For Those Who Might Be Wondering Why We Might Be In Ukraine

[Fuzzy1975]

Freedom to be homeless, freedom not to have healthcare, freedom to starve. Freedom from freedom, also?

Yes, the freedom to choose, not have it forced upon you. Free choice comes with responsibility.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If we use this definition "freedom" is whatever the government says it is. Not as opposed to having no choices and forced into being anything. These are the exact same thing. I've never been to Sierra Leone but I suspect they don't care if you have turkey on rye, ham on wheat or beef tongue on sourdough.

By your definition that is freedom. Maybe try again with something more concise?

I'm not here to teach you what freedom is, maybe go learn yourself? Disagree with my definition, you have the "freedom" to do that. See how it works?

 

[Rightguide]

For the record I don't know what freedom means either and I suspect your ridicule is because you can't define either.

Stands to reason.

 

[RandyRebecca]

Cue "Becky" explaining how the Polish ambassador has it all wrong.



"Becky"

You've had the Ukraine situation wrong from the very beginning and continue to do so.

Yes, the freedom to choose, not have it forced upon you. Free choice comes with responsibility.

Poor smallpox for not being around anymore.

Poverty is a social disease. And I mean actual poverty, not people who are in poverty.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-video-remarks-at-the-crimea-platform-summit/

 

[Chernosoth]

Ukraine is mostly flat with plenty of rain. The mud can be nine feet deep in spring. The land's value is agricultural and not much else, but it could be a place to dig some reservoirs for drought relief.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm not here to teach you what freedom is, maybe go learn yourself? Disagree with my definition, you have the "freedom" to do that. See how it works?

You not being here to teach me what freedom is and you not knowing what it is are different things. According to your definition which you are fleeing from would say that an Islamic Country tossing gays from buildings is free. That's you, not me.

I think free is a fluid thing that can be measured in a lot of ways. I think abortion is freedom. You think it is a measure currently of what Trump's Court says it is. I disagree. Honestly I've read enough of you that I don't think you agree with that stance. You have standards of right and wrong. We might not always line up but you know my plan and I know yours most of the time. You are a good person I trust that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You not being here to teach me what freedom is and you not knowing what it is are different things.

I'm fully aware what freedom means, having been to countries where their people are not free is pretty eye opening.

According to your definition which you are fleeing from would say that an Islamic Country tossing gays from buildings is free. That's you, not me.

I never said anything like that. Go back and re read it.

I think free is a fluid thing that can be measured in a lot of ways. I think abortion is freedom.

Did I say having access to abortion isn't freedom?

You think it is a measure currently of what Trump's Court says it is.

I never mentioned Trump.

I disagree. Honestly I've read enough of you that I don't think you agree with that stance. You have standards of right and wrong. We might not always line up but you know my plan and I know yours most of the time. You are a good person I trust that.

That you don't like my definition of freedom, is freedom. I was not about to write you a dissertation on it. I gave you the elevator pitch.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I have no problem defining freedom. It is the ability to make choices for yourself, within the legal bounds of the society you live in. As opposed to having no choices and forced into being what the rulers of your society choose.

See? Its not very hard to define freedom. Maybe go live somewhere else for a while. My favourite place to point out to try is Serria Leone.

The ability to make choices for yourself, within the legal bounds of the society you live in. Those are your words. Which would means if the country you live in has laws against sodomy you're still free. Just can't get BJs or anal.

Hence why I said that's not a real answer because it doesn't have any solid parameters. I didn't accuse you of saying you were against abortion. I merely pointed out that as we are seeing in this country in real time what I would call freedom is being taken away. So at this point a woman in many states are situations where they do not have freedom by my loose definition but by the on you stated and I bolded they are still free to keep their legs together. I feel like human history has shown that shit ain't happening but hey that's life.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The ability to make choices for yourself, within the legal bounds of the society you live in. Those are your words. Which would means if the country you live in has laws against sodomy you're still free. Just can't get BJs or anal.

Hence why I said that's not a real answer because it doesn't have any solid parameters. I didn't accuse you of saying you were against abortion. I merely pointed out that as we are seeing in this country in real time what I would call freedom is being taken away. So at this point a woman in many states are situations where they do not have freedom by my loose definition but by the on you stated and I bolded they are still free to keep their legs together. I feel like human history has shown that shit ain't happening but hey that's life.

Again, I wasn't righting a dissertation. You define freedom in two sentences or less, then I'll come along and rip it apart. Just like you're doing...*chuckles*

 

[Sean Renaud]

Again, I wasn't righting a dissertation. You define freedom in two sentences or less, then I'll come along and rip it apart. Just like you're doing...*chuckles*

I don't think it can be defined in a truly solid logical way. I could make the argument that true freedom is anarchy . That would however put freedom in the category of not a net win for society and that would be a tough sell. Lots of Americans like to make the argument that we are freer than anybody else mostly because of our right to own guns and freedom of speech. When compared to other advanced nations stifling free speech isn't common at all other than in very specific situations like Germany and Nazi stuff. I would happily take some degree of gun control beyond what we have if we got some of the things most Europeans have.

I think affordable college and the upward mobility that comes with it. Also the greater understanding of science and history has a value all of its own even if it doesn't directly go into being useful for employment. I think not being at serious risk of bankruptcy over medical bills is pretty fucking far from freedom. Of course many would argue if the government didn't steal so much money via taxes everybody would have thousands of dollars in the bank. There isn't a particularly good reason to think that but still the argument is there.

 

[ll74]

This is a good source for updated maps, info on Russia's war on Ukraine. (BBC)

Ukraine in maps: Tracking the war with Russia​

 

[ll74]

Shooting Down 11 Jets In 11 Days, Ukraine Nudges The Russian Air Force Closer To Organizational Death-Spiral​

I wonder how many A-50s Russia has.

