dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

movielover said:

---

So how did the Progressives become war mongers? $$$?

---

Biden got us out of Afghanistan and gave us our first year without a hostile combat casualty since President Clinton.

You hate all of that and supported our entry into Iraq. You are the warmonger.

---

Uh, I guess you believe the 13 US Marines killed in the evacuation from Afghanistan, one of the most poorly planned military operations in the history of the US Military, were not hostile combat casualties. I think the Taliban suicide bomber who did the deed believed he was going into combat to give his life in combat. And the 13 Marines sure knew they were in a dangerous situation which could erupt into combat, which it did. Maybe you didn't think it was combat, but let's not spin this to try and make Biden look like someone he is not.

---

I kindly request you check the data at the link and admit your error
https://dcas.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/app/summaryData/deaths/byYearManner

---

I made no error. You wrote what appeared to me to be an ambiguous statement, that could be subject to different interpretations. I did not dispute that no combat casualties occurred in 2022, two years after Biden's disastrous pullout, and I wrote nothing about that, so why send me a link showing the 2022 data? If you want give Biden credit for keeping our casualties at zero for a year, then you have to give him some serious blame for the plan for leaving Afghanistan, and its execution, killing the Marines and so many Afghans friendly to us, not to mention the unforeseen damage to our image in the eyes of the world. To be fair to Biden, he was dealt a tough hand. The political leaders and generals before him did not do a good enough job subduing the Taliban, and never rendered them irrelevant, and it was Biden's job to end our presence and bring everyone home. That does not excuse, however, turning over airport security responsibility in our evacuation to the Taliban, nor does it excuse turning over a super-important strategic base in Bagram to the enemy, and nor does it excuse just handing over billions of equipment, vehicles, aircraft, guns and ammunition to them as well. How crazy was all that? I thank Biden for finally keeping our military out of combat for a year, but he has done a real disservice to Americans who funded his poorly planned and executed withdrawal from Afghanistan.

---

I'm glad we are in agreement that Biden gave us our first full year without hostile combat deaths since President Clinton even if pride prevented an admission of error on your part.

---

Facts are facts. Deal with it.

Yes, I'm presenting them. You are dancing.

I don't recall anyone on this board suggesting we invade a country. I think the argument here is isolationism vs non isolationism and I think reasonable minds can differ on that.

That's only one piece of the neocon program. The US has done everything it possibly can to provoke Russia into this war. You don't have to advocate invading a country to be a warmongering neocon.

The Conservatives that claim Putin is benign and acting within his rights engage in similar conduct relating to tRump.

That's not Russia realists have said at all. What they've said is that Russia's actions in light of US/NATO policy are not surprising in the least, war could have been avoided and peace could have been achieved earlier with sensible diplomacy.

Instead of acknowledging that tRump has horrible character and that they support him only because of his policies,

And Obama, Biden, and the Clintons have better character? You may find Trump boorish and unpresidential, but there is a lot more to character than that. I'll hold my nose and support Trump if the alternative is Biden any day of the week.

Anyone who takes that position has no credibility now that judges and juries are are making binding rulings, judgments and verdicts against him.

As if this means something in our completely corrupt justice system.

It is more a case that they have to be line item by line item against every Democrat position on a matter.

Or maybe it's that the Democrats are wrong on just about every freakin' issue. And old guard Republicans, frankly are only marginally better.

I don't recall anyone on this board suggesting we invade a country. I think the argument here is isolationism vs non isolationism and I think reasonable minds can differ on that.

Zippergate:
That's only one piece of the neocon program. The US has done everything it possibly can to provoke Russia into this war. You don't have to advocate invading a country to be a warmongering neocon.

Well, not everyone agrees Putin needed goading to act on his expansionist desires. I didn't do the research myself, so someone would have to explain to me why the allegations against Putin in this piece are false:

It's not NATO Putin always has had expansionist designs | The Hill


https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3884025-its-not-nato-putin-always-has-had-expansionist-designs/

The Conservatives that claim Putin is benign and acting within his rights engage in similar conduct relating to tRump.

Zippergate:
That's not Russia realists have said at all. What they've said is that Russia's actions in light of US/NATO policy are not surprising in the least, war could have been avoided and peace could have been achieved earlier with sensible diplomacy.

