Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Ukraine is Very Beneficial, the Best Investment

views
     
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 10:23 AM, updated 7h ago

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008


Look how proud Lindsay Graham is that the Ukraine war with Russia is very beneficial to them.

No ounce of remorse for how many Ukrainian people died for them.

Told you Zelenskyy is a puppet to the West since the first year of war.

Even a 10 million bounty known Al-Qaeda top leader is welcome to the Whitehouse recently.
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 11:01 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
This alone should make it obvious, but ktards pura-pura buat tak nampak and still support that bloodthirsty barbarians causing problems around the globe.

From their own mouth, what more do they need to do to convince you that the American ruling government is evil?

Even welcoming a known top Al-Qaeda leader with a 10 million bounty on his head to their Whitehouse, it just shows that he is their puppet to take control of the Middle East countries through terrorism.
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 11:36 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 11:24 AM)
bloodthristy barbarians?
who invaded who here?
*
NATO plans to place nuclear missiles right next to the Russia border if Ukraine joins NATO.

Ever heard of Cuban missile crisis?

When the U.S.S.R. tried to place its nuke missiles one thousand miles away from America's border, America quickly threatened to conquer Cuba within days.

But luckily U.S.S.R. doesn't want to drag Cuba into war, so they withdraws their nuclear missiles from Cuban soil.

Same shait, but this time Russia has already warned repeatedly not to expand NATO to their borders, NATO which was created to counter the U.S.S.R power, but somehow instead of following the agreement made, they keep expanding NATO.

If America has the right to wage war on a country that is one thousand miles away to prevent nuclear missiles from being placed there, why can't Russia?

Unlucky for Ukraine, America wants the war, because it is the best investment.

This post has been edited by smsid: Nov 29 2025, 11:40 AM
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 12:06 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 11:52 AM)
NATO plans to place nuclear missiles in Ukraine according to who?
Your hero puting?

America wage war on Cuba is as lame an excuse as Russia wage war on Ukraine.
Sovereign country, sovereign rights.
So how? 2 wrongs make a right now?

NATO expanded to 2 more countries i dun see your hero puting attack them after giving repeated warning also.
*
Because in Ukraine, approximately 1/3 of the population is Russian-speaking natives.

West Ukraine Nazi have been terrorizing East Ukraine folks for many years by bombing them.

It is in their interest.

Tell me, why is it the best investment for America?

So dead Ukrainian and dead Russia is America's best investment money can buy?

This post has been edited by smsid: Nov 29 2025, 12:08 PM
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 12:18 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 12:15 PM)
So by ur logic ccp or usa can invade many countries also because a big percentage of population speak their native language and its in their interest.
Lame excuse here.

If you want to know what is the best investment for America, go ask Warren Buffet.

Maybe, because Russia sees dead Russians and Ukrainians as a best investment according to your logic so why not.
*
America has already invaded many countries using the same logic what.

To spread democracy and freedom, you forgot already?

Bomb Laos poor country, bomb Vietnam, bomb Korea, all that no problem?

Bomb Venezuela fisherman is okay too right?

This post has been edited by smsid: Nov 29 2025, 12:19 PM
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 12:25 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 12:15 PM)
If you want to know what is the best investment for America, go ask Warren Buffet.
*
Next best investment:



QUOTE(JohnLai @ Nov 29 2025, 12:21 PM)
smsid is talking crap now.

No idea where does he get his source of news from. laugh.gif
*
QUOTE
Yes, NATO allows the United States to place nuclear weapons in allied countries as part of its nuclear sharing arrangements. This policy is a core component of NATO's deterrence strategy, which includes sharing nuclear weapons, dual-capable aircraft, strategic nuclear forces, and other related measures.

Nuclear sharing: This is a key part of NATO's nuclear deterrence policy, allowing member nations to have a role in the planning and potential use of nuclear weapons.Deterrence and defense: NATO's nuclear policy aims to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression by creating a security environment that includes conventional, missile defense, and nuclear forces.Supreme guarantee: The U.S. strategic nuclear forces, as well as the independent forces of the U.K. and France, are described by NATO as the "supreme guarantee" of the Alliance's security.
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 12:36 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 12:25 PM)
Again, 2 wrongs make right?

Its very desperate of you trying to justify russia invade ukraine by justifying what America did was right also just to fit your narrative.
*
Tell me, why Lindsay Graham say it is their best investment many time repeatedly?



America has killed more than a million people on last 2 decades alone, ktards no problem with it?

Bloodthirsty barbarians keep expanding NATO when they already agreed not to expand it after many warning?

They can't honor their agreement of not expanding NATO?

QUOTE(JohnLai @ Nov 29 2025, 12:27 PM)
Oh great, CHATGPT response now.

There goes the credibility.....
*
Can search yourself, but want to be spoonfeed.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...uclear%20forces

QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 12:28 PM)
Sorry, i dun give out free views.
*
Then you don't wish to see their next best investment they have in store?
TSsmsid
post Nov 29 2025, 12:51 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 12:44 PM)
We condemn the wrongs America did just the same.
So how?

