_kbh_

27 ms·

241.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
>4. US exploits Russia-Ukraine and China-Taiwan. >5. Ukraine fell for it. Useful idiot. Will dump later. Feel for what? there land being invaded by a imperialistic neighbour again?. The US is helping Ukraine defend itself from the imp
242.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> How is it false equivalency, you seem to think that individuals can choose whatever they individually believe is right i.e. an individual in Russia can some how chose not to be involved in the ongoing conflict. Yes there is an always f
243.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Sorry, they say they don't exist as human beings? that would be the dehumanising equivalent. No it wouldn't, no one said the Russians don't exist. > Nations, culture, history etc are ideas and perceptions that it&#x27
244.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
Yes? they refer to them in ways that says there people, culture and history don't even exist. Thats way more dehumanising than referring them as monsters because they continually act like monsters.
245.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> You really believe that's how it works? that russians can just choose not to be involved. Yes. The Russians chose to invade, they choose to continue to occupy Ukraine and they choose to both commit terrible war crimes and act like
246.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Dehumanising is Dehumanising, nothing to do with my skin, I'm not Russian or Ukrainian. Regardless of what your background is saying someone making light of fascists invaders is dehumanising requires you to have a super thin skin.
247.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> There is nothing different between how NSDAP whipped up a nation to go on a 6 year rampage across Europe than what's happening now. I've witnessed otherwise reasonable people justify the description of Russians as Orcs as a r
248.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
We have already discussed but you seem more than happy to try and wash away Russias penchant for raping and torturing children in foreign nations. I think American did and does terrible things and more terrible things then Russia. Do you t
249.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Latest HARM has a 150km range. Kh-58 has a 250km range. > Where are the F-16s going to take off from (they need pristine runways)? Probably relatively far from the action. > Who will maintain them? Ukrainians its one of the reaso
250.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Makes it clear that he tried to move the discussion away from recognizing civilian suffering and opposing the countries which oppressed most of the world with their military force first... Towards just trying to make a case for Russia
251.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The US specifically targets civilians, too. The moral authority you claim doesn't exist. When was the last time the US raped and tortured a child as young as 4?, cause the Russians have already done it in Ukraine.
252.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> No, this is entirely incorrect. This is another post entirely missing the point likely on purpose. > Just a couple of cases, out of an extraordinarily heinous litany of war crimes, and crimes against humanity: Mosul, and Raqqa. Two
253.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The bill does a lot more than that, and is quite obnoxious actually. Can you provide a link all I’ve seen from sources is that it required all offical information to be in Ukrainian.
254.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Proof is in the pudding. Indeed it is and the proof shows that Ukraine intercepts a large number of Russian missiles with air defence. Whilst Russia intercepts a lot of Ukrainian weapons with the intended targets. The Russians have may
255.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Yes, it was, but that's not even relevant to the fakery issue. This is Russian propaganda and not even true all Ukraine did was introduce a bill to make all offical communications be provided in Ukrainian. Nothing stopping people
256.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> 4x. More, because America's power to lean on other countries is higher. As I said. What you really mean is “per some made up number I pulled out of thin air”. You’re mad because you asserted things that all turned out to be incorr
257.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Russia is very successful in the Ukraine war against NATO despite having a fraction of the military budget of NATO. Another example is the dissonance between elites & the working class. You mean the war where Russia is getting so d
258.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Duh. It mirrors because the support America could muster for its invasion was not much more than the support Russia mustered for its invasion. This is literally not true. The invasion of Iraq had support of the following countries. &gt
259.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> That’s silly. There is a difference between buying material from a foreign country and being entirely reliant on another one for your survival. > I don’t mind the fairly honest debate and disagreement we are having but there is litt
260.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> If you can’t defend yourself and have to rely on a foreign power to do so, you are de facto a protectorate like it or not. That’s the case of at least the Baltic states in Europe and could probably be extended to other former USSR repu
261.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> lmao that's so insane it almost sounds like a bit It sounds like a bit but the Russians have some wild state based propaganda stuff like that Ukraine was using mutant super soldiers, that Ukraine had black magic witch battalions a
262.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> It mirrors this map: I dunno if you've even looked at both maps they look nothing like each other. The support for the resolution for Russia to leave Ukraine has far more support then the invasion of Iraq and even has large amount
263.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Can you still call protectorates country? They are sovereign in name only. No one is NATO is a 'protectorate' this is absurd on the face of it. Why do you think its bad that smaller countries in Europe that have historically
264.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago. It's simply not possible from some countries to prot
265.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
Thats not most of what Ukraine has been getting though, the majority of what they have been getting is decades old like. - Leopard 1's. - M113 APC's - Mig 29's - Sukhoi 24's - Mi-28's - Mi-8s The HARM's that yo
266.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> That doesn’t mean they have full coverage. The “front” is enormous. Yeah but these missile strikes have been hitting high value targets like air fields and troop barracks. Regardless of if they can’t defend these areas because they don
267.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> And Russia has shown to be very effective at intercepting various modern weapons systems via EW or direct. Maybe they are evil incarnate, but they math good. I dunno know about this part of the statement, the fact that we are still see
268.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> But anyways, they’re already using US gear, tactics, ISR - why not this? You don’t need red blooded Americans to employ SEAD. They don't have the modern aircraft, or missiles that would make SEAD missions against modern Russian AA
269.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions. Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggressi
270.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the presid

More ›