 

[goldytheGoldfish]

Of course many would argue if the government didn't steal so much money via taxes everybody would have thousands of dollars in the bank.

I've never been to a country that has a communist government. My feeling is I'd probably enjoy the experience and meet a lot of interesting people. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of our viewpoints regarding the government were the same; the difference would be that they still live there.

Need a light?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Shooting Down 11 Jets In 11 Days, Ukraine Nudges The Russian Air Force Closer To Organizational Death-Spiral​

I wonder how many A-50s Russia has.

They've got a whopping 25 of those next-gen fighter jets seen in Topgun: Maverick.
They were obsolete the day they rolled off the production line.

 

[Rightguide]

This is a good source for updated maps, info on Russia's war on Ukraine. (BBC)

Ukraine in maps: Tracking the war with Russia​

ISW tracks war with three types of interactive maps daily:https://www.understandingwar.org/

 

[Fuzzy1975]

ISW tracks war with three types of interactive maps daily:https://www.understandingwar.org/

You can do it yourself,no need for anyone's maps ,just subscribe to maxar.

https://www.maxar.com/maxar-intelligence/products/optical-imagery

 

[ll74]

ISW tracks war with three types of interactive maps daily:https://www.understandingwar.org/

Not a bad site. I particularly enjoy this piece, which describes the real reason for Russia's invasion

The Kremlin's Occupation Playbook: Coerced Russification and Ethnic Cleansing in Occupied Ukraine​

Putin’s project, explicitly articulated in the 2021 article he published justifying the 2022 full-scale invasion, is the destruction of Ukraine’s distinctive political, social, linguistic, and religious identity.[1] Putin seeks to make real his false ideological conviction that Ukrainians are simply confused Russians with an invented identity,

Notice how I include quotes from the article using the quote feature of the forum.... In case anyone is interested in using that feature properly.

 

[Rightguide]

World War III Watch: British Troops Are Directing Air Strikes in Ukraine – Germany Discusses Blowing Up Bridge in Crimea – The Globalist Elites Want Their World War​

By Jim Hoft Mar. 3, 2024 7:45 am

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/world-war-iii-watch-british-troops-are-directing/

Yet the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said there will be no ground troops sent to Ukraine by European nations.

And the British army today is smaller than it was in 1750. While both countries rattle the swords of war neither can contribute much to a land war in Ukraine. They are depending on our army to be the mainstay of any such insanity. What was required to fight a war in Europe and the Pacific was as follows:

"U.S. involvement in WWII grew to be about 16,000,000 military personnel by the war’s end: approximately 11,200,000 in the Army, 4,200,000 in the Navy, and 660,000 in the Marine Corps. On 1 July 1939, however, the strength of the active Army was approximately 174,000—three quarters of whom were scattered throughout the continental United States; the rest stationed overseas."

Today the US army is about 475,000 and the Marine Corps is about 174,000. Divide those numbers by 7 or 8 to reveal the actual numbers of me that actually engage the enemy. This is why we needed an army of 11-plus million in WWII.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

World War III Watch: British Troops Are Directing Air Strikes in Ukraine – Germany Discusses Blowing Up Bridge in Crimea – The Globalist Elites Want Their World War​

Good, about fucking time, I'm sick of cow-towing to Putin. Lets see if he has the balls to back up his threats. I think he's like all bullies, all talk...he knows if he launches, his world is over....

 

[Rightguide]

Good, about fucking time, I'm sick of cow-towing to Putin. Lets see if he has the balls to back up his threats. I think he's like all bullies, all talk...he knows if he launches, his world is over....

You can't wait for a nuclear war, right?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You can't wait for a nuclear war, right?

There won't be one, I'm sick of Putin, and to be frank, I'm sick of your chickenshit posts about fear.

 

[RandyRebecca]

Good, about fucking time, I'm sick of cow-towing to Putin. Lets see if he has the balls to back up his threats. I think he's like all bullies, all talk...he knows if he launches, his world is over....

You must be insane.

WW1 started in August 1914 with most people cheering in the countries of Europe, looking forward to a good war that would be over by Christmas in their minds. That mood soon started changing as millions of people perished for seemingly no reason at all beyond rich people redividing the world's colonies between themselves. It took revolution, first in Russia, and then in Germany, to eventually bring WW1 to an end.

Woodrow Wilson won re-election as US president in 1916, largely on the basis of keeping the US out of WW1. Within just 1 month of his second term starting, Wilson took the US into WW1, abolished first amendment rights to free speech and imprisoned/deported socialists across the US in the first red scare/Palmer Raids. The 1920 Republican landslide win by Warren G. Harding was largely a huge indictment of Wilson's awful second term.

 

[RandyRebecca]

There won't be one, I'm sick of Putin, and to be frank, I'm sick of your chickenshit posts about fear.

You've been brainwashed. I think Kiev looks a million times better than Gaza right now, wouldn't you say?

 

[Rightguide]

You must be insane.

WW1 started in August 1914 with most people cheering in the countries of Europe, looking forward to a good war that would be over by Christmas in their minds. That mood soon started changing as millions of people perished for seemingly no reason at all beyond rich people redividing the world's colonies between themselves. It took revolution, first in Russia, and then in Germany, to eventually bring WW1 to an end.

Woodrow Wilson won re-election as US president in 1916, largely on the basis of keeping the US out of WW1. Within just 1 month of his second term starting, Wilson took the US into WW1, abolished first amendment rights to free speech and imprisoned/deported socialists across the US in the first red scare/Palmer Raids. The 1920 Republican landslide win by Warren G. Harding was largely a huge indictment of Wilson's awful second term.

WWI was a slaughter on an industrial scale. The US fought for 110 days and lost 110,000 dead. It was horrendous.