If the discussion in The Hill article is accurate, then it would appear an invasion was coming one way or the other eventually, and that once it occurred, any "peace" reached thereafter would greatly favor Russia.

Instead of acknowledging that tRump has horrible character and that they support him only because of his policies,

Zippergate:
And Obama, Biden, and the Clintons have better character? You may find Trump boorish and unpresidential, but there is a lot more to character than that. I'll hold my nose and support Trump if the alternative is Biden any day of the week.

Yes, I think all the people you list have better character than tRump, with the exception of Bill Clinton's sexual behavior (although tRump has a "sexual abuser" label stamped on him in a civil case). Conservatives spent millions chasing all the people you named and there has never been any successful court proceedings against them. tRump is facing 91 felony counts in 4 criminal cases and he has been adjudged a sexual abuser in a civil case and a business fraud (by partial summary judgment) in another civil case. I believe felony convictions will follow.


Anyone who takes that position has no credibility now that judges and juries are are making binding rulings, judgments and verdicts against him.


Zippergate;
As if this means something in our completely corrupt justice system.

On what do you base the allegation that we have a "completely corrupt justice system?" You make that claim in connection my statement that there have been rulings against tRump in civil court that he is a sexual abuser and a business fraud. Do you think those findings exemplify the corruption of the judicial system? Do you think the 91 felony counts against tRump in 4 separate criminal cases are demonstrative of a corrupt legal system? Why?

I can see some feeling that the best example of a corrupt judicial system is that it took 50 years for the long arm of the law to grab tRump by the neck and shake him.

It is more a case that they have to be line item by line item against every Democrat position on a matter.

Zippergate:
Or maybe it's that the Democrats are wrong on just about every freakin' issue. And old guard Republicans, frankly are only marginally better.

I believe at one point you supported Bernie Sanders. Aren't the positions of Democrats closer to Bernie's position on the issues than those of Republicans?

Seymour Hersh - more information from his CIA sources on our blowing up the Nordstream pipelines. Via Judge Napolitano. Germany warned in advance.

https://www.youtube.com/live/6lCBUTWlsos?si=66veAq6Rzm7RjfO7

bearister said:

---

I don't recall anyone on this board suggesting we invade a country. I think the argument here is isolationism vs non isolationism and I think reasonable minds can differ on that.

Zippergate:
That's only one piece of the neocon program. The US has done everything it possibly can to provoke Russia into this war. You don't have to advocate invading a country to be a warmongering neocon.

Well, not everyone agrees Putin needed goading to act on his expansionist desires. I didn't do the research myself, so someone would have to explain to me why the allegations against Putin in this piece are false:

It's not NATO Putin always has had expansionist designs | The Hill


https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3884025-its-not-nato-putin-always-has-had-expansionist-designs/

The Conservatives that claim Putin is benign and acting within his rights engage in similar conduct relating to tRump.

Zippergate:
That's not Russia realists have said at all. What they've said is that Russia's actions in light of US/NATO policy are not surprising in the least, war could have been avoided and peace could have been achieved earlier with sensible diplomacy.

If the discussion in The Hill article is accurate, then it would appear an invasion was coming one way or the other eventually, and that once it occurred, any "peace" reached thereafter would greatly favor Russia.

...

---

The Hill article is an opinion piece by an academic from Western Ukraine.

The analysis of high level intel insiders like William Burns and that of leading realist academics like Mearsheimer completely contradicts the opinion piece from the Hill:

I don't have the expertise to argue with you. I pretty much have to go with my gut instinct based on life experience and observation. My gut tells me that when it comes to debating Putin's motivation in the Ukraine, I am going to come down on the side of expansionism based on his aggressive nature.

These are the prominent critics and enemies Putin is suspected of having killed - Business Insider India


https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/heres-a-list-of-putin-critics-whove-ended-up-dead/articleshow/96552002.cms


*I assume some will say Putin is innocent of these allegations but it seems inherently more believable to me that the list of enemies Bill & Hill have allegedly had offed.

*And with regard to the argument repeated in this thread that portrays Putin as the savior of people mistreated by the Ukrainian government, couldn't that be used as a justification for the invasion of numerous countries throughout the world?

