• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

 
 
 
barbos said:
Harry Bosch said:
Russia wants a weakened Ukraine so that they can fully and easily take it over in the future. Ukraine isn't going to agree to that.
Click to expand...
That is a convoluted way to say that you want to continue to use ukrainian imbeciles in your proxy war against Russia.
Click to expand...

You're not paying attention. I'll say it again. Your side wants continuous war. The west does not. The west wants borders. Your side does not. I don't see how any compromise can overcome these differences.
 
barbos said:
Harry Bosch said:
You're not paying attention. I'll say it again. Your side wants continuous war. The west does not.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, your side wants respite, you just confirmed it.
Click to expand...

One of your big problems is that you can't read the room! You don't know the enemies that you want to conquer very well. What the west really wants is more economic development, more social spending, less military spending, less taxes, more economic advantage to its voters, happy voters, less strife, less war. But your side dosn't understand this. Since your invasion started, most European countries have tripled their military spending. Two additional countries have joined NATO. These are not popular stands. Again, the west wants less military spending, more social spending. But thinking that the west has gone soft and will cave in to Russian imperialism has greatly backfired for Russia.
 
barbos said:
Harry Bosch said:
You're not paying attention. I'll say it again. Your side wants continuous war. The west does not.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, your side wants respite, you just confirmed it.
Click to expand...

Ding! We agree on something for the second time today. It's a miracle. Again, I'm for peace and strong borders. Your side wants imperialism, more land, more resources. Yes, a ceasefire or peace would allow both sides to build up borders which could prevent future war.
 
Harry Bosch said:
barbos said:
Harry Bosch said:
You're not paying attention. I'll say it again. Your side wants continuous war. The west does not.
Click to expand...
Bullshit, your side wants respite, you just confirmed it.
Click to expand...

Ding! We agree on something for the second time today. It's a miracle. Again, I'm for peace and strong borders. Your side wants imperialism, more land, more resources. Yes, a ceasefire or peace would allow both sides to build up borders which could prevent future war.
Click to expand...
No, we don't agree on anything.
You keep diarreaing ridiculous bullshit from your mouth.
 
Trump can get peace tomorrow. All he need to do is to give Eastern Ukraine to Russia and make Ukraine neutral.
Of course he can't do it becasue neocons would murder him for that.
Of course he is too stupid to even understand that. He simply does what neocons tell him.
 
Elixir said:
Modi may be less malevolent than say, Trump, but he is no fucking angel.
Click to expand...
Well, politicians who contest democratic elections in areas where caste and religion complicate the scenario, cannot be God's angels. We will have one such, intensely fought, in Bihar, November 6 and 11, results on November 14.
 
barbos said:
Speaking of cancelled Budapest meeting. What happened was Orange Imbecile offered a deal where Russia gets the remaining part of Donetsk Oblast and in exchange agrees for ceasefire Orange Imbecile wants so much. Russian side did not expect such an offer and promised to think about it. That is what agreed to. Then Orange Imbecile met with Euro Fuhrers and predictably changed his opinion. They convinced him that Ukraine is winning and he shouldn't take such deal. So Orange Imbecile claimed that Russia did not want to implement ceasefire we agreed to in Alaska. That was a lie.

Meanwhile ukro-nazi forces are fully blocked in two places Pokrovsk and Kupyansk. In previous occasions Russians were giving nazis an option to retreat. This time there is no such option - full encirclement. Azov nazi regiment refused to go and help. You know you are in trouble when nazis refuse to fight.
Click to expand...

If you want to stand a chance of influencing your readers, you might consider not using the same insult repeatedly in the same post. Perhaps you think this emphasis works to persuade your reader. This doesn't really work with insults. What it does do is take away from its impact, looks awkward and is even annoying for your reader. Is the prevailing belief that it hammers home the point and in this way influences the reader? It does not, at least not from where I sit. Once is enough. If it is creative, it's memorable.
Just trying to be helpful.
 
barbos said:
It is not supposed to be insult, it's supposed to be descriptive.
Click to expand...
LOL. Clueless. Of style, of language, of morality, and of reality.

If it was meant to be descriptive, you wouldn't use it so often. When talking about the weather, how often do you call the sky "blue?" Almost never, I bet. That's because you don't need to -- it is an obvious and unnecessary thing to say. And also, it is redundant. If you just mentioned it in the previous sentence there's no need to bring it up again. So you see, your every sentence on this board betrays you as a prime purveyor of excrement and stupidity.

Why do you bother to try (and continuously fail) to deceive people even about these stupidest of things? Do you see how this makes you look even more pathetic? If you want to throw an insult, then grow a backbone and admit it. But as was suggested by TVnCC, some creative new insults would be refreshing. You have been clinging to the stupidest and debunked excuses to call everyone you don't like "nazis" for years now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom