New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Us finalizing plans to send Abrams tanks to Ukraine

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It is evident that permanent war conditions alone can keep his hated regime from falling, and that he would be therefore compelled to make war even if (everything else being equal) NATO and the U.S. didn’t exist.
LOL! Rationalization reigns supreme with you neocons...
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
If Putin is so desperate to keep a war going that he will use nuclear weapons rather than end his aggression, the same will be true after he conquers Ukraine and goes on to attack Poland.
He is following the same tack as JFK in 1962, for a very similar reason.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
It is because Ukrainian losses are from a very small air force to begin with. They started the war with about 100 fighter aircraft. The Russians started off with 300 deployed to fight in Ukraine.

Do you even stop to wonder why, if Russia is winning, why are they threatening current prisoners with additional time in jail if they refuse to fight?

Each side has to deal with limits on their own ability to produce weapons and ammunition. Russia is buying from Iran and North Korea.
Ukraine is relying on NATO.

If Russia is winning, why have all Russian forces withdrawn from Kyiv and the north and been forced to redeploy to Donbas?
Where did I say "Russia is winning?" I said it is a very bloody stalemate. This war is in no one's best interests, except the MIC, which very much appreciates your support.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
By a regime communists fought tooth and nail to oppose, which took power with the help of every anticommunist political current in the world. Sure.
nope, by murderous despots. communists.
there was nothing altruistic or benevolent about it. zero. just communism and tyrany with a new face.
 

EatTheRich

President
nope, by murderous despots. communists.
there was nothing altruistic or benevolent about it. zero. just communism and tyrany with a new face.
I didn’t say there was something altruistic or benevolent about it. I did point out that the communist leadership had to be displaced by murderous violence to make the anticommunist political trajectory of Stalin and his heirs possible.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
I didn’t say there was something altruistic or benevolent about it. I did point out that the communist leadership had to be displaced by murderous violence to make the anticommunist political trajectory of Stalin and his heirs possible.
sure sure, except that there was nothing anticommunist about it. and it most definitely wasnot limited to the communist leadership... i imagine all those satellite nations peasants killed and starved were just by accident...
 

EatTheRich

President
sure sure, except that there was nothing anticommunist about it. and it most definitely wasnot limited to the communist leadership... i imagine all those satellite nations peasants killed and starved were just by accident...
Not an accident … a revival of the methods of czarist Russia after their interruption by the communist leadership of Lenin. Communism means internationalism and in particular the self-determination of oppressed people. The revival of great-Russian chauvinism was one of the most damning features of the Stalinist regime in the eyes of communists like Lenin and Trotsky.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Not an accident … a revival of the methods of czarist Russia after their interruption by the communist leadership of Lenin. Communism means internationalism and in particular the self-determination of oppressed people. The revival of great-Russian chauvinism was one of the most damning features of the Stalinist regime in the eyes of communists like Lenin and Trotsky.
oh christ. no. it was abject oppression to the nth degree. coupled with abject misery, and slaughter of those same oppressed people you claim....
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Where did I say "Russia is winning?" I said it is a very bloody stalemate. This war is in no one's best interests, except the MIC, which very much appreciates your support.
I'm curious. How did the MIC persuade Putin to invade Ukraine?
 

EatTheRich

President
oh christ. no. it was abject oppression to the nth degree. coupled with abject misery, and slaughter of those same oppressed people you claim....
I’m not claiming it wasn’t oppression. I’m pointing out that that oppression was made possible by the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the communist leadership and the restoration of the use of capitalist-inspired methods.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
I’m not claiming it wasn’t oppression. I’m pointing out that that oppression was made possible by the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the communist leadership and the restoration of the use of capitalist-inspired methods.
ok. fine..let's go with your version of reality, and ignore reality... done now?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I’m not claiming it wasn’t oppression. I’m pointing out that that oppression was made possible by the counterrevolutionary overthrow of the communist leadership and the restoration of the use of capitalist-inspired methods.
1. You can argue all you like that the USSR was not really a communist government. We have a few countries that called themselves communists. USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba. The USSR invaded a number of countries after WWII was over. It was after the governments they had installed were either being replaced or were in danger of being overturned by their own people. Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia(1968), Afghanistan(1979), several former republics after the USSR had dissolved and now Ukraine....all were based on imperial control of other nations. I posted a great evaluation of the problems faced by Russia and why Putin is trying to expand his country into others.


2. It is not capitalism that drove the USSR to invade those countries. It was not capitalism that drove North Korea to invade South Korea.

3. Communism has failed repeatedly. No amount of rhetoric will change that.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Who do you think controls NATO?
Did Nato tell Putin to invade Ukraine? Gathering supporting info from you is like herding gerbils.

Putin invaded Ukraine on his own. He is blaming Ukraine, calling them Nazis and a threat to Russia. They are neither. Ukraine wasn't even close to joining Nato.

You seem to think Putin is credible. Why is that? He has jailed is principle adversary (Novalny) and murdered critics. Russia has gone to war in Georgia and Chechnya...all to exert control, certainly not because they threatened Russia.
 
Top