liberal hypocrisies

[My Wife Hates CIV]

‘There’s no response to that craziness’ this is what the 'shot' doctor said about going after him. hmmm... the very thing i said about the shot and masks long ago. go ahead... look up my past posts. and i am not even a doctor. but i did stay at a hotel 8 (or is it motel).... or whatever. you silly stupid liberals.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

"The Biden administration is considering detaining migrant families who cross into the U.S. illegally"

wow! if this is not liberal hypocrisy than what is? please do tell liberals... what changed? i guess it's time to look for votes. 2024 is just around the corner.

[Geronimo]

I totally agree that sanctions should be reserved for extreme dangers to world peace or to independently verified crimes against humanity. Stopping earthquake relief puts the cart before the horse.

[Berzerker]

Progressive Congressional Democrats voted to maintain sanctions on quake ravaged Syria, Republicans Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene voted against sanctions.

https://thegrayzone.com/2023/03/04/h...ns-earthquake/

[Geronimo]

So you agree Azov over ruled Zelensky? Now where do we enter the picture? US Senators from both parties took photo-ops with them while promising more weapons. We armed Nazis to kill people who didn't want to be ruled by them. It would stop if we told Ukraine to end the war, Russia would get what it already had (Crimea) and the Donbas would overwhelmingly vote for independence like they've been doing for decades.

"Over ruled" is dejure. Azov doesn't over rule they defy. But back to that. You have claimed and Russian propaganda all over the world declares that Nazis kept breaking the peace. Where is the evidence? How do you know the Separatists never broke the peace? That is how it started you know, in 2014? They armed and they occupied. You claim Azov exists only because the West armed them? Who armed the Separatists? Themselves? Why couldn't Azov arm themselves? You have photo ops of congressman as proof that the US created Azov? Why don't photos of Russian forces and parliamentarians with the separatists prove Russia created the separatists? You act like if a paramilitary force is indigenous there will be no outside assistance to it. Total BS Berz.

And yet both Russia and the people of the Donbas supported Minsk. Did the US want to end that war but Azov disobeyed Kiev and Washington so we kept arming them anyway?

Let's nail this down. Just how much arming do you believe Ukraine obtained from the US 2014 to 2021? Do you have a source? How the hell do you believe that pittance of material in a war that stalemated on an enormous front with 14k casualties could maintain the conflict?

They dont care about the Crimea, that was Russian in the 90s and the people opposed joining Ukraine. Kiev was starving Crimeans and damming their water, the dam was one of Russia's first targets.

it was that or war. Cooperation would be used to argue defacto territorial concessions and acceptance.

Thats why they agreed to Minsk, to give Ukraine time to arm for the coming war. Neocons dont care if Ukrainians die, look at what they did to Syria and a half dozen other countries. Neocons probably hate Azov as much as they hate ISIS, but they're good soldiers so Neocons are happy to arm them.

If you oppose sending the desperate Ukrainians more arms it would appear that you don't care if Ukrainians die either Berz.

Obama was arming ISIS in western Syria while bombing ISIS in eastern Syria.

evidence? No US president saw ISIS as the lesser of any evils.

The US does not want Russia and Europe being friendly, that weakens US hegemony. German capital and Russian resources reduce our power and influence in the world. We have all sorts of reasons to drive a wedge between them.

.
The US didn't drive a wedge between Russia and Europe. Putin did. Just ask a European

Cant do that with a nuclear power, they have to bled into submission followed by regime change. We did it to Gorby in Afghanistan, Yeltsin took over with our help and we moved Nato right up to Russia's border. Ukraine was perfect for our plans, only a non-Nato country could play host to our proxy war with Russia.

if it was so easy to start and maintain an insurgency war against an ally to be supported by an enemy intervening on the insurgency side while all of the other actors except for ourselves would lose all agency except for ourselvesncy in the conflict, then why haven't the US' enemies used this brilliantly devious plan against the West? The problem with the master plan you envision is it could never work if all of the other parties weren't somehow on board.

Ukraine cant win, we wouldn't be doing this if they could. Thats why we wont give them the support they need to threaten Russia. At this point Russia has an increasing motive to take Kiev and expand the war beyond taking the Donbas to force a deal. This could have been avoided but neocons have been salivating over this war for a long time. Trump's biggest mistake was letting this fester, but even congressional Repubs want it.

how would the US have avoided it? What do you suppose Putin's evil neocons salivate for? Could Putin himself be an evil Russian neocon? Maybe that's not possible. Perhaps like minorities can't be racists?

Why would Russia want a proxy war on its border? The Donbas separatists weren't attacking Kiev, they were attacked by Kiev. They (and Crimea) wanted independence from Ukraine in the 90s and probably felt betrayed by Moscow when that was denied. Russia made a deal to keep its naval base in Crimea and the people had more autonomy from Ukraine. I believe the people of Crimea and the Donbas had the right to separate from the coup government in 2014 and I believe they had the right to separate back in the 90s. It was their land, empires crumble and dissolve but the people remain.

they apparently decided they'd rather have a hot war on their border. Just think how bad it would be if they had neocons!

