Russia Declares War on Ukraine<<MOD WARNING>>

That is what I want to know too. Where is this com;ing from .........some supporting FACTS please.

 

But you read it in 30 seconds after it was posted. LOL!!!

 

Did you come up with all of that all by yourself?

 

The USA is not run by Americans. They do not care about ordinary Americans as well.

 

Yeah, it didn't take long to get the gist of it.

 

If it's not run by Americans, then by whom? Lizard men?

 

Globalists. You are intelligent enough to know that much. If they truly cared, your cities wouldn't have been infested with crime and poverty. Third world country infrastructure.

 

You should read it again. You might be in a Ukrainian Nazi cult.

 

Irrelevant.

 

More irrelevant news. How stupid one can be.

5. VIDEO GAMES. AGAIN.

This footage, claiming to show Ukrainian ground forces downing Russian aircraft, also went viral recently, even appearing on Spanish television news:



…It’s from the video game ARMA 3.

 

Globalists? What are those?

 

Look at their eyes.

 

Irrelevant. Who cares what a group of people on Facebook were sharing among each other?

 

Pro-Kremlin Russians do. They will use anything they can to try and discredit news that isn't good for them.

 

More irrelevant staff. I just enjoy educating you.

7. SYRIAN DRONE STRIKES FOOTAGE

Another video doing the rounds, and again shared by official Ukrainian accounts, was drone footage supposedly showing the destruction of a column of Russian vehicles.



It’s actually footage of a Turkish drone strike in Syria from 2020.

Meanwhile, other accounts were sharing footage of combat from Libya or Israeli bombardments of Gaza under the hashtag #StandWithUkraine. Middle East Eye has compiled a list.

It’s somewhat beautiful irony that so many of the clips prompting outrage in Western liberals actually come from wars their governments started.

 

Exactly! They’ll throw any kind of irrelevant BS to derail the conversation.

 

Russian Film Distributors Make Ukraine Statement: “End The Barbaric War”

Andreas Wiseman
Wed, March 2, 2022, 7:19 PM

A collection of Russian film distributors and industry executives have braved potentially dangerous consequences by calling for an end to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The heartfelt statement was posted on social media platforms Wednesday signed by more than 40 professionals, whose names Deadline is leaving off this story for now. We’ve also spoken with prominent Russian distribution executives who feel the same as the signatories but whose names are not on the above letter for fear or retribution.

... https://news.yahoo.com/entertainment/russian-film-distributors-ukraine-statement-011953688.html

 

Do you even remember the subject of our conversation?

 

How about enlightening the stupid ones believing in nonsensical lies? Show some gratitude.

 

Nearly 1 million people have fled Ukraine since Russia’s invasion began, U.N. refugee agency reports

For many millions more, inside Ukraine, it’s time for guns to fall silent, so that life-saving humanitarian assistance can be provided," tweeted Filippo Grandi, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. The surge of refugees in one week has nearly matched the wave of migrants to Europe in the whole of 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...Q.-Y0p21sCyU1ljTRyPHXLc51pnjdnXJW_jEUl6mNuX54

 

Do you think Pootin will make it to April as Russian president?

 

The problem is that Putin can escalate and really brutalize Ukranians. If we aren't going to militarily prevent this, we must make it obvious to Putin that an escalation of violence would be a geopolitical miscalculation.

He has already ensured that NATO will uphold Article 5. He has already ensured that tens of thousands, at least, of NATO soldiers will be permanently deployed from Latvia to Bulgaria to Turkey. But ANY further violence against Ukranian civilians will only ensure many other smaller countries, and maybe some larger, join NATO over time. And NATO won't deny them after witnessing a human rights tragedy.

Our leaders must be clear on exactly how an escalation of violence backfires for Putin.

 

Want to fact check this one for me? Thanks.

 

I have a feeling that Ukrainians did not reveal all of their tricks yet.
I might be wrong, but the confidence Ukrainian leadership projects in negotiations is making me feel like that.

 

Hey, Putin is America's favorite oligarch--if fact "He is a man we can deal with," and "I looked into his soul" as W. Bush said of Putin. He is doing what Neoliberal oligarchs do. And after the Empire War with Putin is finished, America will SCREW the Ukrainians just like we SCREWED the Kurds over and over again in favor of Iraq and then we ****ED Iraq too. In fact, Trump just recently ****ED THE KURDS AGAIN.

So what do you think the U.S. will do to the Ukraine? Do you actually think Washington wants you to be independent? LOL! The US is more vicious now than even during the Kurd/Hussein wars.

