- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:10 am to RollTide4547
quote:
Pass. Thanks anyway. How about we let Euope worry about Europe and we worry about us.
Where did I suggest otherwise? I'm just skeptical that there is room for any Russian-American alliance based on history, economics, and interests. Russia wants their sphere of influence, but their sphere of influence does not want to be under their thumb. The US generally supports smaller countries to join the Western sphere, which is where the conflict comes from. The argument some people put forth is that because of Russian nuclear weapons, the interests of the Eastern Europeans who joined the EU and NATO is secondary to Russian interest. No one should agree to that, as it is a position which increases the likelihood of conflict, especially if the only thing that keeps a state intact (as we've seen now with Libya and Ukraine, as well as Iran and North Korea) is the threat of developing nuclear weapons. The situation where nuclear proliferations is commonplace is by far a worse-off world than one where nuclear weapons are limited.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:19 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Where did I suggest otherwise?
By arguing against the US getting along with Russia, that kinda suggests otherwise. At least to me anyway.
quote:
Russia wants their sphere of influence
Doesn't everyone?
quote:
The situation where nuclear proliferations is commonplace is by far a worse-off world than one where nuclear weapons are limited.
Sounds very much like the argument that liberals make against gun ownership.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:26 am to RollTide4547
quote:
By arguing against the US getting along with Russia, that kinda suggests otherwise. At least to me anyway.
As it stands, Russian interest and US historical interest do not align, neither in Europe nor with respect to China. If you are expecting a relationship like the US has with the UK, then I would suggest to temper your expectations. I don't think I've offered my opinion about whether we 'should' be friends, just that I don't think we will be because of the way the ruling factions are posed.
quote:
Sounds very much like the argument that liberals make against gun ownership.
No, it is its own argument. You don't need to translate to something more palatable just so you can understand it. If Russia's nuclear arsenal allows it to override the sovereignty of other nations at will, that is by definition a less-safe world, especially if defensive alliances do not see out their obligations. Why don't you sit with it for a bit before you respond glibly?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:30 am to AGGIES
So, what you are saying is the USSR built a wall.....Then they tore the wall down and gave all the land that wasn't Russia back to the former countries.....However, NATO kept a wall up in their minds.....Then, NATO came up with a plan to build small little walls all the way up to the border of Russia. For the life of me I can't figure out why people on the left think that is totally reasonable. They also think that Putin shouldn't be able to say.....Hey guys why are you building these little walls all the way to Russia? Do you suppose that starting a cool club but not allowing one person to join while you trying to sign everyone else up in the neighborhood is cool? If I were that one who wasn't allowed to join, i wouldn't start to think maybe the club had bad intentions.....Guess what? NATO under globalist control has bad intentions.....
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:31 am to joshnorris14
quote:
We're not finding Russia's war effort and Russia wants to end the war.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:34 am to TackySweater
Z is being dishonest in his dealings with the President and cabinet. He tried to negotiate in front of the cameras and that is not where it is litigated. Zelensky is all over the place and erratic in his decision making.
Zelensky deserved what he got.
We have no idea what Trump has said in meetings with Putin. Not one thing was accomplished bashing Putin the last three years. Trump is taking a different approach to broker peace.
That's how I see it.
Zelensky deserved what he got.
We have no idea what Trump has said in meetings with Putin. Not one thing was accomplished bashing Putin the last three years. Trump is taking a different approach to broker peace.
That's how I see it.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:35 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
If you are expecting a relationship like the US has with the UK
Nope. Just don't want to war. Let Europe worry about them.
quote:
No, it is its own argument. You don't need to translate to something more palatable just so you can understand it. If Russia's nuclear arsenal allows it to override the sovereignty of other nations at will, that is by definition a less-safe world, especially if defensive alliances do not see out their obligations. Why don't you sit with it for a bit before you respond glibly?
If my gun allows me to override the sovereignty of other people, that is by definition a less-safe world right?
quote:Why don't you take your pompous, pretentious, condescending, arrogant, smug lips pucker them up and kiss my hairy arse.
Why don't you sit with it for a bit before you respond glibly?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:36 am to rtr72
quote:
Don’t you remember the Russia Gate stuff, he is Putin pawn. Libs good lord help us.
It's good to see Chicken allows window licking, short bus riding posters here.
Welcome
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:37 am to RollTide4547
quote:
If my gun allows me to override the sovereignty of other people, that is by definition a less-safe world right?
Lol. How about this, in what way are nuclear weapons for everyone not like a gun? Think it through fully.
quote:
Why don't you take your pompous, pretentious, condescending, arrogant, smug lips pucker them up and kiss my hairy arse.
Uh oh, little dude is mad now.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:37 am to TackySweater
you have to have two willing parties to come to the negotiation table. Seems Putin was willing to bargain. You don't insult or provoke someone who is willing to enter peace talks. Zelenskyy on the other hand has been an absolute lying weasel that can no longer be trusted.
Words are less important than getting both parties to the table.
Words are less important than getting both parties to the table.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:41 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Uh oh, little dude is mad now.
Nope. Just telling you how it is.
quote:
Lol. How about this, in what way are nuclear weapons for everyone not like a gun? Think it through fully.
Let's see. Both go boom. If either one goes boom aimed at you, you're likely dead. When you're dead, does it matter which one killed you? Certain groups of people believe they have the "right" (because of their moral superiority) to tell others whether they can have it or not.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:42 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
That runs counter to what the West has generally promoted, which is sovereignty for peoples as they choose it.
Lulz
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:46 am to RollTide4547
quote:
Nope. Just telling you how it is.
Uh oh. Little man is mad now.
quote:
Certain groups of people believe they have the "right" (because of their moral superiority) to tell others whether they can have it or not.
Do you know anything about history at all? It was in the interest of both the US and the USSR to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Because they aren't simply things that go boom. There is a whole associated group of services that have to be dedicated to every aspect of their deployment.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:46 am to GRTiger
quote:
Lulz
Someone missed the Treaty of Westphalia lecture in history class. Sad!
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:51 am to Feelthebarn
quote:I read no further. I fully agree.
How much money has putin asked us for, you stupid bastard?
OP needs to get an education on the ENTIRE picture before displaying ignorance while starting a thread.
1st clue: Who have we invested billions in and seen no benefit to us? Only a future of spending more billions (that we don't have).
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 11:52 am
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:55 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Uh oh. Little man is mad now.
Nope. To get mad, I'd have to care about what you think.
quote:Nope nothing at all. Never went to school. Have no lived life experiences. Have never had a job. No money at all. Don't own any guns. Never shot a gun at another person who was shooting back at me.
Do you know anything about history at all?
quote:It's in the interest of authoritarians in charge to limit ownership of guns too. Something both have in common.
It was in the interest of both the US and the USSR to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
quote:Do they go boom or not? If they do, that is something they have in common with guns.
Because they aren't simply things that go boom.
quote:
There is a whole associated group of services that have to be dedicated to every aspect of their deployment.
There is not a group of services dedicated to gun ownership?
Are you the one that is anti-authoritarian? Deeming yourself the arbiter of who should and should not have guns or nukes seem quite authoritative.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 11:58 am to rtr72
quote:Lowest I.Q. person in the thread detected.
rtr72
Posted on 3/6/25 at 12:00 pm to RollTide4547
quote:
Nope. To get mad, I'd have to care about what you think.
What happened? You were ready to pack your bags earlier based on your own incorrect assumptions. Sad!
quote:
Nope nothing at all. Never went to school. Have no lived life experiences. Have never had a job. No money at all. Don't own any guns. Never shot a gun at another person who was shooting back at me.
So a grunt.
quote:
It's in the interest of authoritarians in charge to limit ownership of guns too. Something both have in common.
Is this something that happened or not? Why was it in their interest do you think?
quote:
There is not a group of services dedicated to gun ownership?
Dear god, you really don't know what I mean. Maybe if you think really hard you can figure it out. What is the difference between nuclear weapons and guns? You can sound it out if you are having trouble little guy.
quote:
Are you the one that is anti-authoritarian? Deeming yourself the arbiter of who should and should not have guns or nukes seem quite authoritative.
You seem to have a problem with trying to figure out that positions from larger polities are not my positions. How are you this dense? I haven't denied anyone nuclear weapons bub, nor them their guns. I'm pointing out that the historical position of the larger powers has been to limit proliferation and the consequences of allowing one-sided bullying by one party will have effects which neither country, nor its citizens would like. Sorry you can't seem to discern between the two. That seems like a function of your own mental retardation. Sad!
Page 12 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News