Burns piece is ultimately also an opinion piece.

From the linked article:
"Second, the fact that Sweden's and Finland's choice to join NATO has elicited no Russian saber-rattling shows that the problem wasn't NATO enlargement; it is Ukraine, which, in Putin's mind, has no right to exist.

***
Fourth, there are piles of evidence demonstrating that Putin has had expansionist designs from his first days in office. Just ask the Chechens, Moldovans, Crimean Tatars, Georgians and Ukrainians. Read Putin's texts, in which he bemoans the USSR's collapse and denies the legitimacy of Ukraine's existence. Listen to his advisers who have openly called for the destruction of Ukraine and its people. Read Yudin and scores of Russian analysts who think just like him.

Fifth, even if we assume that NATO's long-term plans were nefarious, it is impossible to claim that Putin's decision to launch a total war against all of Ukraine, and then to embark on genocide, could possibly be the consequence of Russian pique at Western indifference to its security needs. Mearsheimer might have been right had Putin limited his "special military operation" to the Donbas, but no amount of pique could explain an all-out assault and mass murder."

tequila4kapp said:

---

Burns piece is ultimately also an opinion piece.

From the linked article:
"Second, the fact that Sweden's and Finland's choice to join NATO has elicited no Russian saber-rattling shows that the problem wasn't NATO enlargement; it is Ukraine, which, in Putin's mind, has no right to exist.

***
Fourth, there are piles of evidence demonstrating that Putin has had expansionist designs from his first days in office. Just ask the Chechens, Moldovans, Crimean Tatars, Georgians and Ukrainians. Read Putin's texts, in which he bemoans the USSR's collapse and denies the legitimacy of Ukraine's existence. Listen to his advisers who have openly called for the destruction of Ukraine and its people. Read Yudin and scores of Russian analysts who think just like him.

Fifth, even if we assume that NATO's long-term plans were nefarious, it is impossible to claim that Putin's decision to launch a total war against all of Ukraine, and then to embark on genocide, could possibly be the consequence of Russian pique at Western indifference to its security needs. Mearsheimer might have been right had Putin limited his "special military operation" to the Donbas, but no amount of pique could explain an all-out assault and mass murder."

---

Second: This is cherry picking. Russia has been clear for more than two decades that NATO expansion is provocative and imperils its security. Endless broken US/NATO promises on this issue have added to the insecurity.

Fourth: How much territory has Russia taken in these countries? What has been the CIA's involvement in these areas? Whether Putin bemoans the USSR's collapse or not says nothing about his desire or intention to recreate it. As for Putin advisers calling for the destruction of Ukraine, such statements must be understood in light of the Maidan coup, the Ukrainian military buildup, the treatment of Russians in Donbas, etc.

Fifth: The invasion WAS limited; Russia's invasion force at the start was not nearly enough to take the country. The plan was not for the total destruction of the country but for a negotiated peace which was torpedoed by the US and UK.

In the end, two facts separate these opposing views. One, history has played out largely as predicted by Mearsheimer and others; that has to add credibility to their view. Two, any talk of what Putin would have done had the US/NATO not provoked Russia is counterfactual. We will never know; that ship has sailed.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Burns piece is ultimately also an opinion piece.

From the linked article:
"Second, the fact that Sweden's and Finland's choice to join NATO has elicited no Russian saber-rattling shows that the problem wasn't NATO enlargement; it is Ukraine, which, in Putin's mind, has no right to exist.

***
...

Fifth, even if we assume that NATO's long-term plans were nefarious, it is impossible to claim that Putin's decision to launch a total war against all of Ukraine, and then to embark on genocide, could possibly be the consequence of Russian pique at Western indifference to its security needs. Mearsheimer might have been right had Putin limited his "special military operation" to the Donbas, but no amount of pique could explain an all-out assault and mass murder."

---

What silly allegations. Finland is over 1,000 kilometers from Moscow, and Sweden over 1400 kilometers. Last I read, NATO also hasn't been arming them for a decade as a stalking horse. NATO = FAFO

Where is the genocide? Cal88 here asserts - with multiple sources - that civilian deaths have been remarkably low.

