world answer.
Morally there is no justifiable reason to engage in war other than self defence, but in the real world we know that wars can be triggered in various ways when national interests are threatened.
The Cuban missile crisis is a good example - the world was on the brink of nuclear war because the Russians were going to use Cuba and a launch site.
Iraq is another example - war based on lies and the potential threat of a country possibly having WMDs.
Libya another example - war because Gaddafi was going to dump the dollar.

a reply to: UKTruth

So?

They are being used to defend against invading armour. On the battlefield.

Defensive positions? In Ukraine?

They shouldn't be there.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

So?

They are being used to defend against invading armour. On the battlefield.

Defensive positions? In Ukraine?

They shouldn't be there.

Again - these missiles are hand held launch capability weapons that can be used offensively or defensively.

a reply to: UKTruth

So? They are being used against an invader. I don't follow your semantics or your point.

They were never a threat to Russians, until they started their War by invading Ukraine.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

So? They are being used against an invader. I don't follow your semantics or your point.

They were never a threat to Russians, until they started their War by invading Ukraine.

The only reason for Russia to oppose the provision of Javelin Missiles was because they had already planned to invade.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

Let's not forget that Ukraine gave up it's nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees of it's Sovereignty.

Which Putin reneged upon.

It was not any threat to Russia.

a reply to: UKTruth

The Cuban missile crisis is a good example - the world was on the brink of nuclear war because the Russians were going to use Cuba and a launch site.

So placing nuclear weapons whose primary purpose is first strike capability is the same as Javelin missiles whose primary purpose is defence?
The threat posed by nuclear weapons far outweighs any threat - which I fail to see they did - Javelin missiles posed to Russia.

Ukraine was a non-threatening independent nation who had given up its only form of self-defence in return for assurances that its independence, sovereignty and borders would be respected.

I know I'm engaging in hypotheticals now but do you think Russia would have invaded if Ukraine had not handed its nuclear arsenal to them?

No amount of spin or sugar coating can convince me that Putin's invasion was justified.
Did he and Russia have one or two valid points?
Possibly.
That doesn't excuse all the death and destruction he has wrought.

As for the other invasions you mentioned; what makes you think I supported them?

a reply to: Freeborn

If Putin's goal was to stop NATO being on his borders, then that failed spectacularly.

He now has Sweden and Finland.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

So? They are being used against an invader. I don't follow your semantics or your point.

They were never a threat to Russians, until they started their War by invading Ukraine.

It's not in your gift to decide what the Russians see as a threat.
Arming a neighbour whilst simultaneously installing a pro Western govt and drawing that neighbour into both EU discussions and NATO discussions is both an economic threat and military threat.

As it happens the Russians DID see the actions of the West as a threat.

a reply to: UKTruth

That's your narrative. Russia 's too.

Drawing them in?

NATO membership was never really on the cards prior to the War.

What "economic threat"?

Is discussing joining the EU a justification for War?

"Threat"?

Excuse, more like.

Is it in your gift to decide what the Russians see as a threat?

Moscow installed a Russian puppet. Was that all good with you?

The people wanted closer ties with Europe and had no wish to go back under Russia's heel.

Yanukovych brutally cracked down on them and they rose up and made him bugger off to Russia, trousering $70 Billion on the way.

But...but...CIA....Nuland...Nazis...Biolabs. etc.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Russia did see it as a threat, obviously.
I am not required to prove they did as there is a war on to prove it.

No the people of Ukraine did not want their govt overthrown. It was actually a minority of people and in fact it was ginned up by the media billionaire who was later installed as President.

Once in power he brutally cracked down on his own citizens who were against the coup.

As for the Ukrainian Nazi heritage it’s well known.