We all know it would rock your world if you stepped outside your “Hate America Russia-Phobe” fantasy. It seems like your fear of being on the outside is what drills you to keep digging your “Russia-Is-Always-Right” hole so deep that you can never escape to a world of reality. That’s sad.
I’ve already explained why I’m a better America than you are. To refresh, unlike yourself, I’m not an American right or wrong, however wrong. Unlike yourself, I want better of America.
One of the best laughs I’ve had all year. It’s like a comment from someone supporting the Vichy French.
Yep. That’s how a deranged, out of reality person sees it. Hint: that is a cartoon, and not real life. Further hint: the sources and information you provide are equally cartoonish and not real life.
America so great, these days, that it’s un-personning (so to speak) Robert E. Lee’s horse … Traveller plaque on stables removed, grave marker to be replaced — The W&L Spectator
Lukashenko's relationship with Putin is now Luke-a-Warm at best. Lukashenko has been talking too much to the press, and has become too popular in Russian society. He enjoys a 70% popularity rating in Russian society, which is remarkable because admitting that someone else (besides Putin) is a popular leader could be cause for exile to Siberia. Apparently, Lukashenko's ability to not lose a war with a neighboring country in a humiliating fashion appeals to Russians on some level. Lukashenko wants to keep Wagner as his own private army, but he doesn't have two roubles to rub together. He can't afford Wagner. Fat chance getting any money from Putin, who will be fuming about his loss of the popularity contest with Lukashenko for the next decade, if he lives that long. In other news, Russia has announced that Lukashenko has developed health problems, and is not expected to live very long. Lukashenko lacks funds for PMC Wagner, unsuccessfully seeks meeting with Putin – opposition
Shouldn't you combine your defense of Putin with a defense of Adolf Hitler? Similar motivations and goals, different tactics and levels of initial success. As warped as your moral compass is, it wouldn't surprise me if you did think highly of Hitler. The rest of Europe (and the U.S.) wanted to contain him, too.
You don't think corruption happens in the U.S.? Or is the U.S. more respectable because only the truly wealthy can afford to buy their way out of the draft (see military service of: Trump, Donald).
Ahh. So your morality depends only on whether another country is a direct and immediate threat to you, personally. Your friends can rot in hell for all you care. Someone doesn't become bad by killing or threatening other people. They only become bad when they kill or threaten you. So Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and the Unabomber were all good people in your mind, and they all probably had good reasons for killing people. I would say it is almost certain that the world would be a drastically different place today (and not a better one) had the U.S. not intervened and prevented Hitler from taking over Europe (or Japan from taking over Asia). People like you take their freedom and opportunities for prosperity for granted thanks to the sacrifices of those that came before you. You casually dismiss those sacrifices by saying stupid things like "do you think you'd be speaking German today...?" Say that to a 100-year-old WWII vet, and he'd probably slap you across the face.
But as you can clearly see (well, you probably can’t) the US is helping its friends in Ukraine by fighting Russia to the last of them.
So, telling Ukraine to surrender and enjoy their slavery is your best solution to the situation? The U.S. sent supplies and weapons to both England and Russia for several years during WWII, allowing them to fight for their freedom. Were we "fighting Germany to the last Brit/Russian"? Should we have not done that? We could have saved a lot of lives (tens of millions, in fact) if we let Germany win the war and take over Europe. Were we cruel in the 1940's for sending aid to England and Russia? Should we have sent that aid to Germany, which would have helped them end the war faster and therefore save more lives? What's your take on that?
If my aim was to serve American interests, I might have allowed Germany and Russia to exhaust themselves through war. Your move …
Germany would have rolled right through Moscow without the things that the U.S. provided to Russia. Russia had pretty good logistics thanks to the 400,000 jeeps and trucks that the U.S. provided (which were much more reliable than the Russian vehicles). We even sent over 4,000 Sherman tanks to Russia. And Russia's inferior tanks could operate at colder temperatures than Germany's tanks thanks to the newly-invented synthetic oil that the U.S. sent to Russia. And those are only a few of the many things that the U.S. provided. Technical Difficulties CHECKMATE.