You ignore major treaties:

Minsk 1 and 2, which the west openly said was a ruse to gain time to build up the Ukrainian military.

Putin allegedly signed a Peace Agreement early on in the SMO, which our proxy, Boris Johnson, rebuked. The rebuke included promises from the USA to arm Ukraine to the hilt - which the DC MIC loves.

You ignore Ukrainian Nazis.

Putin has concentrated most efforts in the East, but if NATO / USA drag this out, he may go all the way to the Polish border. Our 44 PC Generals can't even supply our proxy with critical, baseline ammunition!

Zippergate said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Burns piece is ultimately also an opinion piece.

From the linked article:
"Second, the fact that Sweden's and Finland's choice to join NATO has elicited no Russian saber-rattling shows that the problem wasn't NATO enlargement; it is Ukraine, which, in Putin's mind, has no right to exist.

***
Fourth, there are piles of evidence demonstrating that Putin has had expansionist designs from his first days in office. Just ask the Chechens, Moldovans, Crimean Tatars, Georgians and Ukrainians. Read Putin's texts, in which he bemoans the USSR's collapse and denies the legitimacy of Ukraine's existence. Listen to his advisers who have openly called for the destruction of Ukraine and its people. Read Yudin and scores of Russian analysts who think just like him.

Fifth, even if we assume that NATO's long-term plans were nefarious, it is impossible to claim that Putin's decision to launch a total war against all of Ukraine, and then to embark on genocide, could possibly be the consequence of Russian pique at Western indifference to its security needs. Mearsheimer might have been right had Putin limited his "special military operation" to the Donbas, but no amount of pique could explain an all-out assault and mass murder."

---

Second: This is cherry picking. Russia has been clear for more than two decades that NATO expansion is provocative and imperils its security. Endless broken US/NATO promises on this issue have added to the insecurity.

Fourth: How much territory has Russia taken in these countries? What has been the CIA's involvement in these areas? Whether Putin bemoans the USSR's collapse or not says nothing about his desire or intention to recreate it. As for Putin advisers calling for the destruction of Ukraine, such statements must be understood in light of the Maidan coup, the Ukrainian military buildup, the treatment of Russians in Donbas, etc.

Fifth: The invasion WAS limited; Russia's invasion force at the start was not nearly enough to take the country. The plan was not for the total destruction of the country but for a negotiated peace which was torpedoed by the US and UK.

In the end, two facts separate these opposing views. One, history has played out largely as predicted by Mearsheimer and others; that has to add credibility to their view. Two, any talk of what Putin would have done had the US/NATO not provoked Russia is counterfactual. We will never know; that ship has sailed.

---

Claiming the invasion was limited is so patently absurd that I conclude you don't have enough objectivity / credibility to debate or discuss this any further. Have a nice day.

It was limited. You don't take Kiev with 20,000 troops. Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

Putin claimed he signed a Peace deal early on, which Boris Johnson (USA) rejected. Why do you omit this?

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

---

In other news, the US avoided targeting Japanese Americans during WW2, Hitler avoided killing Jews and the KKK avoided lynching people.

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

---

In other news, the US avoided targeting Japanese Americans during WW2, Hitler avoided killing Jews and the KKK avoided lynching people.

---

Cal88 has the receipts.

movielover said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

---

In other news, the US avoided targeting Japanese Americans during WW2, Hitler avoided killing Jews and the KKK avoided lynching people.

---

Cal88 has the receipts.

---

A major element of Russia's winter strategy was to bomb civilian infrastructure, namely the power grid. It happened so regularly and was so prominent that it is an absurdity to the Nth degree to claim civilians and infrastructure were not targeted, regardless of whatever receipts people think Cal88 may have.

Zippergate said:

---

Second: This is cherry picking. Russia has been clear for more than two decades that NATO expansion is provocative and imperils its security. Endless broken US/NATO promises on this issue have added to the insecurity.

---

Oh, well if Russia told the rest of the world what to do, then of course it's not their fault that they invaded another country. I mean other countries aren't allowed to self-determine or create alliances because it makes the Russians nervous and that is a real reason. And of course the Russians had every reason to believe that NATO was days away from a full scale invasion because that's what NATO does all the time. And Putin has always been a pacifist and completely forthright and honest with his objectives and intentions. It's the lying hawkish imperialistic NATO that has secret agencies and kills political opponents and spreads misinformation and propaganda. And I mean if Russia's economy and political system would even look bad by comparison if its democratic neighbors were prospering and free, then that's no fair. Make Putin look bad is totally another great reason to side with him in his war and conquest and killing of his brothers.

