@shallow-blue saidThat has nothing to do with either agreement; neither limits the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons.
And is your master Putin now threatening to use nukes on the battle field despite those "agreements"?
Why, yes! Yes, he is.
Neither his nor your word is worth the daily excrement of a street dog.
@no1marauder saidNo, you're wrong here too:
No, not wrong.
The occupation continued long after the initial invasion and NATO sent a support mission with combat troops as did most European nations.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_166936.htm
NATO Mission Iraq (NMI) is a non-combat advisory and capacity-building mission, conducted in full respect of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
2 edits
@vivify saidhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
No, you're wrong here too:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_166936.htmNATO Mission Iraq (NMI) is a non-combat advisory and capacity-building mission, conducted in full respect of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
They were and are combat troops regardless of their stated mission. They were sent in support of the occupation to train the puppet government's forces how to kill those resisting that occupation.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAll your link says is that NATO trained Iraqi soldiers. Just admit you're wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq
They were and are combat troops regardless of their stated mission. They were sent in support of the occupation to train the puppet government's forces how to kill those resisting that occupation.
1 edit
@vivify saidLMAO!
All your link says is that NATO trained Iraqi soldiers. Just admit you're wrong.
You really are a stubborn idiot. The link unequivocally confirms my statement.
All those countries and NATO were sure doing a lot of "reviling" while they were helping the US kill those resisting the occupation, weren't they?
@no1marauder saidNo, it doesn't confirm your claim that NATO sent "combat troops".
You really are a stubborn idiot. The link unequivocally confirms my statement.
NATO refutes your claim, and your own link doesn't even support you. I'm done replying to you.
@vivify saidIf you want to believe they sent the HQ accountants to train an army to fight those who resisted the occupation, you really are as dumb as Average Joe, Mott and the rest.
No, it doesn't confirm your claim that NATO sent "combat troops".
NATO refutes your claim, and your own link doesn't even support you. I'm done replying to you.
@shallow-blue saidThe US position was that North Vietnam was invading South Vietnam. Further, it was argued that if they were successful, the Communists would invade other nearby countries.
You're still ignoring that in Vietnam, there was no Russian invasion, only a USA one, while in Ukraine, there very much is a Russian invasion which you are trying to justify.
Noting that Russia is actively invading neighbouring countries is not paranoia, unlike the 1960s Red Scare which was only based on "what if". There is no "what if" in Ukraine; there is a "it's happening".
Sound familiar?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNo.
The US position was that North Vietnam was invading South Vietnam. Further, it was argued that if they were successful, the Communists would invade other nearby countries.
Sound familiar?
Because your beloved Russia actually is invading Ukraine and raping and murdering its children. It didn't do so in Vietnam; the USA did. The comparison is as odious as it is ludicrous.
@shallow-blue saidLMAO!
No.
Because your beloved Russia actually is invading Ukraine and raping and murdering its children. It didn't do so in Vietnam; the USA did. The comparison is as odious as it is ludicrous.
Do they actually have history books in your neck of the woods?
Ever hear of this place:
South Vietnam was an independent nation-state, formed in the wake of the Geneva Accords of 1954.
https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/south-vietnam/
True, it was dominated by the US, but to say the US "invaded" it is ahistorical nonsense.
2 edits
@shallow-blue saidThere's numerous stories from Western news agencies reporting the peace talks; here's a sample:
You must have been hearing your reports of them on RT. Over here in the West, the major story was that Russia was being dishonest in pretending to hold peace talks that were nothing but an insistence that Ukraine roll over and expose its belly.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ukraine-will-resume-talks-online-april-1-ukrainian-negotiator-2022-03-30/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/29/world/ukraine-russia-war (" Ukrainian officials said their country was ready to declare itself permanently neutral — forsaking the prospect of joining NATO, a key Russian demand — and discuss Russian territorial claims in exchange for “security guarantees” from a group of other nations. An aide to Ukraine’s president called the Russian delegation “constructive,” while Russia said it would “drastically” scale back its military activity around Kyiv to “increase mutual trust.” ).
https://www.ft.com/content/7b341e46-d375-4817-be67-802b7fa77ef1
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukraine-says-russia-verbally-agreed-to-its-proposals-except-on-crimea/ ("Ukraine’s top negotiator in peace talks with Russia said Saturday that Moscow had “verbally” agreed to key Ukrainian proposals, raising hopes that talks to end fighting are moving forward." )
Etc., etc. etc.
@no1marauder saidNo it’s not familiar at all, that’s meddling in the internal affairs of another sovereign state.
The US position was that North Vietnam was invading South Vietnam. Further, it was argued that if they were successful, the Communists would invade other nearby countries.
Sound familiar?
Contrary to what Putin would have you believe Russia ad Ukraine are not the same country.
Maybe if your having to pretend that using brute force to crush an idea and stop it from spreading from one country to the next is the same as facilitating the self defence of a third party that is defending its territory from a military machine that is at the very least heading in your general direction perhaps you have lost the argument.
@no1marauder saidI concede that it looks more and more that any peace will require a declaration of neutrality from Ukraine.
There's numerous stories from Western news agencies reporting the peace talks; here's a sample:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-ukraine-will-resume-talks-online-april-1-ukrainian-negotiator-2022-03-30/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/03/29/world/ukraine-russia-war (" Ukrainian officials said their country was ready to declare itself permanently neutral ...[text shortened]... ainian proposals, raising hopes that talks to end fighting are moving forward." )
Etc., etc. etc.
I am curious though on what your stance is on the reasonablity of this demand. Is Moldova next to be invaded if it doesn't declare itself neutral? How about Finland? Sweeden? Given the latest "military operations" in Ukraine, these last two don't find it as ludicrous as you that Russia might invade them next.
Is Russia entitled to buffer states between itself and an imaginary enemy?
@zahlanzi saidIt’s not interested in buffer states it wants a huge chunk of Europe that it can dominate politically, economically and militarily. That’s why it stepped in when Ukraine wanted to join the EU beaus even it lose economic and political influence over Ukraine and in future a fully democratic, economically successful Slavic nation right in its border for its own population to witness and ponder about IMO
I concede that it looks more and more that any peace will require a declaration of neutrality from Ukraine.
I am curious though on what your stance is on the reasonablity of this demand. Is Moldova next to be invaded if it doesn't declare itself neutral? How about Finland? Sweeden? Given the latest "military operations" in Ukraine, these last two don't find it as ludicro ...[text shortened]... ght invade them next.
Is Russia entitled to buffer states between itself and an imaginary enemy?