Will Ukraine be Putin’s Afghanistan?

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You should learn the definition of 'Plausible' before you embarrass yourself further

Here, no need to thank me
So, this is your understanding of the word, "plausible"? If an argument is NOT based on any verifiable truths or factual premises, it can still be a plausible, reasonable, or probable argument? You're and embarrassment! And, you don't have to thank me either.

Given that I was the only one to reply to your comment .. who are these 'most people' that lead you to make that statement? The other voices in your head perhaps?
Still snarking I see. Do you even know what the quote is referring to? Regardless, if it is only you who have replied. Not sure what this silly mindless distraction about voices is suppose to mean. But, I actually say what I mean! I don't pretend to say what I mean(if that is even possible).

Why did you change it from a discussion about everyone hating 'Russia' (your original argument) to a discussion about the Russian government?
You don't even have a clue what my original argument was, do you? Just another snaky comment.

I'd be happy if you understood the basics
In other words, YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE. And, absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Except that it's not a new goal post at all.
It is! First you said that by providing weapons to the Ukrainian army, we would be allowing the Ukrainians to defend themselves against a bully(Russians). Now you're saying that by helping them indirectly, we would avoid anyone else actually joining into the war. One is true, and the other is a lie. Then you make this stupid comment in response to the reality of body bags in any prolong conflict.

"how do you know? If Putin is allowed to walk in unchallenged by the rest of the world, how many body bags will you end up with when he tries to do the same with Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, or maybe even Armenia, Azerbaijan? Helping Ukraine might in the long run save more lives than it will cost.".

In other words, you don't have a clue. Since you won't cite the daily increase in body bags, and admit to your idiocy, you make up this baseless straw man to justify what could/might happen if we stopped interfering. I like to base my opinions on what is ACTUALLY happening! Not make assumptions based on shit that I just make-up! If you think that the body-bags will decrease the more the Ukrainians are armed, then you are a total moron!

crap ... if they want to attack they'll just make up an excuse, just as they have in the past
Only the US is the expert in making-up excuses for attacking other countries. They use excuses like the war on drugs, WMD, or the war on terrorism. It just seems logical to me, that if Russia wanted to attack any ANZUS or NATO country, and knowing what the repercussions would be, that they would need a very very good reason to do so. But that is just the commonsense in me talking. Maybe we should just nuke Russia now, before they can make up an excuse and nuke us first? Good idea or what??

I don't need to. You put yourself into a twist every time you say something
More snarking. "..into a twist"? Who even talks like this? I keep hoping that you might have some depth of knowledge and understanding on any subject. But clearly manipulating comments, trolling, insults, and making snarky remarks, seems to be the limits of your communication skills. I should have known better! You're just all huff and bluff!
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
So, this is your understanding of the word, "plausible"?
No, it's the oxford dictionary's definition of the word plausible. But you know better right? :ROFL1:ROFL1

You're and embarrassment!
I don't want to embarrass you further but it's actually 'you're an embarrassment', not AND. Again, no need to thank me.

Still snarking I see.
no, just pointing out the flaw in your argument. Who is this 'we' you refer to? You still haven't said. Are you pretending everyone else agrees with you or are you still talking to your imaginary friends at your age?

You don't even have a clue what my original argument was, do you?
your white flag on this is accepted

Only the US is the expert in making-up excuses for attacking other countries
there you go, you even answered your own question before about where in history this happened.

It just seems logical to me, that if Russia wanted to attack any ANZUS or NATO country, and knowing what the repercussions would be, that they would need a very very good reason to do so.
so now you're relying on 'logic' over 'evidence'? Or does it change depending on who is making the comment? All that aside, they don't always need a good reason, they can also do it just by having a crazy megalomaniac calling the shots.

It is! First you said that by providing weapons to the Ukrainian army, we would be allowing the Ukrainians to defend themselves against a bully(Russians). Now you're saying that by helping them indirectly, we would avoid anyone else actually joining into the war.
Neither are mutually exclusive.... and here I was thinking you'd finally progressed to using logic ... then with the very next point you abandon any logic.

But clearly manipulating comments, trolling, insults, and making snarky remarks, seems to be the limits of your communication skills.
calling you out on your stupidity is manipulating comments? :ROFL1:ROFL1:ROFL1 Here's an idea, stop making stupid comments and no one will call you out on them.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
No, it's the oxford dictionary's definition of the word plausible. But you know better right?
"But I know better.."? Really! I asked you if this is your understanding of the word/definition? Not, that I disagree with the Oxfords dictionary's definition of the word, as you are implying(deflection). Oh, did you just misrepresent, and deflect my comments again? Of course not! Only an idiot would try to make a plausible argument, based only on lies and zero facts. People like you! No matter how you want to interpret the definition.

