There has never been two nuclear armed countries in direct conflict. If UK puts boots on the ground in Ukraine against Russia, that will happen.
Trump/Zelensky deal turns into Jerry Springer episode
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Good to see Europe finally taking some initiative. Good luck in your war, boys!
The bravado and posturing is great at the outset.
But the electorate doesn't take kindly to the war effort once the bodies of their sons start piling up.
The bravado and posturing is great at the outset.
But the electorate doesn't take kindly to the war effort once the bodies of their sons start piling up.
"Why should the victim here surrender their land and sovereignty to Russia, their natural resources to the US and allow themselves to be raped"
Well, sadly, that question has been answered. No fuckin choice.
India and Pakistan have been in conflict more recently.
India and China most recently were in conflict.
The USSR and the US came close to it during the Cuban missile crisis.
If the UK puts boots on the ground, it will be to enforce a DMZ. That won't play out without broad EU and US support.
I think they have a choice if EU steps up.
Or they withdraw from the NPT and develop nukes.
Am actually surprised they haven't yet.
Are you for real ?
You are saying that I am anti- American because I support American policies.
Last I looked, the leftists are in favour of continuing the war. I am in favour of peace.
Do you mean if the threat of nuclear attack from an enemy is real
the way to counter that threat is to demand it not to deploy its nuclear
weapons?
For the old school leftists anti-Americanism is best expressed via pro-Soviet/Russia attitudes.
The current US administration's policies are a marked deviation from time tested American foreign policy positions and as such I consider them anti-American as well.
Yes because it would result in a nuclear weapons being deployed against the enemy as well.
In this case it would be the US and EU who'd get dragged into it if things get out of hand.
Mutually assured destruction.
Now you are making sense: American policies are anti- American.
I think it means that in order not to have you call me anti-American, I have to be anti-American. Because, If I am pro-American, I am anti-American.
I am thankful you cleared that up.
Last edited:
Yes a nice glib convenient argument, where you are sooooo pro-American, that you support an American government that is pushing pro-Russian talking points.
That is cute. However, answer the question below.
Would you argue that Nazi Germany's policies were "pro-Germany"?
Last edited:
Putin will go ROFL receiving the demand of not using nuclear
weapons subimitted to him from NATO. Did Iran ever openly demand
Israel not to use nuclear weapons? I guess they couldn't be that
dumb even if they are defenceless in a nuclear war with Israel.
I think it is pretty childish of you to think that NATO would "submit any kind of demand" to Putin.
The threat of nuclear weapons exists and does not have to be mentioned.
My question is for those people who keep going on about WW3.
If there is a threat of WW3, then it is a threat for everyone involved. Russia included.
So it makes sense to expect and demand that Russia, being the aggressor here take steps to increase the peace and avoid such a scenario.
May I respectfully suggest that you stop digging. Otherwise you will argue that the Soviet Union was pro Germany during WWII.
You mean you don't want to get into it and risk digging that hole deeper for yourself?
I don't mind. Not my doing.
But answer my question.
Would you argue that Hitler's policies were "pro-Germany"?
Ukraine no longer has to abide by US demands not to bomb deep into russia.
Is this accurate?
Is this accurate?
