d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Russia / Ukraine
Prev1242024212422242324244472Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 19,644
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,517.50
Mar 19 2023 03:32pm
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Mar 19 2023 03:32pm
Quote (Djunior @ 19 Mar 2023 21:24)
First you verbally attack the creator of a topic via PM and now this, reporting this insanity


oh look, the crybaby who complained about getting suspended for repeatedly calling people names is reporting posts for absolutely no reason, lol. totally not a hypocrite...

Quote (Prox1m1ty @ 19 Mar 2023 20:09)
The bootlickers are thriving it seems, good luck when you all get drafted mobiks.

And kudos to ^ferdia for enabling the bullshit, well done man.


he's clearly one of them. he might TRY to appear neutral when pressed, but he clearly favours moscow's perspective on basically every single issue concerning this war, constantly enabling and supporting blatant kremlin bots and their narratives. this whole thread is set up as an attempt to downplay russia's agency, aggression, and war crimes with lazy whataboutisms, spins, and false equivalences...
Member
Posts: 51,623
Joined: Jan 19 2007
Gold: 45,309.00
Warn: 10%
Mar 19 2023 03:35pm
Quote (Prox1m1ty @ Mar 19 2023 09:28pm)
And you too, enabler. Collaborating with supporters of war criminals. Pathetic.


The only reason why Tony Blair was not sent to jail for being a war criminal was because they didnt have a law for what he did. Only after he did it did they realise how messed up it was what he did. The they wrote a law and of course they did not then review historic violaters of the law so he's walknig around happy.

Finally, as has already been noted, Besides Russia and Ukraine, the United States and China are not members of the 123-member ICC. One law for the weak and one for the strong. So you can carry on and deplore Putin and by all means call me a w/e you want (but bear in mind if you flame I will report each of your posts as I have these) but ultimately all this ICC and Drone stuff is doing is escalating the war and bringing the US and Russia closer to a direct confrontation, which it would appear you and others are itching for. In a sane world all of the superpowers would sign up to the ICC and they would not have a veto in the UN and we would all be equal but thats not how the world works and has not for a long time if ever.

ofc fender with a cheap shot. typical fender.

This post was edited by ferdia on Mar 19 2023 03:36pm
Member
Posts: 19,644
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,517.50
Mar 19 2023 03:37pm
Quote (ferdia @ Mar 19 2023 09:35pm)
The only reason why Tony Blair was not sent to jail for being a war criminal was because they didnt have a law for what he did. Only after he did it did they realise how messed up it was what he did. The they wrote a law and of course they did not then review historic violaters of the law so he's walknig around happy.

Finally, as has already been noted, Besides Russia and Ukraine, the United States and China are not members of the 123-member ICC. One law for the weak and one for the strong. So you can carry on and deplore Putin and by all means call me a w/e you want (but bear in mind if you flame I will report each of your posts as I have these) but ultimately all this ICC and Drone stuff is doing is escalating the war and bringing the US and Russia closer to a direct confrontation, which it would appear you and others are itching for.


Your opinion is less than nothing to me, do whatever you want.

Simply an enabler that's addicted to notifications from those that glorify war criminals, pathetic.
Member
Posts: 33,663
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Mar 19 2023 03:47pm
Quote (ferdia @ Mar 19 2023 09:35pm)
The only reason why Tony Blair was not sent to jail for being a war criminal was because they didnt have a law for what he did. Only after he did it did they realise how messed up it was what he did. The they wrote a law and of course they did not then review historic violaters of the law so he's walknig around happy.

Finally, as has already been noted, Besides Russia and Ukraine, the United States and China are not members of the 123-member ICC. One law for the weak and one for the strong. So you can carry on and deplore Putin and by all means call me a w/e you want (but bear in mind if you flame I will report each of your posts as I have these) but ultimately all this ICC and Drone stuff is doing is escalating the war and bringing the US and Russia closer to a direct confrontation, which it would appear you and others are itching for. In a sane world all of the superpowers would sign up to the ICC and they would not have a veto in the UN and we would all be equal but thats not how the world works and has not for a long time if ever.

ofc fender with a cheap shot. typical fender.


