and bald.
therefore he must be old
therefore anything he says must be nonsense.
right?

Yes senile....lol

someone is going to call me a CCP Shill

the above post from hamster features the individual i suggested you watch.

also thats only a snippet of that particular lecture. afaik that one is 1-2 hours long - i watched it months ago.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 10 2023 09:45am

In regards to the military ambitions , they do have now. There are two notions to it, one is that they have to have military ambitions to protect their interest and most importantly the Taiwan issue and the energy security.

The second notion is that they want to overtake the USA as a world power.

Although the second notion will bode well for posters in Pard , it does seem a little far fetch at the moment. I am not saying that in 15 to 20 years it might change but things changes all the time. Lets cross our fingers. This is also the reason why as much as I am quite disgusted with the American government.
I will never wish for them to be lowered to a second rate status which I know they will not. I just want them to sort their domestic shit out and at least try and be a benevolent super power that the world perceive her to be.

From the little bit of history I know, it makes sense they would want to protect their interests, particularly in regards to being blockaded, they haven't exactly been given a lot of reason to trust Western countries. I don't like the idea of any major power becoming more militarized though.




Good video, I will find the full talk. He is a quite funny, the first few minutes were like a comedy sketch. His opinions on Ukraine seem quite sensible as well.

This post was edited by DizzyBusiness on Mar 10 2023 10:11am

No evidence Russia did it either, cave dweller.



Post the evidence here shitpost. We'll wait.



There is no evidence to prove who did it. Circumstance and motive might be enough proof for you, and that's your choice.
It's your choice to assume the US blew up NS2, that doesn't make it a fact anyone else has to accept.

I take issue with the framework for discussion being based on your assumption and everyone having to accept it as fact or prove otherwise.
It just doesn't work like that.

First you prove it beyond reasonable doubt; Then we can accept it and discuss.
Not the other way around.

Who is "we"? Who else believes there isn't a single shred of evidence?

I'm not asking this in good faith btw, I just want to embarrass you further

Just provide the evidence?

here it is:

Lol no. People more patient and kind than me have attempted to do so, I'm quite happy to watch you wallow in your ignorance, under the caveat of being able to mock you for it of course.