Where your sos NATO agree not to expand?

How about Russia not honouring the Budapest memorandum that they signed and pledged to respect Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and borders and refrain from using force against it?
*
Then condemned harder, because they want to bomb Venezuela next, they already starting bomb and murder Venezuela people on boats.

Read this archive.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/rus...n-leaders-early

The moment Ukraine tries to join NATO, they already under alliance that is anti Russia, you know right why NATO is form?

To counter U S.S.R power, but U.S.S.R is no longer exist, they should have been dissolve too.
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 12:22 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Nov 29 2025, 01:02 PM)
Dun invite me to go retard like you harder here.
Im not like you living my life filled with blind hate.

So when Russia going to attack Sweden and Finland since you claim NATO is anti Russia?
Lame excuse as usual.

Why NATO need to dissolve?
Its not them that that are facing economic collapse here.

By your logic our VAT69 should be dissolved too since there are no more communist in merehsia.
Logic 404.
*
Because NATO is a terrorist organization.

See what they do to Libya.

They use depleted uranium bombs to make Libya's land not safe for farming anymore.

From the richest country in Africa to the poorest, and it opens floodgates of refugees.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 12:22 PM
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 12:25 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
NATO’s Depleted Uranium: The Health Consequences of Freedom and Democracy in Iraq, Libya and the Former Yugoslavia

https://www.pambazuka.org/NATO-Depleted-Uranium
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 12:42 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 12:30 PM)
Like how nato could put nukes in sweden now, or in latvia ten years ago?
*
NATO highly recommended to place nuclear as deterrence.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...uclear%20forces
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 01:26 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 01:17 PM)
which part of it says they're going to place nukes as you said?
*
It is highly recommended, what more do you want?

Already admitted that killing Russians and weakening their military is beneficial to the war cartels, the best investment.

Ukraine didn't join NATO, and they already received nonstop "assistance" from the NATO & US.
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 01:43 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 01:36 PM)
ok, so which part of that page said it was 'highly recommended'?
*
Lol everything also need to be spoonfeed.

You read the link I provided from NATO's own page, the first paragraph:
QUOTE
Nuclear weapons are a core component of NATO’s overall capabilities for deterrence and defence, alongside conventional and missile defence forces. NATO is committed to arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, but as long as nuclear weapons exist, it will remain a nuclear alliance.

https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterren...licy-and-forces

Core components, understood?
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 02:03 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 01:55 PM)
yet nothing said it plans to add more nukes, place nukes closer to any countries, nor highly recommends. all your own words.

in fact, the page says:
there's fewer nukes than before. so how?
*
The core component to make an ICE car to drive is what?

Fuel? Engine? Wheels?

If you take out one of the core components, does the ICE car work?

Then all 3 are highly recommended to make the ICE car work right?

So the core components translate to highly recommended.

And now ICE cars are fewer with EVs in the market.

Everything also needs to be spoonfed, unbelievable.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 02:04 PM
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 02:15 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 02:07 PM)
so youre just going to gloss over the 90% reduction in nukes eh?
*
I already answered the highly recommended part, now you are trying to shift the goal post again.

Core components, but now many new weapons have been invented, see Ukraine has been the battleground to test out all these new weapons and clear out old stockpile by NATO.

But weird thing is, Ukraine didn't even join NATO yet.
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 02:31 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 02:26 PM)
Nope, you literally had to make up a definition on a page that doesnt match your argument, then ignoring the fact that the rest of the page doesnt match your 'definition'. How is it 'highly recommended' but you reduce yhe number of nukes?

Using your example of a car, an engine is a core component of a car but it doesnt mean that it becomes "highly recommended" to slap on six more engines on your car. That is a retarded argument.

So assuming youre not driving around a car with 6 engines and 17 wheels, i think a normal person wouldnt equate 'core component' with 'highly recommended'.
*
Lol, you just answered it yourself with your own statement above.

You don't need many nukes as a deterrence, nevertheless it is highly recommended to have it, it is NATO's core component for defense and deterrence.

Only need 1 engine as a core component to make a car drive, you don't need too many.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 2 2025, 02:32 PM
TSsmsid
post Dec 2 2025, 03:22 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 02:47 PM)
precisely - so how do point at a document that says that nukes are a 'core component' that "you dont need too many", and say that this document says that they're going to put more nukes?

Youre saying nato "highly recommends" nukes, but there are at the same time 90% fewer nukes than when nato started, theres only very few countries that host them (none of them anywhere near russia), and theres no plans to install any new bases for nukes, including in countries that are already nato members.

Does that sound right?
*
Then it is NATO's own fault, for putting a conflicting statement on their own official website.

Nevertheless it is a core component for defense and deterrence, logically it is.
TSsmsid
post Dec 3 2025, 08:45 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(nuvi @ Dec 2 2025, 03:44 PM)
Actually it's your own fault for low comprehension in English.
*
You yourself have low comprehension, already stated in the first paragraph nuclear is a core component for defense and deterrence.

