- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 55,698
- Reaction score
- 13,901
For once sending weapons to its allies.What do you think "standing up to" means?
According to you, if Russia invades or nukes a NATO country the US response should be to cut off all weapons supplies to any ally because otherwise its going to be an escalation.
The US isn't attacking Russia, if Russia was attacked by the US considering its current performance it would go just like Saddam's little invasion of Kuwait.Standing up to implies that you are the one being attacked, and the US never has been,
Russia ATTACKED Ukraine, Ukraine is fighting back, Russia isn't the victim here.and the same cannot be said in the other direction.
Nobody is asking America to invade Russia, just to transfer weapons so Ukraine can defend itself.If a country attacks the US, we are equipped to defend ourselves,
US isn't on the offense here.which is not the same as going on offense and playing world police with constant regime change debacles and decades long occupations and stalemates.
Give me a break with your leftists slogans (only 20 years of peace) sure, if you count every single instance a US serviceman was involved in a conflict in some capacity yeah, that's kind of what happens when you are a global superpower.The US has had less than 20 year of peace time the entire time it has existed, and the last war that was actually here was the US attacking ourselves when we temporarily ran out of other countries to attack.
OkI mean your country has been sending invaders to the US for several decades.
If Mexico was invaded by the US i would support Russia or China sending weapons to Mexico.Would you support the US "standing up to" Mexico,
or do you just support wars that you have nothing to do with and get to watch from the sidelines?
If Russia doesn't wants to be attacked by Ukraine, they can always just pack their shit and leave, this is what America did in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of crying that they would nuke the entire world because people are fighting back.