US/NATO rule out halt to expansion,reject Russia demands.

Well ok, when universities say we are as bad as Nazis, that's self hate.
And what part of us is as bad as Nazis? Well, all of it - our homophobia,
sexism, racism, emperialism, Capitalism, exploitation, militarism etc..
And Nazi churches, parliament, politicians, lawyers, historians, education,
police, medical etc.. That's why the state of Maryland voted 44% to get
rid of its police, and one million most-antivaxers are dead, and most doctors
and scientists now are Chinese or Indians.
And don't you know that science itself is an indispensible part of the world
wrecking Capitalist system? Says who? A growing body of Woke, Socialist,
Green and alternative movements who have won the cultural wars.

 

A "history" of using biological weapons?

Then point out at minimum three times the U.S. government authorized the use of biological weapons.

And not "allegations". Actually proven instances.

 

Mr. Trump is not responsible for aggression from either Russia or China.

Russia and China are responsible for Russian and Chinese aggression.

 

No. They have been at war with Russia since 2014 because Russia invaded them.

Doubtful. But I wouldn't blame them if they did. Russia needs to stop committing atrocities against innocent civilians.

Russia's demonization of their victims is horrible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Kiev
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_Hetmanate

I'll blame Russia for Russian aggression.

Israel would be an excellent member of NATO.

NATO did not destroy Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia destroyed itself.

No they didn't.

 

How do you get from "waiting 20 years" to "waiting a month"?

I recommend waiting much longer than a month.

 

Because we will not put up with an invasion of the EU. We will destroy it directly with our own bullets.

Russia will not emerge victorious. We will use tactical nukes if conventional force fails to dislodge an invasion of the EU.

I believe I've heard something about China building a canal in Panama too.

 

The Serbs were merely one side in a civil war where all sides were guilty.

The bombing sure killed a lot of innocent people.

 

More that they never agreed to the ceasefire.

No such slaughter. Serbia was merely defending themselves from terrorists like we defended ourselves after 9/11.

It didn't happen. Serbia was merely defending themselves from terrorists, like the US did after 9/11.

 

Exhumations at Srebrenica in 1996
Serb massacre.

 

All sides committed genocide in that war. But what does it have to do with Kosovo in 1999?

 

And all sides committed atrocities in WW2, but there were fundamental, philosophical differences.

 

What Russian and Chinese aggression is that?

Russia trying to reestablish control over territory it had held from 1667 to 1989 in Ukraine?

Or China trying to reestablish control over territory it lost in 1949?

Mind, that's no less aggression on sovereign territories but they do have considerable historic claim which should count for something.

 

I am not aware of the US and UK committing any atrocities in WWII.

 

Russia has also attacked Georgia. And they may attack Moldova. And they may attack the Baltic states.

We will defend the Baltic states, with nuclear weapons if necessary.

China has no claim to Taiwan. China has held Taiwan for only 212 years out of China's 4000 year history.

China also has no claim to Tibet and East Turkestan. They certainly shouldn't be committing genocide in either place.

 

Depends who you ask. The wholesale bombing of civilian cities is considered by some to be a war crime.
The casual killing of surrendering or surrendered combatants by Americans and Australians is another
case.
The latter is problematic because angry young men in combat will do all sorts of things. The latter is more
difficult to dismiss. But even here the aim wasn't to kill because you hate a race, or kill to assist in taking
their land.
And thus we land at the mass killing of Muslims in Europe. That's genocide.

 

With Ukraine. This island belonged to the indigenous peoples the Portugese encountered when they
discoverd the island. Sure, Chinese did some to settle there - but at no time did the Communist Party
rule Taiwan. And that's the issue.
Russia promised not to invade Ukraine if that nation relinquished its nuclear weapons. Russia did some
terrible things to the Ukraine. It has every right to join NATO and the EU should it wish to. Did not Putin
say, just weeks ago, that Russia, as a sovereign nation, has every right to do what it wants within its own
borders? Same with every one else - including the Baltics also under Russian pressure.

 

Russia is a duplicitous actor, very unreliable for any country to be foolish enough to rely on them.1 Otherwise, the world would be a safer place if all that mattered to the Russians wasn't figuring a way to betray others in order to win over the acceptance of the Europeans and Uncle Sam.

