Cold War 2.0 / excess militarization as security. Your idea that some how tactical nukes are just another weapons system to counter is truly frightening.That from a fool.
Name the wars that I've supported.
I can name yours.
you give the static dictionary definition. I give the dynamic geo-political definition.
which one is apropos to this discussion?
so you are saying we can spend Putin into submission? show me any example of that workingMore irrelevant words.
Talking loud, saying nothing.
It demonstrates that Putin cannot keep up and cannot sustain his misadventures .. no matter how much he bleeds his own people .. which is something that a 'Buddist' like you doesn't care about.
Cold War 2.0 / excess militarization as security. Your idea that some how tactical nukes are just another weapons system to counter is truly frightening.
it's your inability/lack of desire to reduce militarization without seeing the dangers,
in favor of simplistic kicking the dog sanctions,which are counter-productive to all involved
I c/p from a source on geopolitics. not a "bullshit def". you gave a static def.You gave your own bullshit 'definition' which isn't a definition at all.
so you are saying we can spend Putin into submission? show me any example of that working
I c/p from a source on geopolitics. not a "bullshit def". you gave a static def.
like sanctioning some child in grade school is the same as applying international sanctions for relief.
geopolitical sanctions only have worth is they apply pressure towards a goal..and punishment by itself is not a goal.
It's just kicking the dog.
what "massacre" not a shot was fired.Maybe you didn't hear me.
NAME THE WARS THAT I HAVE SUPPORTED.
Is that hard?
Try this .. which one of us supported the massacre of Crimea?
Get real.
You'll just post a bunch of meaningless gobbly-gook as an answer.
It's VERY clear what has been demonstrated about Putin's limited resources and what that means.
If you don't get it .. I'm cool with that.
what "massacre" not a shot was fired.
oh sure..you can't enunciate a point, then you tell me i don't get the point that you can't enunciate,
then you get smug/cool that your inability to enunciate is a winning hand..it's a c/P without bolstering your argument
I have no desire to get into a shouting match with you. I'm fine with discussions like we always do.Misspoke .. Syria.
Were civilians killed in Syria?
Which one of us supported that?
How about the Ukraine?
Which one of us supported that?
NAME THE WARS THAT I HAVE SUPPORTED?
If you don't get it .. I'm cool with that.
You don't appear to have that capacity.
I have no desire to get into a shouting match with you. I'm fine with discussions like we always do.
Your post is very unclear..are you saying I supported some war in Syria????
never did I support even arming "the rebels" there..
++
what part of "the Ukraine" are you talking about? Donbass? - hell no I do not 'support that.
While I understand Putin's desire to pull the east away from Kyiv, in NO WAY do I support the separatists!
In fact my argument is to leverage existing sanctions on Crimea into getting Putin's spetsnaz out of there.
Of course supporting the Russian separatist is more then hard power Russian troops,but that's the starting point
Russia/Syria: War Crimes in Month of Bombing Aleppo
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/12/01/russia/syria-war-crimes-month-bombing-aleppo
Let me take a guess on which one of us supported that? :0)
... AND, you were against the bombing of Libya, as I was .. but you have wet dreams of admiration over Putin's 'genius' is laying waste to innocent people in Aleppo.
.. got it Mr. peace-loving Buddhist.
NAME THE WARS THAT I HAVE SUPPORTED?
militarization for it's own sake is a neocon agenda..it's not just about wars. Cold war is still war.Not shouting.
The bolded emphasis demonstrates that you cannot name a single war that I have supported.
Thanks
militarization for it's own sake is a neocon agenda..it's not just about wars.
It's about not seeing the danger of tactical nukes or tripwire wars,or the obscenity of war spending
toward no purpose but supporting the neocons
you find tactical nukes just another weapon system to counter . You support limitless spending on Cold War 2In other words you cannot name a single war that I have supported nor can you name a single neocon that I support.
Talking to them to listen to what they have to say is no more 'support' then talking to you and listening to what you have to say .. which of course I do not support.
You've lost all integrity dude. You can't even admit truth that's slapping you in the face.
you find tactical nukes just another weapon system to counter . You support limitless spending on Cold War 2
and you supported a known neo-con in Hillary Clinton ( and of ALL people you should be the last one to support her warmongering)