It's all so clear. Putin is virtue, and NATO is corrupt and deserves everything they get. F America and our fascist alliances!

NATO should pay more, why should we? Putin obviously has plans to take over Poland and move west to Berlin, Paris, and London.

Nice word salad.

tequila4kapp said:

---

movielover said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

---

In other news, the US avoided targeting Japanese Americans during WW2, Hitler avoided killing Jews and the KKK avoided lynching people.

---

Cal88 has the receipts.

---

A major element of Russia's winter strategy was to bomb civilian infrastructure, namely the power grid. It happened so regularly and was so prominent that it is an absurdity to the Nth degree to claim civilians and infrastructure were not targeted, regardless of whatever receipts people think Cal88 may have.

---

WINTER strategy. When did the war start? When did the US go nuclear on sanctions? When did US /NATO go all in on the proxy war? When was the peace deal rejected? The timeline matters. The details matter.

Amazing and sad chart from NYT on how virtually nothing has changed from 9 months of tragically deadly and expensive fighting in Ukraine throughout 2023:

Pink zones show parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia since January.

Blue shows gains by Ukraine. Red shows gains by Russia. pic.twitter.com/5y9oc7ZbOJ

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 28, 2023

Many really smart comments in that x thread.

Zippergate said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

movielover said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

---

In other news, the US avoided targeting Japanese Americans during WW2, Hitler avoided killing Jews and the KKK avoided lynching people.

---

Cal88 has the receipts.

---

A major element of Russia's winter strategy was to bomb civilian infrastructure, namely the power grid. It happened so regularly and was so prominent that it is an absurdity to the Nth degree to claim civilians and infrastructure were not targeted, regardless of whatever receipts people think Cal88 may have.

---

WINTER strategy. When did the war start?

---

Oh so if it happened later in the war then it doesn't count! Noted.

Zippergate said:

---

Nice word salad.

---

When you deploy expressions, do you attempt to learn their meaning and usage first?

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Amazing and sad chart from NYT on how virtually nothing has changed from 9 months of tragically deadly and expensive fighting in Ukraine throughout 2023:

Pink zones show parts of Ukraine occupied by Russia since January.

Blue shows gains by Ukraine. Red shows gains by Russia. pic.twitter.com/5y9oc7ZbOJ

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 28, 2023

---

The facts may be accurate but as usual Greenwald is missing the point.

Like most of his takes, he's been wrong about this war from day one. Let's look at what he said literally the day before Putin invaded:

The problem is that the CIA told the US media to tell everyone that they knew exactly what Putin was saying and deciding, and that he had decided on a full invasion of Ukraine, so they have to call it an "invasion" otherwise this whole media/government act will seem like a fraud: https://t.co/cjiQ4Vr3x4

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 23, 2022

He's been against support for Ukraine and everything he says is designed to buttress that point.

Without international support, Russia would have captured Kyiv and eliminated Ukraine from the map. With international support, and the the stalwart efforts of Ukraine's armed forces, Russia hasn't lost ground over the past 18 months. In other words, Russia hasn't been able to capture any Ukrainian territory on a net basis since the spring of 2022.

Despite all of their claims of superiority and escalatory dominance, Russia hasn't been able to prove it at all on the battle field. Ukraine's counter-offensive hasn't gone as quickly as hoped, but it's accomplished more than any Russian offensive since spring of 2022.

Putin supporters love to spread a lot of hopium about Russia's eventual military success but the fact is that other than Wagner's pyrrhic victory in Bakhmut, which was of no strategic value, Russia has no military gains to show for the last 18 months. They've also burned through the vast majority of their ~16m shell artillery stockpile which took decades to build, they've lost ships to a country with no navy, airplanes to a country which doesn't really have an air force any more (although Russia thinks their planes are invincible now because they are using tires as shields), Ukraine has destroyed a significant portion of Russia's air defenses, tanks, military leadership, ammunition depots and has proven that they can reach Moscow and other cities with drones. Russian electronic warfare to defend Moscow from drones has rendered a lot of their cab drivers ineffective because they can no longer rely on GPS nav. And that's without getting into the massive brain drain which was already a problem for Russia before this dumb invasion.