1- Even though I certainly shed no tears seeing the gangster leader, Saddam, brought back to size in the wake of Desert Storm*, it still remains true that the Russians betrayed their ally at the time. In fact, the ultimate ease of the ground operations were in no small measure thanks to a last minute deal the Russians hoisted on Saddam to order the withdrawal of his troops from Kuwait on the eve of the ground invasion, leaving Saddam's army being slaughtered in a turkey-shoot on the so-called "highway of death". In fact, even Assad was always a deal away from being sacrificed by the Russians and would not be in power today but for the support Iran gave him when his days seemed numbered. It was only after Assad had weathered the early storm that the Russians, being already sanctioned by the US then because of "Ukraine", found the courage to intervene beyond words and help out. Otherwise, the fate of other Russian allies in the region, including Saddam and Qaddafi, tells you the value others should put on Russian friendship.

*Beside Russia and the Warsaw Pact, the US itself had propped up and helped grow beyond his britches (giving a green light to its Arab minions in the "GCC" to finance his armies -- at the tune of $500 billion in 1980's figures ((which would be equivalent to a couple of trillion today)) -- and its NATO allies to supply and arm, including with chemical weapons the US knew Saddam was using and would be using against Iranian troop concentrations when the US was supplying him with critical battlefield intelligence)). In Desert Storm, the Americans were merely bringing back to size the monster they had helped create to contain Iran.

 

So? That's an inevitable part of war.

 

Not all killing of innocents is inevitable in war - so a fallacy right off the hop - but assuming you meant "some killing" is inevitable (and be sure to clarify) some actions in war - resulting in killing of innocents - are more aggregious than others , hence why we call these more aggregious actions - "War Crimes / Crimes against Humanity".

You dismiss these crimes on the basis of the fallacy - "That's an inevitable part of war" - often in defense of Rotten Ronnie - and the death squad dictators he supported and armed .. training their leaders and soldiers in the tactics of terror - dragging children over barbed wire "till flesh hung from their bones" , in front of the parents, rape and torture and killing of US Nuns and Missionaries, Assassination of Religious leaders such as Romero - Catholic Arch-Bishop . -- mass slaughter of everyone in towns and villages

all part of doing business you say .. "an inevitable part of war" .. even when its not our war to begin with .. and congress has forbidden arming these genocidal terrorist regimes in their efforts to put down popular uprisings against these dictatorial regimes - the people fighting against oppression .. and Rotten Ronnie arming, facilitating, and training these oppressors in the tactics of Terror.

I disagree with this twisted and fallacious logic - used to justify such abominations .. "War is a dirty business" aye mate.

 

Why do whine about these alleged incidents so much?

 

Although I have no doubt we would emerge victorious with your conventional clash (not the nukes, EVERYONE loses then), I think it would be a waste of precious life. We can win with less death by allowing Russia to occupy, and then resist. Yah know, like what Iran and the Taliban just did to us.

I would recommend that Ukranians should not use up ANY of their fighting age people in the initial confrontation. You are going to lose. The only chance is to hide your weapons and explosives now, AND WAIT peacefully. When their guard is down, you start hitting them 1 soldier at a time until they leave. But this will require a spirit of resistance among the people, and I'm not in a position to determine what that spirit level is.

 

A resistance strategy tends to result in staggering numbers of deaths to the occupied civilian population.

 

Sometimes. It depends. One factor is do the Ukranians intend to attack, and then attempt to hide among the civilians? That will substantially increase civilian deaths. Does the occupier have racial or religious animosity toward the occupied? That's another key factor. But it's not automatic that it will result in more deaths.

 

Look up "Operation Keelhaul"

The US/UK forced anti-Stalin civilians who had fled to the West... and captured POWs [soldiers who had fought against Stalin]... to return back to Stalin who executed them.

 

Says the fellow running from his position - Was just pointing out the fallacy on which you base your perspective and world view. claiming ."That's an inevitable part of war" - as justification for war crimes -crimes against humanity - killing of innocents in general - all good in the hood ..

"Alleged" - that's humorous coming from a self professed History professor. -- never heard of Iran-Contra - arms deals .. ? Olli North Trial .. falling on the spear for Rotten Ronnie ? do seriously not remember or is this some kind of dodge - desperate to avoid defending the fallacy in your foundation.