User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 2:02:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, it's not really debatable IMO. The US secretary of State Baker discussed not moving east in Germany, but this has 3 problems- the Secretary of State can't speak for all of NATO, there was no treaty signed, and even if there was it would have been with the USSR which doesn't exist anymore. I already explained to you why I think these things are important, you can keep repeating that they don't matter, and I guess I'll just keep saying that understanding how we got here and why is important. As far as the mind fucked part, I have no idea what you're talking about. Russian IO exists, sometimes they use factual information and sometimes they don't. I don't automatically discount it as fake, but when it is fake I'll say so and explain why. I don't see the issue here. The reality on the ground right now is bad for Ukraine. Do you see me in threads discussing that topic claiming it's all Russian IO? No, you don't. Have I called you a stooge? Ron? No. I haven't. But you have blinders on if you think there aren't actual Russian supporters here, and likely Russian agents. Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not.  She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it:  Lecture of Mary Sarotte «Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate» What she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this:  and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 2:11:42 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well, it's not really debatable IMO. The US secretary of State Baker discussed not moving east in Germany, but this has 3 problems- the Secretary of State can't speak for all of NATO, there was no treaty signed, and even if there was it would have been with the USSR which doesn't exist anymore. I already explained to you why I think these things are important, you can keep repeating that they don't matter, and I guess I'll just keep saying that understanding how we got here and why is important. As far as the mind fucked part, I have no idea what you're talking about. Russian IO exists, sometimes they use factual information and sometimes they don't. I don't automatically discount it as fake, but when it is fake I'll say so and explain why. I don't see the issue here. The reality on the ground right now is bad for Ukraine. Do you see me in threads discussing that topic claiming it's all Russian IO? No, you don't. Have I called you a stooge? Ron? No. I haven't. But you have blinders on if you think there aren't actual Russian supporters here, and likely Russian agents. Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 4:01:55 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. Whether baker promised or not, if putin saw the dissolution of the USSR as a national tragedy, and the things you've posted in this thread certainly suggest that he did, then further erosion of Russian political power in Ukraine was likely viewed as something worth fighting over. Did we know that? If not, why not? There are two choices as I see it, we were ignorant of Putins view of the situation or we didn't care. Something made him invade. The totality of the situation strongly suggests it was a loss of political influence in a territory considered vital to Russian interests. There is nothing particularly Russian about that. What other motivations are possible? Security, infrastructure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 4:33:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: again we aren't discussing how we look at the world. Whether baker promised or not, if putin saw the dissolution of the USSR as a national tragedy, and the things you've posted in this thread certainly suggest that he did, then further erosion of Russian political power in Ukraine was likely viewed as something worth fighting over. Did we know that? If not, why not? There are two choices as I see it, we were ignorant of Putins view of the situation or we didn't care. Something made him invade. The totality of the situation strongly suggests it was a loss of political influence in a territory considered vital to Russian interests. There is nothing particularly Russian about that. What other motivations are possible? Security, infrastructure? Ego? I think we all may be overthinking this too, there's decent evidence that suggests Putin thought this would be over in a couple weeks time. So his thinking was probably something along the lines of: Pro: I get Ukraine, Russia looks badass, I look badass, the world remains scared of incredibly powerful Russia. Cons: none So we're looking for this deep thought process and wondering how did he come to such a decision, when he probably looked at this like he looked at his previous adventures in Georgia, Chechnya and Ukraine that nobody really did anything about...so why not do it again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 9:54:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good info Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well, it's not really debatable IMO. The US secretary of State Baker discussed not moving east in Germany, but this has 3 problems- the Secretary of State can't speak for all of NATO, there was no treaty signed, and even if there was it would have been with the USSR which doesn't exist anymore. I already explained to you why I think these things are important, you can keep repeating that they don't matter, and I guess I'll just keep saying that understanding how we got here and why is important. As far as the mind fucked part, I have no idea what you're talking about. Russian IO exists, sometimes they use factual information and sometimes they don't. I don't automatically discount it as fake, but when it is fake I'll say so and explain why. I don't see the issue here. The reality on the ground right now is bad for Ukraine. Do you see me in threads discussing that topic claiming it's all Russian IO? No, you don't. Have I called you a stooge? Ron? No. I haven't. But you have blinders on if you think there aren't actual Russian supporters here, and likely Russian agents. Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. Except Gorbachev, even while personally against the expansion, is on the record now admitting that he'd never understood that discussion with the U.S. in the negotiations over German unification to mean that. Those carrying water for Putin these days due so with a very cherry-picked narrative. https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.” M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it. Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object. It's worth noting that the key issues he notes above - stationing of forces and WMDs, were also part of the 1997 Founding Act, and NATO stridently adhered to that even at great cost. Even after the 2014 invasion, NATO refused to entertain permanent stationing in the former Warsaw Pact region and established ridiculously inefficient and expensive rotating deployment regimes in order to honor its commitments to Russia. None of this made a lick of difference, as it was all a smokescreen, with Putin knowing NATO leadership would bend over backwards to try to be good partners and assuage any BS concerns the Kremlin could invent. But, as with what Finland came to realize, a line has to be drawn when one country asserts the right to dictate the foreign policy of another |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2023 11:52:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: again we aren't discussing how we look at the world. Whether baker promised or not, if putin saw the dissolution of the USSR as a national tragedy, and the things you've posted in this thread certainly suggest that he did, then further erosion of Russian political power in Ukraine was likely viewed as something worth fighting over. Did we know that? If not, why not? There are two choices as I see it, we were ignorant of Putins view of the situation or we didn't care. Something made him invade. The totality of the situation strongly suggests it was a loss of political influence in a territory considered vital to Russian interests. There is nothing particularly Russian about that. What other motivations are possible? Security, infrastructure? The expectation that the West would just roll over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:06:21 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are two choices as I see it, we were ignorant of Putins view of the situation or we didn't care. Also from 2000-07 (when most of the expansion happened) Putin said he wasn't opposed to it. Ya know, I've watched hours of videos of experts that have dealt with Putin for decades try to get in the guy's head. You can't, and not even the 2 or 3 people closest to him in his cabinet can. So we have to assume what is reasonable to assume. Does he want to put the Russian empire back together? Of course, and even if he doesn't we can't afford to assume that he doesn't. Anyone who lived in the 70s and 80s knows that would not be good for us. In the end it doesn't really matter if we understand him because we've shown we can inflict this kind of damage on Russia, and maybe strength is all he cares about. If he knew 2 years ago this all was going to happen, he never would've done it. Now he knows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 12:43:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryA little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 12:46:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 12:50:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif *perceived to be geopolitically beneficial to topple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 12:57:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 1:04:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 1:05:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Maybe not very nuanced, but... at this point it's pretty much the only appropriate response to all the whataboutism lately. Having grown up in the '80s when the political Left ran with every Kremlin narrative hostile to U.S. military adventurism, I'll probably never fully get used to that being now the domain of the political Right. It does get tiring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 1:06:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in Seriously, you really should go back to posting about artillery. I'm embarrassed for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 1:08:19 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 1:51:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seriously, you really should go back to posting about artillery. I'm embarrassed for you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in Seriously, you really should go back to posting about artillery. I'm embarrassed for you. You’re literally one of the people that I have less than zero respect for their opinion |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 1:54:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for.  Attached FileWhen leftist start to claim conspiracy theory, you might start the count down to it being proven. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 1:59:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. ETA - nice edit. You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:01:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I’m biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don’t know how many times I was told on a target package: “ Why don’t you just go and send some Marines to get in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can’t get it approved as a preplanned strike “ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:02:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in It's obvious that the US was elbow deep in the 2014 events, even to the hard core Ukraine fanboys. They waffle back and forth between saying this knowledge is "embarrassing" or whatever peer pressure phrases the focus group said would work, and admitting / outright bragging about it. Sometimes in the same thread if it gets long enough and they forget. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:04:05 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:06:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:10:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:13:06 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. After being lied to 99 times how many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it’s mostly lies? If it takes more than a few times I would say you’re not a fast learner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:30:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After being lied to 99 times how many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's mostly lies? If it takes more than a few times I would say you're not a fast learner. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. After being lied to 99 times how many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's mostly lies? If it takes more than a few times I would say you're not a fast learner. Your position is that the government has lied in the past, therefore it's always lying. Ridiculous logic, and I could easily point out times that the government has NOT lied, showing you how absurd this logic is, but you'll just make up some other weird argument or ignore it completely. I never took you for a moon truther, but I guess here we are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:33:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your position is that the government has lied in the past, therefore it's always lying. Ridiculous logic, and I could easily point out times that the government has NOT lied, showing you how absurd this logic is, but you'll just make up some other weird argument or ignore it completely. I never took you for a moon truther, but I guess here we are. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. After being lied to 99 times how many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's mostly lies? If it takes more than a few times I would say you're not a fast learner. Your position is that the government has lied in the past, therefore it's always lying. Ridiculous logic, and I could easily point out times that the government has NOT lied, showing you how absurd this logic is, but you'll just make up some other weird argument or ignore it completely. I never took you for a moon truther, but I guess here we are. Like I said, they often have to say things to justify to people who don’t see the world through the lens of Realpolitik. How many of those truths have you actually taken the time to really dig deep into and see the truth only scratch the surface? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:35:08 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like I said, they often have to say things to justify to people who don't see the world through the lens of Realpolitik. How many of those truths have you actually taken the time to really dig deep into and see the truth only scratch the surface? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. After being lied to 99 times how many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's mostly lies? If it takes more than a few times I would say you're not a fast learner. Your position is that the government has lied in the past, therefore it's always lying. Ridiculous logic, and I could easily point out times that the government has NOT lied, showing you how absurd this logic is, but you'll just make up some other weird argument or ignore it completely. I never took you for a moon truther, but I guess here we are. Like I said, they often have to say things to justify to people who don't see the world through the lens of Realpolitik. How many of those truths have you actually taken the time to really dig deep into and see the truth only scratch the surface? Point proven, thanks. Not much point in going further, no matter what logic or evidence I provide it's never going to be enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:38:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Point proven, thanks. Not much point in going further, no matter what logic or evidence I provide it's never going to be enough. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. After being lied to 99 times how many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's mostly lies? If it takes more than a few times I would say you're not a fast learner. Your position is that the government has lied in the past, therefore it's always lying. Ridiculous logic, and I could easily point out times that the government has NOT lied, showing you how absurd this logic is, but you'll just make up some other weird argument or ignore it completely. I never took you for a moon truther, but I guess here we are. Like I said, they often have to say things to justify to people who don't see the world through the lens of Realpolitik. How many of those truths have you actually taken the time to really dig deep into and see the truth only scratch the surface? Point proven, thanks. Not much point in going further, no matter what logic or evidence I provide it's never going to be enough. That’s the thing, when you actually start studying things you realize how very little of it you know, the only people who think they know everything about a subject are fools. The mark of an expert is to know how little he actually knows, and there is always more to learn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:53:00 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the thing, when you actually start studying things you realize how very little of it you know, the only people who think they know everything about a subject are fools. The mark of an expert is to know how little he actually knows, and there is always more to learn. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in We're involved in every one huh. I guess another one of those "agree to disagree" things that you can't provide evidence or logic for. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/56596/IMG_5321_jpeg-3073679.JPG I wish you would read more than things that confirm your bias. Wow that jpg certainly proves we have been involved in every color revolution, to include Ukraine's. Maybe you should take your bias comment and take a look in the mirror. Keep in mind the question in the OP was a question of a US backed coup vs a grassroots uprising. "Involved" is a mushy word, that doesn't negate a grassroots uprising. I'm still curious about your defense of the whole NATO "logic" but I guess I need to accept you'll never even attempt to explain your stance... but yeah, you're totally unbiased. Oh, I am certainly biased, but I will admit that. I'm biased at having to bury Americans based on fucking lies by the same fucking people who are lying about this war. My stance on NATO is because they are literally responsible for Americans being dead in Afghanistan because of their fecklessness. I don't know how many times I was told on a target package. Why don't you just go with some Marines in a firefight and then you can destroy it because we can't get it approved as a preplanned strike You think you're the only one that's buried Marines? You have a weird habit of claiming anything that an "enemy" claims must be false, IE your enemies are ALWAYS wrong. This sounds suspiciously like what you claim I do with Russian propaganda. Seems awfully hypocritical. How many notifications did you do? How many flags were you responsible for giving out? If many and you still believe all the lies that you believe and I feel sorry for you I'm not getting into a dick measuring contest about dead Marines with you, I'm actually sort of grossed out that you would go that direction. I'm sure you've done more though if that makes you feel good. No, I don't swallow lies for no reason, but I also don't automatically assume everything is bullshit either like you do, even without evidence- or in your case despite evidence to the contrary. After being lied to 99 times how many times do you have to be lied to before you realize it's mostly lies? If it takes more than a few times I would say you're not a fast learner. Your position is that the government has lied in the past, therefore it's always lying. Ridiculous logic, and I could easily point out times that the government has NOT lied, showing you how absurd this logic is, but you'll just make up some other weird argument or ignore it completely. I never took you for a moon truther, but I guess here we are. Like I said, they often have to say things to justify to people who don't see the world through the lens of Realpolitik. How many of those truths have you actually taken the time to really dig deep into and see the truth only scratch the surface? Point proven, thanks. Not much point in going further, no matter what logic or evidence I provide it's never going to be enough. That's the thing, when you actually start studying things you realize how very little of it you know, the only people who think they know everything about a subject are fools. The mark of an expert is to know how little he actually knows, and there is always more to learn. I like how you imply I haven't studied anything and that I think I'm an expert (I don't). Meanwhile, you do what you accuse me of. To be fair, you are an expert on artillery but your failure to back up your claims on other subjects is revealing. You claim to recognize your own bias, but from the outside it's pretty clear that you are even more biased than you realize. The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. I never claimed to be an expert, but at least my views I can back up with evidence and logic. I would welcome your evidence and logic and I'm willing to change my mind, but so far you refuse on many topics. As I said before, you think you know my bias but you don't- if anything, I would be biased towards the Russian view, and in fact I've defended Russia on multiple occasions. But it's easy to ignore those facts, and why I'd be biased towards Russia when it goes against your own little narrative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:57:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I like how you imply I haven't studied anything and that I think I'm an expert (I don't). Meanwhile, you do what you accuse me of. To be fair, you are an expert on artillery but your failure to back up your claims on other subjects is revealing. You claim to recognize your own bias, but from the outside it's pretty clear that you are even more biased than you realize. The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. I never claimed to be an expert, but at least my views I can back up with evidence and logic. I would welcome your evidence and logic and I'm willing to change my mind, but so far you refuse on many topics. As I said before, you think you know my bias but you don't- if anything, I would be biased towards the Russian view, and in fact I've defended Russia on multiple occasions. But it's easy to ignore those facts, and why I'd be biased towards Russia when it goes against your own little narrative. How dare you question him!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:58:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. . that’s called being able to see trends and patterns, more importantly, that shows the ability to learn from those trends and patterns |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 2:59:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Putin also goes on to say: "Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped for a significant part on the lands of historical Russia." and "It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the (Russian empire) into pieces (states) (when they formed the USSR) was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed." and "There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Can you guess how many times he mentions NATO or Victoria Nuland? A didn't invade B because of C. They have their own history and grievances that have nothing to do with us. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not sure if putin cares at all about "ethnically pure Ukrainians" or Nazis, but he certainly cares about a Ukraine that is aggressive toward Russia. However that might happen. He does spout a lot of bullshit that is likely fodder for certain audiences, mostly domestic. Putin is a product of the USSR, the USSR was never ethnically pure. Stalin was Georgian. He's a world class shitbag, but not in the master race sense. Putin also goes on to say: "Therefore, modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era. We know and remember well that it was shaped for a significant part on the lands of historical Russia." and "It is no longer important what exactly the idea of the Bolshevik leaders who were chopping the (Russian empire) into pieces (states) (when they formed the USSR) was. We can disagree about minor details, background and logics behind certain decisions. One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed." and "There may be an argument: if you are talking about a single large nation, a triune nation, then what difference does it make who people consider themselves to be Russians, Ukrainians, or Belarusians. I completely agree with this." http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 Can you guess how many times he mentions NATO or Victoria Nuland? A didn't invade B because of C. They have their own history and grievances that have nothing to do with us. You know, the conclusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:03:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: that's called being able to see trends and patterns, more importantly, that shows the ability to learn from those trends and patterns Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. . that's called being able to see trends and patterns, more importantly, that shows the ability to learn from those trends and patterns No, it's not. A argument based on a trend or pattern would look like this: "The US has lied a lot in the past, and we have absolutely toppled governments, so it's possible we did the same here" That's a fair statement based on trends and patterns. The next step would be to look at the specific context of Ukraine and try to work out if it's also likely there was grassroots uprising against Russian control (there was). Instead you say "government lie in past = government always lies no matter what" It's silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:05:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it's not. A argument based on a trend or pattern would look like this: "The US has lied a lot in the past, and we have absolutely toppled governments, so it's possible we did the same here" That's a fair statement based on trends and patterns. The next step would be to look at the specific context of Ukraine and try to work out if it's also likely there was grassroots uprising against Russian control (there was). Instead you say "government lie in past = government always lies no matter what" It's silly. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. . that's called being able to see trends and patterns, more importantly, that shows the ability to learn from those trends and patterns No, it's not. A argument based on a trend or pattern would look like this: "The US has lied a lot in the past, and we have absolutely toppled governments, so it's possible we did the same here" That's a fair statement based on trends and patterns. The next step would be to look at the specific context of Ukraine and try to work out if it's also likely there was grassroots uprising against Russian control (there was). Instead you say "government lie in past = government always lies no matter what" It's silly. So you would agree it’s quite possible that the US government was involved, if not responsible The first time the subject came up a year or so ago I came to conclusion people are arguing about degrees of pregnancy. Most of the Ukrainian crowd hinge, their argument on the degree of culpability. Since it cannot mathematically be shown that 51% or greater of responsibility is that of the USG, then they demure and argue over terms like “responsible for.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:08:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you would agree it's quite possible that the US government was involved, if not responsible The first time the subject came up a year or so ago I came to conclusion people are arguing about degrees of pregnancy. Most of the Ukrainian crowd hinge, their argument on the degree of culpability. Since it cannot mathematically be shown that 51% or greater of responsibility is that of the USG, then they demure and argue over terms like "responsible for." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. . that's called being able to see trends and patterns, more importantly, that shows the ability to learn from those trends and patterns No, it's not. A argument based on a trend or pattern would look like this: "The US has lied a lot in the past, and we have absolutely toppled governments, so it's possible we did the same here" That's a fair statement based on trends and patterns. The next step would be to look at the specific context of Ukraine and try to work out if it's also likely there was grassroots uprising against Russian control (there was). Instead you say "government lie in past = government always lies no matter what" It's silly. So you would agree it's quite possible that the US government was involved, if not responsible The first time the subject came up a year or so ago I came to conclusion people are arguing about degrees of pregnancy. Most of the Ukrainian crowd hinge, their argument on the degree of culpability. Since it cannot mathematically be shown that 51% or greater of responsibility is that of the USG, then they demure and argue over terms like "responsible for." Of course it's possible there was involvement, saying it's impossible is just as silly as saying we orchestrated it. I don't think arguing over "responsible for" is immaterial though. I'd say it's very important in fact. Minor support for a grassroots uprising is NOT even close to the same as orchestrating a coup. I think the distinction is important and very relevant. ETA- you should debate like this more often instead of being condescending and making absurd claims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:12:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course it's possible there was involvement, saying it's impossible is just as silly as saying we orchestrated it. I don't think arguing over "responsible for" is immaterial though. I'd say it's very important in fact. Minor support for a grassroots uprising is NOT even close to the same as orchestrating a coup. I think the distinction is important and very relevant. ETA- you should debate like this more often instead of being condescending and making absurd claims. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. . that's called being able to see trends and patterns, more importantly, that shows the ability to learn from those trends and patterns No, it's not. A argument based on a trend or pattern would look like this: "The US has lied a lot in the past, and we have absolutely toppled governments, so it's possible we did the same here" That's a fair statement based on trends and patterns. The next step would be to look at the specific context of Ukraine and try to work out if it's also likely there was grassroots uprising against Russian control (there was). Instead you say "government lie in past = government always lies no matter what" It's silly. So you would agree it's quite possible that the US government was involved, if not responsible The first time the subject came up a year or so ago I came to conclusion people are arguing about degrees of pregnancy. Most of the Ukrainian crowd hinge, their argument on the degree of culpability. Since it cannot mathematically be shown that 51% or greater of responsibility is that of the USG, then they demure and argue over terms like "responsible for." Of course it's possible there was involvement, saying it's impossible is just as silly as saying we orchestrated it. I don't think arguing over "responsible for" is immaterial though. I'd say it's very important in fact. Minor support for a grassroots uprising is NOT even close to the same as orchestrating a coup. I think the distinction is important and very relevant. ETA- you should debate like this more often instead of being condescending and making absurd claims. The West provided both information operation support and via NGO’s financial support. Did that cause it? Maybe, maybe not. Did it cause “the grass roots” do things that they wouldn’t have done if they didn’t believe the West back them? maybe, maybe not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:29:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You’re literally one of the people that I have less than zero respect for their opinion Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in Seriously, you really should go back to posting about artillery. I'm embarrassed for you. You’re literally one of the people that I have less than zero respect for their opinion How will I ever sleep at night? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:31:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How will I ever sleep at night? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Strangely, this is the only color revolution we are to believe that the USG was not involved in Seriously, you really should go back to posting about artillery. I'm embarrassed for you. You’re literally one of the people that I have less than zero respect for their opinion How will I ever sleep at night? Probably just as well as I do |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:35:19 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe not very nuanced, but... at this point it's pretty much the only appropriate response to all the whataboutism lately. Having grown up in the '80s when the political Left ran with every Kremlin narrative hostile to U.S. military adventurism, I'll probably never fully get used to that being now the domain of the political Right. It does get tiring. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Maybe not very nuanced, but... at this point it's pretty much the only appropriate response to all the whataboutism lately. Having grown up in the '80s when the political Left ran with every Kremlin narrative hostile to U.S. military adventurism, I'll probably never fully get used to that being now the domain of the political Right. It does get tiring. Right - our motivations were usually to help the good guys. That doesn't mean we were great at ID'ing the good/bad guys correctly or that we didn't screw up the implementation in a big way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 3:41:59 PM EDT
[#40]
If I remember right “Whataboutism” was a term developed by the political left that allowed them to sidestep claims of hypocrisy and or in many cases not knowing of misdeeds of their side.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:06:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. News flash, they are a big part of the problem. Your appeal to authority sounds like "get your country invaded with this one wierd trick" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:21:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: since you're talking about psychology things, It's something that can not be qualified one way or the other. The West provided both information operation support and via NGO's financial support. Did that cause it? Maybe, maybe not. Did it cause "the grass roots" do things that they wouldn't have done if they didn't believe the West back them? maybe, maybe not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie is a piss poor argument. If you were to do some reflection you'd realize that. . that's called being able to see trends and patterns, more importantly, that shows the ability to learn from those trends and patterns No, it's not. A argument based on a trend or pattern would look like this: "The US has lied a lot in the past, and we have absolutely toppled governments, so it's possible we did the same here" That's a fair statement based on trends and patterns. The next step would be to look at the specific context of Ukraine and try to work out if it's also likely there was grassroots uprising against Russian control (there was). Instead you say "government lie in past = government always lies no matter what" It's silly. So you would agree it's quite possible that the US government was involved, if not responsible The first time the subject came up a year or so ago I came to conclusion people are arguing about degrees of pregnancy. Most of the Ukrainian crowd hinge, their argument on the degree of culpability. Since it cannot mathematically be shown that 51% or greater of responsibility is that of the USG, then they demure and argue over terms