I've literally refuted your argument by demonstrating that NATO expansion has been happening since the fall of USSR and that plenty of prominent people in the west have warned that it would culminate in a war. Nobody is moving any goal posts on you here. You're the one who can't refute basic facts of the situation, and having no integrity, you try to deflect from that. It's both pathetic and transparent. Good job outing yourself as a troll. Bye.
seems like that's a scenario that's most likely to happen in burgerland actually
Subjugating the working class majority is literally the whole point of establishing a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
Sure, yet there's no actual evidence that this science has been overturned by anyone. At best there's a disagreement in the scientific community regarding what the worst case scenario would be.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
Pretty clear that a lot of people are trying to marginalize the threat of a nuclear conflict even in this very thread.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
Nope, I don't think that at all. That's just a straw man you're building here.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with being aggressive and rude towards people spreading dangerous nonsense calling research they disagree with Russian misinformation. It's interesting how you went after me and not the other poster.
What are you even talking about. This all started back in the 90s, and has been going on since. In fact, plenty of western experts have been warning about NATO expansion for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Anybody who pretends that this all started in 2014 is deeply intellectually dishonest.
Unit Cost: $56.5 million (includes four aircraft with sensors, ground control station and Predator Primary satellite link) (fiscal 2011 dollars)
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/
You can't give advanced weapons to the savages in Iran and China, that's reckless!
I'm not twisting anything here. I've been very clear regarding the specific point I was making. The context of this whole thread is that the use of long range weapons do do deep strikes is the one clear red line that Russia articulated. The fact that you're trying to twist this into something else shows that you're the one being intellectually dishonest here. Bye.
I was very clearly replying to this statement claiming that Russia has supposedly outlines lots of previous red lines that have been broken.
Russia claiming X means war with NATO has been a bit of a recurring theme throughout the war.
Are you just intentionally ignoring the context here?
view more: next ›
That's because your argument is a straw man that ignores context and history. Now run along and do your trolling elsewhere.