I thought we agreed on this.
You are allowed to present arguments. You haven’t done much of that
So apply your assertion to ukraine war. Go right ahead
I’ll post when i want to. You are not very good at trolling. When you looked over the thread with hugo, did you watch my video of Bill Hicks?
How do you know that the objective was to take Kiev?
Because that’s where the tanks were going
To isolate ukraine soldiers from eastern Ukraine batallions?
Could be, sure. His strategy is hard to figure
Then why do write like you know what intentions are?
I don’t. I do the best with the evidence I have. I use words like “seems”. You started out saying you knew what i believed. That was your mistake
Who made the predictions that he would roll in and take Kiev in weeks? Is that your mistake?
I’m bored now. Whatever
Bored, i dont have to answer questions, your question is nonsense.
Got it.
Good night
(War Drums in the Ukraine - #93 by peacenotwar)
Bored, i dont have to answer questions, your question is nonsense.
Got it.
Good night
And what is your assessment of the situation. Is Russia is winning the war or is Putin just breaking the house because he is NOT winning the war.
In my book winning is occupying. Russia is not occupying Ukraine. In fact it is being driven back in several locations. And people in Russia are waking up to the BIG LIE that Ukraine is threat to Russia.
Here’s an update, yeah, so it’s just CNN.
Ret. US Army Major Mike Lyons gives his analysis on the most recent attacks and troop movements in the Russian war against Ukraine
I doubt this will interest our pal, but it’s an interesting insight. Starts a bit slow, but she’s a fascinating person.
Emma Barnett meets Fiona Hill, senior director for European and Russian affairs on the U.S. National Security Council under Donald Trump, to discuss how the international community should negotiate with Vladimir Putin, what it was like to testify in Trump’s first impeachment and her experience working in his White House. Interview recorded on April 25, 2022.
I don’t get the logic of peacenotwar. pretty much anything could be wrong, therefore the media is lying, you’re a sheep, you don’t think for yourself, and Putin could be telling the truth. That’s what I get from peace and hugo. Hugo was more into hypocrisy, so, I guess either Pink Floyd does a benefit for anyone who has ever been harmed by any war action anywhere, including wars 50 years ago, or they shouldn’t do any benefits at all.
A retired US general claiming to know what Putins plan and objectives are doesn’t convince anyone with a functioning mental processing unit
Add - dont understand the logic to the list
Got any metrics here for us in your book? What happened to the russian economy collapse and the revolt of the people against Putin that you were screaming about from Day 1?
In an indication how well things are going in Ukraine, zelensky has just shutdown the gas to europe in a desperate attempt to get more help
You started right out with comments about people being wrong about their beliefs and accepting lies. You demanded your questions be answered. These are problems. Now you are making insults to intelligence. If you have some other perspective on this war, that’s fine, I don’t think you’re stupid, I just don’t agree. I’m not required to explain myself any further than that. I don’t care if you think the earth is flat, just explain why without calling other people names, or making this about personalities.
You can find this, and other rules under FAQ in the menu up by your avatar in the upper right.
Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.
When it comes to political issues, you could point out someone’s political qualifications, but their political leanings would be less relevant. War is also an ethical issue, and anyone is qualified to comment on that. If you want to comment on how someone is using information, general comments on intelligence are completely out of bounds, but comments on how facts are established, the quality of a source, and how facts have been verified is on-point.
When I did give you a response, that the tanks going to Kyev indicated that was a goal for Putin, you offered that it could indicate something else. Well, of course it could. It could mean a lot of things. I’m not a secret on agent on the ground there, seeing everything and listening in on their coded radios. If you want to contradict things like that, that’s easy, it doesn’t inform me of anything. If you have some thoughts, present facts, connect dots, make a point.