Trying hard to refute NATO's own admissions, they have a nuclear sharing program.

QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 2 2025, 03:45 PM)
> "my logic doesnt make sense, so it must be other people's fault."
*
NATO itself admitted in the first paragraph on their page that it is a core component for defense and deterrence.

That's why America doesn't dare to invade North Korea, they are trying to use South Korea as a proxy war.

Remember the South Korean president went crazy and blocked the Parliament session?

QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Dec 2 2025, 04:12 PM)
Russia attack Ukraine in accordance to UN resolution?
NATO military intervention in Libya is in accordance with
UN resolution.
So who the terrorist here?
How convenient of you to leave facts out to spin half truths.

Qatar, Jordan and UAE joined NATO in Libya military intervention in 2011.
So how? According to your logic they are terrorist also?

Guess who abstained in passing the 2011 UN resolution?
*
They didn't drop bombs on Libya with depleted uranium bombs, also they provided humanitarian assistance immediately.

They work under the banner of the U.N, mostly with humanitarian assistance.

That's why Libyan casualties don't reach millions like in Iraq.

QUOTE(gamehype @ Dec 2 2025, 05:24 PM)
Mate, core component for defense & deterence =/= we are going to put nukes in Ukraine.

There is nothing conflicting about "nukes beings core component for defense & deterence" and "no nukes in Ukraine".

The nukes can still be in France, Germany and it is still "core component for defense & deterence"
*
Ukraine didn't even join NATO yet, and look at all the "assistance" they are getting.

It is a NATO core component for defense and deterrence for a reason.

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 3 2025, 08:47 AM
TSsmsid
post Dec 3 2025, 05:55 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(COOLPINK @ Dec 3 2025, 09:41 AM)
Qatar did provided fighter jets and attacked targets in Libya.
Jordan and UAE provided fighter jets and other military assets also.

So according to your logic they are terrorist.
So now working under UN banner is ok with you now?
yet you say NATO terrorist when work under UN banner.

So how?
Or you want to continue spin half truth when it does not fit your narrative and kantoi as usual?
*
Where is your source that Qatar and UAE provided their military asset to bomb Libya?

QUOTE(empyreal @ Dec 3 2025, 11:28 AM)
Lets recap the convo:

> "nato wants to put nukes on russia's border. This nato page says so."
> does it actually say so?
> "no, but it says 'highly recommends'."
> does it actually say 'highly recommends'?
> "no, but it says 'core component'."
> does core component mean nato will add more nukes?
> "no, the page says theres 90% fewer nukes since the cold war."
> does core component mean nato will build more nuke bases?
> "no, none of nato's new members since the end of the cold war host nukes."
> does the page say anything about putting nukes in ukraine?
> "no."
> so what does the page have to do with your argument?
> "err... its nato's fault that the page i linked doesnt support my argument."
*
QUOTE(gamehype @ Dec 3 2025, 03:41 PM)
Doesn't indicate anything about getting nukes.
*
It is NATO's core components for defense and deterrence, as stated on first paragraph, it is clear cut, why you people still think that it is not impossible for Ukraine to apply for it is beneath me.

Even when Ukraine is not part of NATO, you can clearly see how much weapons and "assistance" being funnel to Ukraine with ease since day one.

QUOTE
Poland’s bid to participate in NATO nuclear sharing

Poland is seeking a more active role in NATO's nuclear-sharing mission. This could happen several ways, including by hosting B61 nuclear weapons on its territory, certifying its F-35A aircraft to carry nuclear weapons, or assuming a more significant role in decision-making regarding NATO’s nuclear doctrine.


https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...uclear-sharing/
TSsmsid
post Dec 3 2025, 06:30 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
117 posts

Joined: Nov 2008
QUOTE(nuvi @ Dec 3 2025, 06:22 PM)
The statement that nuclear weapons are a "core component" of NATO's capabilities does not mean the Alliance will add more nukes. It is a long-standing policy statement affirming the importance of existing nuclear deterrence.

The purpose of the nuclear arsenal is solely to preserve peace and prevent coercion and aggression, not for offensive use or force expansion.

In essence, "core component" emphasizes the importance of nuclear deterrence to NATO's strategy, not a plan to increase the number of nuclear weapons.
*
See the Poland nuclear sharing program news below:

QUOTE
Poland’s bid to participate in NATO nuclear sharing

Poland is seeking a more active role in NATO's nuclear-sharing mission. This could happen several ways, including by hosting B61 nuclear weapons on its territory, certifying its F-35A aircraft to carry nuclear weapons, or assuming a more significant role in decision-making regarding NATO’s nuclear doctrine.


https://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic...uclear-sharing/

This post has been edited by smsid: Dec 3 2025, 06:32 PM

2 Pages  1 2 >Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0163sec    0.69    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 5th December 2025 - 12:18 AM