When there were actual and more recent independence referendums in the Donbas, independence lost. Regardless, I hope you realize that if only small powers must break up and shed territory when any plurality of any portion of their people even temporarily signs off on it then as a result the kind of world hegemony great game neocon style tyranny you say you hate so much will be far more prevalent and much harder to constrain in the world that results.

[PLATO]

After arming Nazis to kill eastern Ukrainians and Islamic terrorists to kill Syrians for years, Joe Biden was inspired in 2017 by neo-Nazis at Charlottesville Va to run for President. The stench of that hypocrisy would repel starving vultures.

Yes...I was thinking of this the other day when I noticed pigs flying by my window.

[BeBMan]

After arming Nazis to kill eastern Ukrainians and Islamic terrorists to kill Syrians for years, Joe Biden was inspired in 2017 by neo-Nazis at Charlottesville Va to run for President. The stench of that hypocrisy would repel starving vultures.

Great example of demagogy

[Berzerker]

This thread has migrated from liberal hypocrisies to right wing conspiracies. I support pluralism.

After arming Nazis to kill eastern Ukrainians and Islamic terrorists to kill Syrians for years, Joe Biden was inspired in 2017 by neo-Nazis at Charlottesville Va to run for President. The stench of that hypocrisy would repel starving vultures.

[Berzerker]

Do you honestly believe it takes more than one party to keep a war going? Do you honestly believe peace is as easy as signing a treaty? How would Zelensky disarm the local paramilitaries that were fighting the separatists? Send the Ukrainian armed forces to attack them until they surrendered?

So you agree Azov over ruled Zelensky? Now where do we enter the picture? US Senators from both parties took photo-ops with them while promising more weapons. We armed Nazis to kill people who didn't want to be ruled by them. It would stop if we told Ukraine to end the war, Russia would get what it already had (Crimea) and the Donbas would overwhelmingly vote for independence like they've been doing for decades.

Maybe instead of the continued fighting proving that Washington and the Nazis were the real power in control, the continued fighting showed that nobody had real leverage to control anybody in Ukraine, making any peace treaty dead on arrival.

And yet both Russia and the people of the Donbas supported Minsk. Did the US want to end that war but Azov disobeyed Kiev and Washington so we kept arming them anyway?

In 2013, Ukraine lost a big chunk of territory to a neighboring country that millions of Ukrainians already viewed as a genocidal conqueror. Ukrainians opposing peace with Russia isn't evidence of being Washington puppets. Its evidence of millions holding an intergenerational grudge that the Crimea conquest totally inflamed.

They dont care about the Crimea, that was Russian in the 90s and the people opposed joining Ukraine. Kiev was starving Crimeans and damming their water, the dam was one of Russia's first targets.

You claim over and over that Washington wanted war between Russia and Ukraine. Do you really believe they thought Russia wouldn't curb stomp their puppet Ukraine? If Ukraine was a puppet and it lost the war, how would US neocon foreign policy not be much worse off than if war had been avoided?

Thats why they agreed to Minsk, to give Ukraine time to arm for the coming war. Neocons dont care if Ukrainians die, look at what they did to Syria and a half dozen other countries. Neocons probably hate Azov as much as they hate ISIS, but they're good soldiers so Neocons are happy to arm them. Obama was arming ISIS in western Syria while bombing ISIS in eastern Syria.

The US does not want Russia and Europe being friendly, that weakens US hegemony. German capital and Russian resources reduce our power and influence in the world. We have all sorts of reasons to drive a wedge between them.

Rather than wanting war between Russia and Ukraine the neocon agendas would almost certainly be better served by doing whatever they could to head off war until Ukraine was either in NATO or until it had access to modern military assets to offset an enormous Russian military advantage. A war that a puppet Ukraine immediately lost would definitely make Russia stronger and more secure relative to the West.

Cant do that with a nuclear power, they have to bled into submission followed by regime change. We did it to Gorby in Afghanistan, Yeltsin took over with our help and we moved Nato right up to Russia's border. Ukraine was perfect for our plans, only a non-Nato country could play host to our proxy war with Russia.

Of course a conflict would arise from that gaping rift. And of course in such a conflict Washington and the West would favor the non-Russian side and try to influence it. Rule number one in intervening in civil wars is do not, but rule number 2 is if you do, pick the side that will win and make sure it does. Of course Nuland and the government she worked for would favor cozying up to the anti-Russian that would actually win. This doesn't make Ukraine a puppet anymore than Trump winning in 2016 made the US a puppet of Russia.