Tony Blair made the wrong call in retrospect, but using the available evidence he had at the time, many would have come to the same conclusion.

- Saddam had a history of aggressive actions: invading and annexing Kuwait, subsequently killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians in an uprising after it failed
- He used chemical weapons against his own people in the 90s, confirmed
- He subverted/kicked out chemical weapons inspectors over 10 times over the years

Then on top of that, MI6 were telling Blair (incorrectly) with confidence that their intelligence confirmed Saddam still had WMD. MI6 were more to blame than Blair.
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Mar 19 2023 03:50pm
Quote (ferdia @ 19 Mar 2023 22:35)
The only reason why Tony Blair was not sent to jail for being a war criminal was because they didnt have a law for what he did. Only after he did it did they realise how messed up it was what he did. The they wrote a law and of course they did not then review historic violaters of the law so he's walknig around happy.

Finally, as has already been noted, Besides Russia and Ukraine, the United States and China are not members of the 123-member ICC. One law for the weak and one for the strong. So you can carry on and deplore Putin and by all means call me a w/e you want (but bear in mind if you flame I will report each of your posts as I have these) but ultimately all this ICC and Drone stuff is doing is escalating the war and bringing the US and Russia closer to a direct confrontation, which it would appear you and others are itching for. In a sane world all of the superpowers would sign up to the ICC and they would not have a veto in the UN and we would all be equal but thats not how the world works and has not for a long time if ever.

ofc fender with a cheap shot. typical fender.


coming from you of all people, the coward who has done exactly that at least a dozen times in this thread alone... what a hypocrite you are. if you had the balls to face me in open debate, you we could talk with one another, rather than about one another - but every time i press you on your obvious bias, you just dodge while clutching you pearls over alleged insults - while simultaneously chumming up with people who regularly insult people as "moron" ( https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=92094408&f=119&p=642575794 ), "wanker", or tell them to "guzzle some cum" ( https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=92094408&f=119&p=642577070 )... at least you're consistent about being a hypocrite i guess...

Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Mar 19 2023 04:21pm
Quote (dro94 @ 19 Mar 2023 22:47)
Tony Blair made the wrong call in retrospect, but using the available evidence he had at the time, many would have come to the same conclusion.

- Saddam had a history of aggressive actions: invading and annexing Kuwait, subsequently killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians in an uprising after it failed
- He used chemical weapons against his own people in the 90s, confirmed
- He subverted/kicked out chemical weapons inspectors over 10 times over the years

Then on top of that, MI6 were telling Blair (incorrectly) with confidence that their intelligence confirmed Saddam still had WMD. MI6 were more to blame than Blair.


strongly disagree. there were massive public protests at the time, several countries (like france, germany, russia...), as well as highly regarded foreign policy experts and diplomats opposing the war - proving that position was well-established, and the rationale behind the war was anything but convincing. the MI6 might have provided blair with plausible deniability (no one in the public actually knows what he really was told, what he really knew), but that doesn't absolve him from the fact it was a massive mistake with dire consequences. i'm not saying he was in an easy position politically - the americans were exerting a great deal of pressure on their allies, but what it comes down to is that he ultimately followed the blood-thirsty yanks into their unjust bullshit war, while others didn't. a political career (that fucker still unapologetically comments on every single issue like some kind of authority) might not be an easy price to pay, but it's still a small one compared to the millions of lives that war ended up costing.

the likes of bush and blair most definitely deserve to be in front of the ICC. the fact they aren't, the fact that countries like the US, china, and russia simply don't acknowledge the court makes it ultimately meaningless - even though pootin is obviously a war criminal and deserves to stand trial for the atrocities he committed (which he never will of course).

