Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

Mciahel Goodman said:
The stated conditions are that those five are (were) the only nuclear powers on the planet. You have literally no clue what you're talking about. Why do you think those five are the permanent members and have remained so for so long?
Click to expand...
The UN Charter was signed in 1945 with the Security Council membership already in its current format, and the first meeting of the Security Council was in 1946, at which time there was only 1 nuclear power.

Just stop man, when you don't know about something maybe pose it as a question or a speculation. Stop blabbering about stuff you don't know.

EDIT: Didn't see the others who had already correctly answered before.
 
Droid_Repairs said:
Wait, rapist? What? I don't want to derail this thread but that's news to me. I'd heard that he approached random Ukrainian women and proposed sex (sometimes paying for it?) but I had no idea about anything like that! Are you sure?!
Click to expand...

Yup dont remember the exact details, I'll try to find the links. I think date rape drugs involved not sure though.

A lot of manipulation as well, promising poor young girls he's a rich westerner looking for a bride. He would convince the families of the girls as well. Would then bed the poor women and leave. Proper psychotic stuff.
 
Simbo said:
Going to be a lot more of this to come unfortunately :(

Click to expand...


This is just heartbreaking


Rhyme Animal said:
There needs to be as much real footage and accounts like this as possible.

It’s crucial that people understand war from a human point of view, and not just from a media narrative.

That goes for every war. The reality is that normal people don’t like this, it isn’t ‘in our nature’, it’s disturbing and painful and we hate it.

Innocent people must stop dying and suffering for the greed of pathetic sociopaths.
Click to expand...

Couldn't be more true. People need to see what is actually happens. That's how we work. We need somebody to identify with. And this stuff needs to happen before the surveillance states are too advanced in terms of technology that there's enough beyond their control.
 
MTF said:
The UN Charter was signed in 1945 with the Security Council membership already in its current format, and the first meeting of the Security Council was in 1946, at which time there was only 1 nuclear power.

Just stop man, when you don't know about something maybe pose it as a question or a speculation. Stop blabbering about stuff you don't know.
Click to expand...
Well aware. See the original post. Let's say I am wrong, that nuclear capacity is not what has kept these five in control of the SC for 60 years, then what has? Veto? What is the one thing they all have in common besides being recognised nuclear states.
 
Does the airport have strategic importance to the Ukrainians? In the sense that, what if they leave the area and just flatten it with rockets?
 
MTF said:
The UN Charter was signed in 1945 with the Security Council membership already in its current format, and the first meeting of the Security Council was in 1946, at which time there was only 1 nuclear power.

Just stop man, when you don't know about something maybe pose it as a question or a speculation. Stop blabbering about stuff you don't know.
Click to expand...

Even if all of members where nuclear powers. I wonder what argument anyone can give when they look at the ratio of nuclear in France energy production and also what EDF and Areva which are both massive companies specializes in. If anything this mess could be great for France if we play it properly, EDF will try to sell even more plants to the french government and tell them that it will be financed by selling it to Germany.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Well aware. See the original post. Let's say I am wrong, that nuclear capacity is not what has kept these five in control of the SC for 60 years, then what has? Veto? What is the one thing they all have in common besides being recognised nuclear states.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the meaning of the word “permanent”?
 
Wait, 130,000 in total? Surely not, right? What's Ukraine's current military manpower?
Or do they mean 130,000 civilians?

 
JPRouve said:
If I understand it correctly you are mistakenly mixing nuclear-weapons countries with the possession of nuclear power plants. That's a pretty basic mistake.
Click to expand...
My argument, basically, is that the five permanent members are only permanent members (as of today) because of their nuclear (weapons) capacity.* Aside from the UK-French agreement (common sharing of tactical submarines, which I'm not sure even exists as of now) I don't know of any situation where these states enrich uranium beyond their own borders?

*Which is hardly controversial when every time Trident or whatever program comes up for renewal the UK press tells us over and over again that the UK must retain its nuclear weapons in order to keep its position in the security council.
 
Seen this:

"If they don't kill the New Green Deal bs and immediately open up Keystone, fracking, and drilling on federal land they will finish off the economy and the people.

They want us to have to sacrifice for a war that they allowed to happen and that they in many ways caused, while they sit in their mansions eating caviar. Democrats truly hate the working class and this country. They are hoping we collapse."
 
JuveGER said:
Half a million people took to the streets in Berlin alone to make their voices heard against the Iraq war. Western nations like Germany and France openly opposed the war.

What other invasions? Afghanistan was invaded because of 9/11. Yugoslavia was bombed because of a civil war that included ethnic cleansing and genocide.

It's plain wrong that there is no outcry over US/NATO wars. And none of these wars included invading a democratic country to annex it into your country.
Click to expand...
Let just say that I know enough of the Yugoslavia thing that I can say whatever US/NATO have done there or better said didn't done speaks for itself.
What war US/NATO have started. Stsrted or was involved in disputes Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and many more.
We could debate what Russia is doing is trying to annex Ukraine to their country or not but in any case what are they are doing is wrong and have to be prevented but so is the case in military operations from western countries.
 
arnie_ni said:
Seen this:

"If they don't kill the New Green Deal bs and immediately open up Keystone, fracking, and drilling on federal land they will finish off the economy and the people.

They want us to have to sacrifice for a war that they allowed to happen and that they in many ways caused, while they sit in their mansions eating caviar. Democrats truly hate the working class and this country. They are hoping we collapse."
Click to expand...
Wow. So much stupidity in that.
 
germany hellbent on placing itself firmly on the “get fecked” list.
 
mu4c_20le said:
It's disappointing that the West pretty much did nothing but stand idly by. Can we really call Putin a madman when such threats are clearly so effective?
Click to expand...

Maybe madman isn't exactly the right term. His moral compass is out of whack though, and there is a sort of madness in that. I agree that he's strategically rational though.
 
Whilst not condoning Russia in any way, can't help comparing the shelling with America's 'shock and awe' tactics in Baghdad and wondering if it upset people as much as what they're seeing now.

We've done it, so it's a tad hypocritical feeling for the people of Ukraine (which we are, and should be) whilst not having the same emotional response for the Iraquis.
 
Abizzz said:
I'm only half german but i'm more than half embarrassed :( Hopefully public pressure will force him to rethink, but I'm not sure how much public pressure there will be.
Click to expand...

he's a joke, always has been. People in Germany wanted a government with low level competence in regards of national/international defense. That's what you get when you elect lightweights like Baerbock, Scholz and Habeck. It's pathetic.
 
Is the German stance representative of the current government, or would every German leader have made the same decision?
 
Livvie said:
Whilst not condoning Russia in any way, can't help comparing the shelling with America's 'shock and awe' tactics in Baghdad and wondering if it upset people as much as what they're seeing now.

We've done it, so it's a tad hypocritical feeling for the people of Ukraine (which we are, and should be) whilst not having the same emotional response for the Iraquis.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan - UN Council Resolution 1386
Iraq - UN Council Resolution 1441

(I am not saying they were right or wrong)
 
MTF said:
Dude, the UN Charter simply says who are the permanent members. There are no stated conditions. Here:

Article 23
  1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council
You're a fecking idiot.
Click to expand...
He's not an idiot. He is a Russian troll and the fact that he not only hasn't been banned, but he is a mod is a disgrace for this forum.

Just go check his posts in the previous days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.