But yes, Glenn, this dumb war has seen very little land exchanged in the past year. His hope is that international support for Ukraine will end and that Russia will be permitted to take Kyiv, kill Zelensky and achieve Putin's revanchist dreams.

Zippergate said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

movielover said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

---

In other news, the US avoided targeting Japanese Americans during WW2, Hitler avoided killing Jews and the KKK avoided lynching people.

---

Cal88 has the receipts.

---

A major element of Russia's winter strategy was to bomb civilian infrastructure, namely the power grid. It happened so regularly and was so prominent that it is an absurdity to the Nth degree to claim civilians and infrastructure were not targeted, regardless of whatever receipts people think Cal88 may have.

---

WINTER strategy. When did the war start? When did the US go nuclear on sanctions? When did US /NATO go all in on the proxy war? When was the peace deal rejected? The timeline matters. The details matter.

---

No. No word games. The assertion was that Russia has not targeted civilians and/or infrastructure. That is factually incorrect. If we cannot agree on basic facts then there is zero point in having discussions about anything. It is a simple indisputable fact that Russia targeted civilian infrastructure, namely Ukraine's power grid.

From 2022 (sub-title: But it is all about NATO!!!)

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-war-began-putin-rejected-ukraine-peace-deal-recommended-by-his-aide-2022-09-14/

Vladimir Putin's chief envoy on Ukraine told the Russian leader as the war began that he had struck a provisional deal with Kyiv that would satisfy Russia's demand that Ukraine stay out of NATO, but Putin rejected it and pressed ahead with his military campaign, according to three people close to the Russian leadership.
* * *
Putin had repeatedly asserted prior to the war that NATO and its military infrastructure were creeping closer to Russia's borders by accepting new members from eastern Europe, and that the alliance was now preparing to bring Ukraine into its orbit too. Putin publicly said that represented an existential threat to Russia, forcing him to react.

But, despite earlier backing the negotiations, Putin made it clear when presented with Kozak's deal that the concessions negotiated by his aide did not go far enough and that he had expanded his objectives to include annexing swathes of Ukrainian territory, the sources said. The upshot: the deal was dropped.

The article I linked from The Hill further back in the thread concluded:

"In a word, the NATO argument is dead wrong on so many counts that arguing against it is a bit like trying to convince members of the Flat Earth Society that they might be out of step with reality. Yet some are wedded to theoretical schemes and nothing can affect their beliefs."

*I think you have to trust Putin to accept the NATO argument. I never have and never will trust Putin.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

movielover said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

movielover said:

---

Russia also avoided hitting civilian targets / infrastructure.

---

No they haven't.

---

In other news, the US avoided targeting Japanese Americans during WW2, Hitler avoided killing Jews and the KKK avoided lynching people.

---

Cal88 has the receipts.

---

A major element of Russia's winter strategy was to bomb civilian infrastructure, namely the power grid. It happened so regularly and was so prominent that it is an absurdity to the Nth degree to claim civilians and infrastructure were not targeted, regardless of whatever receipts people think Cal88 may have.

---

WINTER strategy. When did the war start? When did the US go nuclear on sanctions? When did US /NATO go all in on the proxy war? When was the peace deal rejected? The timeline matters. The details matter.

---

No. No word games. The assertion was that Russia has not targeted civilians and/or infrastructure. That is factually incorrect. If we cannot agree on basic facts then there is zero point in having discussions about anything. It is a simple indisputable fact that Russia targeted civilian infrastructure, namely Ukraine's power grid.

---

-The Russians fired close to 10 million shells, and tens of thousands of missiles, drones and aerial PGMs and bombs in the course of this war so far. The total number of civilians killed in this war is around 10,000-15,000, roughly 1 civilian death for every 1,000 shells fired.

-Those bombardments have resulted in the death of over 400,000 Ukrainian soldiers, and at least as many injured. The ratio of civilians to militar killed by Russia in this war is around 2%-3%. In US-led invasions like Iraq or Afghanistan, or Vietnam before that, that ratio was above 80%, orders of magnitude higher.