like "responsible for." Of course it's possible there was involvement, saying it's impossible is just as silly as saying we orchestrated it. I don't think arguing over "responsible for" is immaterial though. I'd say it's very important in fact. Minor support for a grassroots uprising is NOT even close to the same as orchestrating a coup. I think the distinction is important and very relevant. ETA- you should debate like this more often instead of being condescending and making absurd claims. The West provided both information operation support and via NGO's financial support. Did that cause it? Maybe, maybe not. Did it cause "the grass roots" do things that they wouldn't have done if they didn't believe the West back them? maybe, maybe not. Progress. We went from "the government obviously did it" to "we can't know one way or the other" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:25:43 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You keep posting this revisionist garbage from commietard professors. News flash, they are a big part of the problem. Your appeal to authority sounds like "get your country invaded with this one wierd trick" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. News flash, they are a big part of the problem. Your appeal to authority sounds like "get your country invaded with this one wierd trick" Documents from the actual time this was happening, quotes from GORBACHEV and Baker, you know, the people that we're literally talking about is neither revisionist garbage nor an appeal to authority. Simply calling someone a "commietard" isn't a strong argument either. Maybe just stop talking, take a break for a while champ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:28:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Progress. We went from "the government obviously did it" to "we can't know one way or the other" I heard an interesting statistic from a lawyer, friend of mine, most people are convicted based on multiple pieces of circumstantial evidences that lead to the average person saying that is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in most cases, there is no such thing as direct evidence. What the many of you are demonstrating is there are no combination of multiple circumstantial events would lead you to saying, something happened. Some because they are the equivalent of OJ jurors who will not allow their blackness to let them make that conclusion, and some won’t make come to that conclusion unless there was a videotape of it happening and confessions |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:29:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Documents from the actual time this was happening, quotes from GORBACHEV and Baker, you know, the people that we're literally talking about is neither revisionist garbage nor an appeal to authority. Simply calling someone a "commietard" isn't a strong argument either. Maybe just stop talking, take a break for a while champ. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. News flash, they are a big part of the problem. Your appeal to authority sounds like "get your country invaded with this one wierd trick" Documents from the actual time this was happening, quotes from GORBACHEV and Baker, you know, the people that we're literally talking about is neither revisionist garbage nor an appeal to authority. Simply calling someone a "commietard" isn't a strong argument either. Maybe just stop talking, take a break for a while champ. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:32:46 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: you mean the ones from Baker who said it did happen, but since it wasn't in the actual treaty, it didn't matter? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. News flash, they are a big part of the problem. Your appeal to authority sounds like "get your country invaded with this one wierd trick" Documents from the actual time this was happening, quotes from GORBACHEV and Baker, you know, the people that we're literally talking about is neither revisionist garbage nor an appeal to authority. Simply calling someone a "commietard" isn't a strong argument either. Maybe just stop talking, take a break for a while champ. Ron, we've been over this. Read the comments above and the last page from Thanosnap and Adam. It didn't happen like you're implying it did, and even in a fantasy world where it did, even if signed on paper, the agreement would have been with the USSR which ceased to exist shortly after. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:36:14 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I heard an interesting statistic from a lawyer, friend of mine, most people are convicted based on multiple pieces of circumstantial evidences that lead to the average person saying that is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in most cases, there is no such thing as direct evidence. What the many of you are demonstrating is there are no combination of multiple circumstantial events would lead you to saying, something happened. Some because they are the equivalent of OJ jurors who will not allow their blackness to let them make that conclusion, and some won't make come to that conclusion unless there was a videotape of it happening and confessions Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Progress. We went from "the government obviously did it" to "we can't know one way or the other" I heard an interesting statistic from a lawyer, friend of mine, most people are convicted based on multiple pieces of circumstantial evidences that lead to the average person saying that is beyond a reasonable doubt, and in most cases, there is no such thing as direct evidence. What the many of you are demonstrating is there are no combination of multiple circumstantial events would lead you to saying, something happened. Some because they are the equivalent of OJ jurors who will not allow their blackness to let them make that conclusion, and some won't make come to that conclusion unless there was a videotape of it happening and confessions That's quite the conclusion. There's no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise pointing to the fact that the US orchestrated the uprising. There's a lot to suggest it was a grassroots uprising though. Once again, you accuse me of what you're doing. No amount of circumstantial evidence or direct evidence will convince you that it was a grassroots uprising. You're already said as much, anything the government says is a lie, therefore the opposite is true. Still, you assume I'm biased but my life would be a lot simpler and easier if I bought into the Russian narrative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:36:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ron, we've been over this. Read the comments above and the last page from Thanosnap and Adam. It didn't happen like you're implying it did, and even in a fantasy world where it did, even if signed on paper, the agreement would have been with the USSR which ceased to exist shortly after. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did Secretary of State Dean Baker promise Gorbachev NATO would move not one inch East in the 90s? According to Mary Sarotte, Johns Hopkins history Professor for the "Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs", no he did not. https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/sites/default/files/styles/news_and_events_image/public/2021-09/sarotte_web.jpg?h=252f27fa&itok=NxPPae84 She spent 3 years studying it, went to the Presidential Libraries and went to court getting all kinds of transcripts and documents declassified under the freedom of information act, then she wrote a 2021 book on it titled "Not One Inch." Here she is speaking with the Ukrainians about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHj0K9PofCwWhat she says is during talks to reunite East Germany with West Germany, Baker proposed not moving NATO one inch east to USSR Soviet Premier Gorbachev as a hypothetical... there was no agreement it was just part of negotiations. The NATO/Warsaw Pact map at the time looked like this: https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/107062153-1652780996560-Warsaw_pact_012.png?v=1652840367&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y and we weren't expecting USSR collapse so the only place NATO could move East into was East Germany (maybe Austria). When Baker got home he told his boss Bush Sr he proposed this and Bush said no, NATO is a good thing and it provides security for the Europeans, they're not even asking for or demanding it, and we plan on expanding it. And Bush made it clear several times since then that NATO would expand. So Baker called the allies and said NATO will be expanding. How long it took the Soviets to get the message is questionable but the final deal, which the Soviets signed, expanded NATO into East Germany. Apparently we bribed the Soviets with German money to get the deal done. Then in 1997 the US, Russia and others signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act which said Russia does not have a veto on new countries joining NATO. Afterwards Gorbachev (who no longer had a job after the USSR collapse) said you promised me you wouldn't expand! The US State Dept called the Russian Foreign Minister and said what the hell we never promised him that! And he said sorry, Gorbachev drinks, we cannot control him. News flash, they are a big part of the problem. Your appeal to authority sounds like "get your country invaded with this one wierd trick" Documents from the actual time this was happening, quotes from GORBACHEV and Baker, you know, the people that we're literally talking about is neither revisionist garbage nor an appeal to authority. Simply calling someone a "commietard" isn't a strong argument either. Maybe just stop talking, take a break for a while champ. Ron, we've been over this. Read the comments above and the last page from Thanosnap and Adam. It didn't happen like you're implying it did, and even in a fantasy world where it did, even if signed on paper, the agreement would have been with the USSR which ceased to exist shortly after. I’m just a big believer in all the facts, being known, and people making their decisions based on that |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:36:56 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, it's not. A argument based on a trend or pattern would look like this: "The US has lied a lot in the past, and we have absolutely toppled governments, so it's possible we did the same here" That's a fair statement based on trends and patterns. The next step would be to look at the specific context of Ukraine and try to work out if it's also likely there was grassroots uprising against Russian control (there was). Instead you say "government lie in past = government always lies no matter what" It's silly.  You like to argue and have a highly biased slant, so do I, so that's fair, welcome to being human I guess.  BTW, our government has lied in the past, continues to lie, and it's possible we had something to do with the orange revolution.  If we didn't we fucked up badly enough that it appeared we had something to do with it, which in practical effect is the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2023 4:39:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Right - our motivations were usually to help the good guys. That doesn't mean we were great at ID'ing the good/bad guys correctly or that we didn't screw up the implementation in a big way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A little light reading for you. SPOILER ALET! We've been toppling governments for a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://y.yarn.co/72702a22-8421-4c43-8f54-fc21a4877796_text.gif Maybe not very nuanced, but... at this point it's pretty much the only appropriate response to all the whataboutism lately. Having grown up in the '80s when the political Left ran with every Kremlin narrative hostile to U.S. military adventurism, I'll probably never fully get used to that being now the domain of the political Right. It does get tiring. Right - our motivations were usually to help the good guys. That doesn't mean we were great at ID'ing the good/bad guys correctly or that we didn't screw up the implementation in a big way. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