I don't want to embarrass you further but it's actually 'you're an embarrassment', not AND. Again, no need to thank me.
You must be getting desperate to take on the role of the grammar police. As well as a snarky troll! What would really impress me, if you actually knew why this comment is grammatically incorrect? Other than it just sounds wrong!

no, just pointing out the flaw in your argument. Who is this 'we' you refer to? You still haven't said. Are you pretending everyone else agrees with you or are you still talking to your imaginary friends at your age?
You've pointed out, or addressed nothing! Just more snarking, deflecting, and insulting, to avoid exposing just how little you do understand! I don't blame you.

your white flag on this is accepted
there you go, you even answered your own question before about where in history this happened.
Still avoiding, deflecting, and snarking! Again, I don't blame you. You certainly aren't going to give any examples in history(only cite it), that could possibly support your sad and pathetic position.

so now you're relying on 'logic' over 'evidence'? Or does it change depending on who is making the comment? All that aside, they don't always need a good reason, they can also do it just by having a crazy megalomaniac calling the shots.
"...logic over evidence"? Did you just make-up that straw man? I said that Putin would need to have a very good reason before he would attack a NATO, or ANZUS country. You said that he doesn't need one, or would just make one up. He's just a crazy megalomaniac, and doesn't need an(y) excuse(no evidence). I said that we shouldn't give Putin a reason. And, that supplying the Ukrainian army with stinger missiles, tanks, planes, mercs, arms and munitions, sanctions, and satellite intelligence, to kill more Russian soldiers, would certainly be giving Putin a valid reason to attack these meddling countries. Of course, this is only what the right side of my brain is telling me. Maybe you could point out the flaw in this rational? Or, will you again avoid this question as well? Like your insane body-bag assumption, that you've avoided!!

Neither are mutually exclusive.... and here I was thinking you'd finally progressed to using logic ... then with the very next point you abandon any logic.
Another snarky remark. No substance, examples, or explanations. Whether something is mutually exclusive or not, has nothing to do with whether they are logical. But has everything to do with content/context. But then again, you're only arguing to go the distance, right?

calling you out on your stupidity is manipulating comments? :ROFL1:ROFL1:ROFL1 Here's an idea, stop making stupid comments and no one will call you out on them.
You're not calling me out on anything, except whatever exist only in your head! Hence why you never deposit examples for scrutiny. You just keep misrepresenting anything I say, insulting me, and making up more dumb snarky remarks to provoke me. That's it! You should really take your own advice! Or, better yet, you should do your own research, develop better comprehension skills, and stop jumping from branch to branch whenever you're ideas are challenged. You should also be able to support your ideas, with facts, logic, and at least some intuition. It really is very hard to squeeze any details out of you, without you always defaulting to switching the burden of proof.

I still can't believe that you are a moderator! The bar is clearly set very low. I didn't know just how important being a comic relief was on a forum.
 

johnsmith

Administrator
Staff member
I asked you if this is your understanding of the word/definition?
you did far more than that. But you haven't the integrity to admit where you went wrong

You must be getting desperate to take on the role of the grammar police.
more a case of the 'embarrassment police' over grammar police. Again, it's no surprise that it went over your head.

you've pointed out, or addressed nothing!
so you've spent the last few days arguing because ................????? Not real good at this are you?:smirk

Still avoiding, deflecting, and snarking!
you mean like you do?

Another snarky remark. No substance, examples, or explanations
the example was the comment I replied to. You do realise that that is why I quote the relevant sections off your comments in my replies, right?


Or, better yet, you should do your own research
See, again you opt to leave logic out of the discussion . Research on what? We're discussing Putins long term goals ... where do you suggest anyone research that?

It really is very hard to squeeze any details out of you
Again, I've given my opinion on what I think. Unlike you I don't see a need to repeat myself a thousand times. The rest of my commentary is to point out where you've gone wrong. It's more fun laughing at you than it is trying to educate you.


(no evidence)
thats because you cannot read.

Annex Crimea, Ukraine, the restoration of former soviet symbols into current govt. propaganda ... hows that for starters?
 
Top