-Ukraine uses human shields as its MO, consistently commandeering civilian structures as cover for their military operations, putting garrisons adn weapons caches in schools, hospitals, shopping malls etc

‼️🚨I’ll take this opportunity to tell the story of an oppressed Ukrainian refugee to debunk the community note.

1) Her name is Valeria Bratsa
2) She is from Kremenchug in Ukraine
3) She was asking the government uncomfortable questions (video)

1/ -> she had to move to Russia https://t.co/8cCtFrHsCu pic.twitter.com/8nssTGKc9H

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) September 2, 2023

Quote:

---

Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians

Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm's way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, including in schools and hospitals, as they repelled the Russian invasion that began in February, Amnesty International said today.

Such tactics violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians, as they turn civilian objects into military targets. The ensuing Russian strikes in populated areas have killed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure.

"We have documented a pattern of Ukrainian forces putting civilians at risk and violating the laws of war when they operate in populated areas," said Agns Callamard, Amnesty International's Secretary General.

---

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/

-Ukraine fired missiles at its own civilian targets and blamed the Russians for that. Most recently, they fired a missile into a farmers market a few weeks ago. forensic evidence showed that it was a Ukrainian missile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/18/world/europe/ukraine-missile-kostiantynivka-market.html
(note: the only reason the NYT retracted its original accusation of Russia is that the evidence against that was overwhelming)

-Ukraine has been bombing Donbass civilian targets practically non-stop since 2014, using cluster bombs on cities, notably on Donetsk. Ukraine has killed about as many civilians in the Donbass between 2014 and 2021 as the total number of civilians killed by both sides since the Russian invasion.

Forgotten cluster bomb news:
New York Times reports on October 20, 2014, that the #Ukrainian regime dropped cluster bombs on #Russian speaking Ukrainians in #Donetsk. pic.twitter.com/MTpmSjvE30

— tim anderson (@timand2037) July 19, 2023

‼️🇺🇦🇷🇺 Ukrainians used CLUSTER MUNITIONS against civilians in Donetsk

The residential area is full of holes caused by the submunitions, a bomb squad has to sweep the streets for unexploded bomblets pic.twitter.com/hE2l2vthbf

— What the media hides. (@narrative_hole) August 31, 2023

-Since the beginning of this war, there has been a remarkable state of normalcy maintained in Ukrainian cities away from the frontline. The Russians did not go out of their way to disrupt their daily lives. There has not been a shortage of staples including food, gas etc and relatively little hardship on the general population, considering the scale of the carnage at the frontlines.

-The Russian bombings on powerplants and the railway power grid were primarily motivated by the military aspect of that infrastructure. The railway grid in Ukraine is electrified, by knocking the power the Russians disrupt Ukrainian transport logistics.

US "winning" the economic war too

Urals crude oil from Russia has surged above $85 a barrel — but I got a photo inside the secret department producing the piece of paper known as “attestation” to comply with the G-7 oil price cap of $60-a-barrel that proves all is good | #OOTT pic.twitter.com/suhK0yKUuR

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) September 28, 2023

"Urals crude oil from Russia has surged above $85 a barrel but I got a photo inside the secret department producing the piece of paper known as "attestation" to comply with the G-7 oil price cap of $60-a-barrel that proves all is good | #OOTT"
[url=https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1707343826229051492/photo/1][/url]
[url=https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1707343826229051492/photo/1][/url]

How committed are the Dems to funding Ukraine? The Senate just tried to pass a bill that no matter what happens in the house our military would be funded if there's a shutdown. Every Dem voted it down lol. Even Harry Reid would pass military funding back in 2013 when they had a shut down. Patty Murray even knows its wrong what they're doing but still voted to object lol. This is all so they can go to the media and say "See what the republicans are doing!! They're shutting our government down" when this is all about ukraine funding. Gaetz and the Freedom Caucus voted down a CR because they keep sticking in Ukraine money...its a joke.

movielover said:

---

You ignore Ukrainian Nazis.

---

Americans ignore the Ukraine Nazi problem while the Canadians openly celebrate them.