Ukraine cant win, we wouldn't be doing this if they could. Thats why we wont give them the support they need to threaten Russia. At this point Russia has an increasing motive to take Kiev and expand the war beyond taking the Donbas to force a deal. This could have been avoided but neocons have been salivating over this war for a long time. Trump's biggest mistake was letting this fester, but even congressional Repubs want it.

Finally why are you sure Russia wanted peace in the Donbass? Wouldn't they actually want a frozen conflict? that's not necessarily peace is it? Washington probably preferred a frozen conflict as well. The people who didn't want a frozen conflict and wanted to keep fighting were surely the Donbass separatists and the anti-Russian Ukrainians. Why do you think Washington's help would be needed to make them fight each other or that the Ukrainian national government would be able to make them stop if only there were no outside interference?

Why would Russia want a proxy war on its border? The Donbas separatists weren't attacking Kiev, they were attacked by Kiev. They (and Crimea) wanted independence from Ukraine in the 90s and probably felt betrayed by Moscow when that was denied. Russia made a deal to keep its naval base in Crimea and the people had more autonomy from Ukraine. I believe the people of Crimea and the Donbas had the right to separate from the coup government in 2014 and I believe they had the right to separate back in the 90s. It was their land, empires crumble and dissolve but the people remain.

[PLATO]

This thread has migrated from liberal hypocrisies to right wing conspiracies. I support pluralism.

[BeBMan]

I quoted the available version in English. How is it inaccurate?

It is actually omitting a word which somewhat changes the meaning.

However, the whole spin you put on it is misleading and makes no sense logically/historically. Which is why I said it's completely out of context

[My Wife Hates CIV]

with all the latest news... ha! who didnt know... i am going to dig up the most liberal hypocrite posts here at poly. lets see who was spreading the most crap or believed the most silly. hmmm... whats the difference?!

[Geronimo]

By arming fanatics who kill Ukrainians for opposing their bloody coup. 3/4s of Ukraine elected Zelensky to end the war. Why did he fail? When he tried to remove Azov from a position because of Minsk they told him to get lost and he did. Zelensky would have been killed if he interfered just like the peace negotiator last year. Do you think the USA wanted peace in the Donbas? And there you go again telling me what I believe.

Do you honestly believe it takes more than one party to keep a war going? Do you honestly believe peace is as easy as signing a treaty? How would Zelensky disarm the local paramilitaries that were fighting the separatists? Send the Ukrainian armed forces to attack them until they surrendered? Do you think that would be recognized by his constituents as "ending the war"? Maybe instead of the continued fighting proving that Washington and the Nazis were the real power in control, the continued fighting showed that nobody had real leverage to control anybody in Ukraine, making any peace treaty dead on arrival.

In 2013, Ukraine lost a big chunk of territory to a neighboring country that millions of Ukrainians already viewed as a genocidal conqueror. Ukrainians opposing peace with Russia isn't evidence of being Washington puppets. Its evidence of millions holding an intergenerational grudge that the Crimea conquest totally inflamed.

Is Denys Kireyev the murdered peace negotiator you are referring to? He died March 5, 2022. It's safe to say he wasn't in a position to save Minsk at that point isn't it?

You claim over and over that Washington wanted war between Russia and Ukraine. Do you really believe they thought Russia wouldn't curb stomp their puppet Ukraine? If Ukraine was a puppet and it lost the war, how would US neocon foreign policy not be much worse off than if war had been avoided?

Rather than wanting war between Russia and Ukraine the neocon agendas would almost certainly be better served by doing whatever they could to head off war until Ukraine was either in NATO or until it had access to modern military assets to offset an enormous Russian military advantage. A war that a puppet Ukraine immediately lost would definitely make Russia stronger and more secure relative to the West.

Again try to interpret events in Ukraine as an indigenous conflict in a society split on a spectrum from deepest antipathy to Russia to actual preference to the Russian state over the Ukrainian one. Of course a conflict would arise from that gaping rift. And of course in such a conflict Washington and the West would favor the non-Russian side and try to influence it. Rule number one in intervening in civil wars is do not, but rule number 2 is if you do, pick the side that will win and make sure it does. Of course Nuland and the government she worked for would favor cozying up to the anti-Russian that would actually win. This doesn't make Ukraine a puppet anymore than Trump winning in 2016 made the US a puppet of Russia.

Finally why are you sure Russia wanted peace in the Donbass? Wouldn't they actually want a frozen conflict? that's not necessarily peace is it? Washington probably preferred a frozen conflict as well. The people who didn't want a frozen conflict and wanted to keep fighting were surely the Donbass separatists and the anti-Russian Ukrainians. Why do you think Washington's help would be needed to make them fight each other or that the Ukrainian national government would be able to make them stop if only there were no outside interference?

[Berzerker]

I quoted the available version in English. How is it inaccurate?

[BeBMan]

I dismissed Kid when he came up with it since he appeared to try to sell a theory as fact without any conclusive evidence. That should never be accepted.