This post was edited by fender on Mar 19 2023 04:24pm
Member
Posts: 33,663
Joined: May 9 2009
Gold: 3.33
Mar 19 2023 04:35pm
Quote (fender @ Mar 19 2023 10:21pm)
strongly disagree. there were massive public protests at the time, several countries (like france, germany, russia...), as well as well-regarded foreign policy experts and diplomats opposing the war, proving that position was well-established, and the rationale behind the war was anything but convincing. the MI6 might have provided blair with plausible deniability (no one in the public actually knows what he really was told, what he really knew though), but that doesn't absolve him from the fact it was a massive mistake with dire consequences. i'm not saying he was in an easy position politically - the americans were exerting a great deal of pressure on their allies, but what it comes down to is that he ultimately followed the blood-thirsty yanks into their unjust bullshit war while others didn't. a political career (that fucker still unapologetically comments on every single issue like some kind of authority) might not be an easy price to pay, but it's still a small one compared to the millions of lives that war ended up costing.

the likes of bush and blair most definitely deserve to be in front of the ICC. the fact they aren't, the fact that countries like the US, china, and russia simply don't acknowledge the court makes it ultimately meaningless - even though pootin is obviously a war criminal and deserves to stand trial for the atrocities he committed (even though he of course never will).


Correction: it was a massive mistake for the Americans. They committed 95% of the invading force, and even more of the occupying force. We didn't commit that much.

The main damage we suffered was arguably reputational, but still, that was directed more at Blair than the nation. I've always found it a bit of a shame that the best PM we had since Attlee destroyed his reputation from one foreign policy blunder that didn't have domestic consequences.

Ultimately he acted on MI6 intelligence and pressure from the Americans, he was rational in his decision making and genuinely thought it was for the good of the people there.
Member
Posts: 19,644
Joined: Apr 13 2016
Gold: 32,517.50
Mar 19 2023 04:50pm
Quote (dro94 @ Mar 19 2023 10:35pm)
Correction: it was a massive mistake for the Americans. They committed 95% of the invading force, and even more of the occupying force. We didn't commit that much.

The main damage we suffered was arguably reputational, but still, that was directed more at Blair than the nation. I've always found it a bit of a shame that the best PM we had since Attlee destroyed his reputation from one foreign policy blunder that didn't have domestic consequences.

Ultimately he acted on MI6 intelligence and pressure from the Americans, he was rational in his decision making and genuinely thought it was for the good of the people there.


They were also apparently emboldened after NATO intervention in Bosnia. Bush and Blair that is; Not to mention the influence of the neo-conservative sociopathic un-convicted war criminals:
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton(Who apparently is considering running for president), Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell.

Not a surprise that after politics Blair went to Israel to "resolve the Palestine/Israel conflict" or in other words, sell more arms to anyone who will purchase them.
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Mar 19 2023 05:06pm
Quote (dro94 @ 19 Mar 2023 23:35)
Correction: it was a massive mistake for the Americans. They committed 95% of the invading force, and even more of the occupying force. We didn't commit that much.

The main damage we suffered was arguably reputational, but still, that was directed more at Blair than the nation. I've always found it a bit of a shame that the best PM we had since Attlee destroyed his reputation from one foreign policy blunder that didn't have domestic consequences.

Ultimately he acted on MI6 intelligence and pressure from the Americans, he was rational in his decision making and genuinely thought it was for the good of the people there.


purely speculative and rather doubtful in my personal opinion.

the consequences, the damage i'm talking about is not the loss of reputation or even that of soldiers, but the lives of millions of iraqis, syrians, kurds... who died in the wake of that war. it destabilised the whole region and directly led to the creation of ISIS. downplaying the scope of involvement by one particular participant doesn't really change that.
a resolute "no" by UK leadership, not providing them with transparently false "evidence" through UK intelligence, might not have dissuaded the yanks entirely, but who knows what would have happened if they had been made to go in alone, and not with the semblance of international support backing their crusade...

not that any of those speculations would change my conclusion that the likes of blair and bush should at least have faced a trial before the ICC, trying to get to the bottom of the facts. of course that's not the fault of the court, it's a good institution in theory, just useless in practice when the main warmonger nations simply don't acknowledge it.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1242024212422242324244472Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll