Ex-FBI Director Mueller appointed DOJ Special Counsel

[Officer of Engineers]

'Fresh ideas'? You must be kidding.

He is. Be kind. The lad is still a virgin when it comes to sarcasm. *** That's how it's done, Oracle ***

[Ironduke]

I've found nothing in your entire post worth trying to debate. You're much too riled up to even make sense now. For instance, you're suggesting that 100 Russians in Venezuela isn't a force that the US should consider worthy of acknowledging. You obviously have no understanding in the least of a direct military conflict between Russia and the US! Arrogance?

Khsham.

[Ironduke]

As military professionals will know, Nato is nothing more than a tool of US aggression and the Kosovo war was just more US encroachment on Russia's borders. For that reason alone it makes the US whining about Russia taking the Crimea quite laughable.

Russia doesn't need that excuse because the Crimea chose to align with Russia anyway. This also largely pertains to Syria and it's choice of aligning with Russia.

But thank the dogs that the US's string of 40 wars of aggression is coming to an end now that China is rising and Russia is back. Syria is Russia's by choice and Venezuela is also likely safe, as the world is waking up to the real reason why Venezuela's people are suffering.



Might makes right, in a nutshell, but there is another much more important factor for arrogant military hawks to understand. In this modern 21st. century world the might of the super-power that has the small country's back has become much more important. This is why the US was stopped in Syria from having itself another phony war like their Iraq war.

Now that Russia is back with it's nuclear deterrent, it's likely that Venezuela is safe and will be able to choose it's friends and it's own course to freedom from US aggression.

To the question on how your comments pertained to the topic, I have no idea? But I decided it needed to be answered with a more truthful version.

So, you have disagreements with US policy and actions. Nothing wrong with that.

But that doesn't make US adversaries the good guys. I've read all of your posts on this thread, and it comes across to me that is what your mindset is.

Whatever faults there are with things the US has done, the Soviets, Russia, China, Syria, etc. are/were orders of magnitude worse.

[Bigfella]

He is. Be kind. The lad is still a virgin when it comes to sarcasm. *** That's how it's done, Oracle ***

SIGH!

That is what I get for spending too long on boards full of screaming idiots all of whom mean every idiotic word they say. Our new friend would fit right in there.

[montgomery]

So, you have disagreements with US policy and actions. Nothing wrong with that.

But that doesn't make US adversaries the good guys. I've read all of your posts on this thread, and it comes across to me that is what your mindset is.

You talk in generalities and without any specifics but in any case your blanket statement is wrong. If you care to get into the details I'll be happy to debate your idea (s).

Whatever faults there are with things the US has done, the Soviets, Russia, China, Syria, etc. are/were orders of magnitude worse.

Of course I disagree but you offer just a blanket proclamation which doesn't make your claim true. Add Iran to your list and then choose one to debate in detail if you like. Or better still, choose any of the list of 37 victims.

[montgomery]

SIGH!

That is what I get for spending too long on boards full of screaming idiots all of whom mean every idiotic word they say. Our new friend would fit right in there.

I'm sure you feel quite secure in screaming out your personal insults, now that you've been granted immunity from having to hear them thrown back at you!

[snapper]

Of course I disagree but you offer just a blanket proclamation which doesn't make your claim true. Add Iran to your list and then choose one to debate in detail if you like. Or better still, choose any of the list of 37 victims.

Look quoting some website that says the 'imperialist West' has invaded 37 'innocent' nations since whenever does not make it true either - yet you seem to have absolute faith in it while asking others to disbelieve anything else. By your standards I should believe that the earth is flat and that most world leaders are lizard aliens. The fact that there is no evidence to support a theory, and sometimes a great deal to support the contrary (such as the earth being roughly spherical) would have no relevance; "the website says!" So it must be true right? My point is that just because you chose to accept what someone else (or a website) says it does not mean it is correct - somewhere there is bound to be a completely contrary website or 'truth' and both cannot true and contradictory.

So what we are asking you really is why you believe this bs so firmly? What is the basis of your trust - can you support it with personal experience or other facts/data? If there is no collaborating evidence to support your argument apart from your 'firm belief that it's true' then really you are no better than alien lizard people believer.

You are not making a coherent case when arguing with the Colonel about nuclear strategy or me when arguing about Ukraine, which certainly the US or even Napoleon 'invaded'. I think the last 'Western power' apart from Poland to fight in Ukraine was Charles Xll of Sweden in 1709 and certainly the Colonel knows more about nuclear weapons than you. So merely repeating time and again that the West is a hateful aggressor and all their 'victims' are whiter than snow - despite all the facts that contradict such a view - is not likely to win you any debate unless you can support with other evidence.

[montgomery]

Look quoting some website that says the 'imperialist West' has invaded 37 'innocent' nations since whenever does not make it true either - yet you seem to have absolute faith in it while asking others to disbelieve anything else. By your standards I should believe that the earth is flat and that most world leaders are lizard aliens. The fact that there is no evidence to support a theory, and sometimes a great deal to support the contrary (such as the earth being roughly spherical) would have no relevance; "the website says!" So it must be true right? My point is that just because you chose to accept what someone else (or a website) says it does not mean it is correct - somewhere there is bound to be a completely contrary website or 'truth' and both cannot true and contradictory.

I can't really argue that. All I'll say is that you can reread everything you have said, turn it around, and apply it all to your beliefs and understanding.

So what we are asking you really is why you believe this bs so firmly? What is the basis of your trust - can you support it with personal experience or other facts/data? If there is no collaborating evidence to support your argument apart from your 'firm belief that it's true' then really you are no better than alien lizard people believer.

And again, read that which you've said, turn it around, and apply it all to your beliefs and understandings. And then even though you don't deserve the courtesy when you stoop to being insulting, I'll ignore that and ask you what you are requesting of me specifically?

You are not making a coherent case when arguing with the Colonel about nuclear strategy or me when arguing about Ukraine, which certainly the US or even Napoleon 'invaded'. I think the last 'Western power' apart from Poland to fight in Ukraine was Charles Xll of Sweden in 1709 and certainly the Colonel knows more about nuclear weapons than you. So merely repeating time and again that the West is a hateful aggressor and all their 'victims' are whiter than snow - despite all the facts that contradict such a view - is not likely to win you any debate unless you can support with other evidence.

I can work with that on the level you have chosen to challenge me, as regards nuclear strategy, as it was being suggested by your friend. But you're going to have to quote me saying something on which your friend found some disagreement. Can you do that? If so then we will at least have some parameters on which to debate the issue. If not then you just come across to me as an empty bottle.

[snapper]

I can't really argue that. All I'll say is that you can reread everything you have said, turn it around, and apply it all to your beliefs and understanding.

That does not answer any questions or relate to the obvious contradictory positions that are stated by websites or people - many without evidence. Look my friend - I am not trying to attack you but teach you basic scientific method; repeating yourself and asking me for proof I have given (relating to Crimea for example) that you can check in a 'turn it around' gumph is not providing any answer, merely repeating "I am right."

I mean I could say more... that I have helped overthrow a would be a dictator and helped in the defence of the country where my home lies but as you know nothing of Ukraine or Central Europe I shall save my fingers the bother.

I can work with that on the level you have chosen to challenge me, as regards nuclear strategy, as it was being suggested by your friend. But you're going to have to quote me saying something on which your friend found some disagreement. Can you do that? If so then we will at least have some parameters on which to debate the issue. If not then you just come across to me as an empty bottle.

Well first I did not "chose to challenge" you on nuclear weapons, of which I know little. I deride your views regarding Central Europe, where I doubt you have ever been and the circumstances of 2014 in Ukraine because I was here.

Nor would I describe the Colonel and myself as 'friends' in any way, probably nobody has argued more with him than I since 2014 regarding Ukraine. So you see you are not the fount of all wisdom. I wish you wisdom.

Sorry but I am bored of this idiot already, we have seen many of his like.

[tbm3fan]

Wow, not having read the board for a few days, because it can be maddeningly slow I had a lot of catching up to do. Knew the shit must have hit the fan when I had to go back seven pages to catch up for four days no less. I already had an idea from a week ago what the catalyst might be. So I got out my bag of Ruffles Cheddar and Sour Cream chips, oh they are tasty, and started to read. It was like old times.

OOE with is knowledge and patience to a point.
Astralis with his straight forward insight.
Zraver is always good for a few deep dark state comments.
Snapper always gets a plug in for Ukraine.
Bigfella who can always cut to the chase.
TH who has to quell the flames. LOL.

There was so much going on to make it hard to know where to jump in so I just read.

One thing I didn't know and that was that Canadians use ain't... D)

[snapper]

Ukraine* not "the Ukraine". Sorry if it sounds pedantic but I did explain the similar difference in Muscovite a while back and why it matters. Briefly though, though I believe it is grammatically correct in Muscovite language to say what would translate as "on Ukraine" rather than "in Ukraine" the former implies it has no ownership such as "on the equator" or "on Mars". There are about 42m 'owners' of Ukraine.

[montgomery]

Ukraine* not "the Ukraine". Sorry if it sounds pedantic but I did explain the similar difference in Muscovite a while back and why it matters. Briefly though, though I believe it is grammatically correct in Muscovite language to say what would translate as "on Ukraine" rather than "in Ukraine" the former implies it has no ownership such as "on the equator" or "on Mars". There are about 42m 'owners' of Ukraine.

I stand corrected.

[montgomery]

one thing i didn't know and that was that canadians use ain't... D)

huh?

[tbm3fan]

huh?

Well, I know I ain't Canadian...

[Ironduke]

You talk in generalities and without any specifics but in any case your blanket statement is wrong. If you care to get into the details I'll be happy to debate your idea (s).

Of course I disagree but you offer just a blanket proclamation which doesn't make your claim true. Add Iran to your list and then choose one to debate in detail if you like. Or better still, choose any of the list of 37 victims.

What do you think of the political systems and the governance of nations such as Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela, and Iran, and the state of human rights and the rule of law within these countries? Do you see their models as being superior, and worthy of emulation?