This history of the Britain, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and America’s dealings with the Kurds is one of the most disgraceful stories of the Middle East. The Kurds’ hope for freedom was raised and then deliberately dashed as they were used as pawns over and over again to instigate war and instability in the region.

"Chronciles of Dissent p.308-311.

David Barsamian: The U.S. has had a relationship with the Kurds that's been rather mixed, to say the least. Beginning in the early 1970s, through Massoud Barzani and the Kurdish movement inside Iraq at that time. Can you talk about that?

Chomsky: The relationship with the Kurds goes back a little ways beyond that. In the 1920s that was British turf, not U.S. turf, and we might remember that it was the British that used poison gas largely against the Kurds. Against others too, but largely the Kurds, as part of their terror campaign when they tried to establish the state of Iraq under British control, as they cut it out of the Ottoman Empire. That was Winston Churchill's contribution to peace and joy among nations. He was the official who authorized the use of poison gas and bitterly denounced the "squeamishness" of people who were opposed to using the modern means of warfare.

There's an older history, too. But starting around the early 1970s there was a Kurdish revolt supported by Iran. The Shah at that time was the main U.S. ally. He wanted to cause some trouble for Iraq. One of the ways of causing trouble was to sponsor a Kurdish revolt in the north. The U.S. then under Kissinger went along with that, helped out. Later revelations by the Pike Committee were leaked and published in the Village Voice, though as far as I know I don't think they were published in book form in the U.S. They were published in a book in England, by a small publisher. Nobody wanted to see this stuff, but it was a very important report. The Pike Committee report, which had a lot of documentation, included cables and other statements, with the names blanked out, but it's obvious who it is, between Kissinger and Iran, making it very clear that neither the U.S. nor Iran wanted the Kurds to win. In fact, they didn't want the Kurds to win, they wanted them to fight and bloody Iraq, but not to win. That was crucial. They were frank about that. This was intended as pressure on Iraq to settle some border issue about access to the Gulf.

When Iraq backed off and accepted the Iranian demands, Iran, the U.S. ally, canceled its support for the Kurds. The U.S. also canceled its support. They were left then to be slaughtered. Iraq knew that this was going to happen and was prepared for it, so it began the slaughter right off. Very similar to what we've just seen. The Kurdish leader, Barzani, didn't understand this at all. He was so pro-U.S. he once said that this new Kurdistan should become the 51st state. He was shocked, as the Kurds were generally, to see how crudely they were sold out by the U.S. once they were no longer needed. The U.S. refused to provide even humanitarian aid, not even that, to the Kurds as they were getting slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. The Iranians forced back Kurdish refugees. It was a pretty bloody and ugly scene. That's when a U.S. high official, later allegedly identified as Kissinger, made the famous statement, apparently in secret Congressional testimony, that we shouldn't confuse foreign policy with missionary work. Our foreign policy was to inspire a Kurdish rebellion but make sure that it didn't succeed, and then when it was no longer needed pull the rug out from under them and get them slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. That's foreign policy. You didn't want to raise questions about missionary work or talk to the Maryknoll fathers. You're in serious company now.

Actually, I admire Kissinger for saying that. I don't think one should denounce him. He's just honest. And in fact, he's right. Foreign policy is not missionary work.

Later, in the early 1980s, the record is murky. We don't have much evidence. There have been no leaked congressional reports about it. There may have been some kind of tentative arrangements made between the Kurds and Saddam Hussein, in the context of the Iran-Iraq war. At that time again Iraq was weak and needed quiet in the north. It didn't want a revolt up there. So they had an autonomy arrangement with the Kurds. That one fell through by about 1984, which was just about the time that the U.S. was making its dramatic shift towards support for Saddam Hussein. The reasons why that fell through, why Iraq backed off from that agreement, have never been well documented, but general belief reported recently by the London Economist is that this was under Turkish pressure. The Turks have never wanted independence for the Kurds. About a quarter of the population of Turkey is Kurdish, although they don't concede it, and their own repression of Kurds is vicious, stepped up again during the Gulf War. But it appears they were worried about these moves towards independence and what effect they'd have within Turkey. Apparently they have a threat that they hold over Iraq, namely, they control the pipeline, and especially during the war that was the way in which Iraq couldn't send oil through the Gulf, but it could send it through the Turkish pipeline.

Apparently Turkey threatened to close the pipeline if Iraq proceeded with these arrangements, and at that point Saddam Hussein backed off and that one fell through. All of this must have been with U.S. support. Turkey is a close U.S. ally. At that time Saddam Hussein was becoming a U.S. ally. On this we only have indirect evidence, but that's the way it looks. I mentioned a London Economist report which gave it this way as fact, without giving their own sources. That was the second one. The third one is what we have seen in the last couple of months."