gigabyte13:



Because Ukraine is and was never a NATO member.....
Let your overrated lRAN (Russia) attack any NATO member, and see real hellfire on earth.
Your overrated IRAN (Russia) threatened Sweden with fire and brimstone if they joined NATO, Sweden is now a full flesh NATO member, let your warlord carry out his threate

OGBENI REST....
RUSSIA NA JUST ANOTHER BACKING MOUSE
EKUKE........
OVERRATED IRAN

did Iraq attack any NATO member

Watcharena:
did Iraq attack any NATO member

Trying to play smart, Iraq invaded Kuwait, a country whose defence was under the US, the US have times over the years entered into a war path when it allies whom it had a "DEFENSE PACT" was invaded, the key word here is "DEFENSE PACT" the US fought against the communist north Koreans when they invaded south Korea, fought against the vitcong when they invaded south Vietnam, the US would only intervene when there is a legal right to intervene, what the US in doing in the middle-east in defence of isreal is because of the DEFENSE PACT with isreal, the US can't come to Taiwan aid incase of a Chinese invasion, because there is no mutual DEFENSE PACT with the US, but China invading south Korea now that's a new ball game because the US is mandated by the Treaty it signed to come to south Korea aid incase of an invasion

The US have no business putting boots on the ground in Ukraine, there's nothing mandating them to do so. The best they can do is supply military aid which they have done fantastic well.

It wasn't until recently that that Ukraine was pro western, it has always fall under the sphere of influence of Russia, there was never time the west/US had an opportunity to craft a defence Treaty for Ukraine. one the major reasons why putin invaded was the talk of Ukraine joining NATO, if they had been drafted into the organisation. you think Putin is Crazy enough to invade a NATO member.

People saying the US should fight in Ukraine, are juveniles when it comes to international politics.

obedience4:


Trying to play smart, Iraq invaded Kuwait, a country whose defence was under the US, the US have times over the years entered into a war path when it allies whom it had a "DEFENSE PACT" was invaded, the key word here is "DEFENSE PACT" the US fought against the communist north Koreans when they invaded south Korea, fought against the vitcong when they invaded south Vietnam, the US would only intervene when there is a legal right to intervene, what the US in doing in the middle-east in defence of isreal is because of the DEFENSE PACT with isreal, the US can't come to Taiwan aid incase of a Chinese invasion, because there is no mutual DEFENSE PACT with the US, but China invading south Korea now that's a new ball game because the US is mandated by the Treaty it signed to come to south Korea aid incase of an invasion

The US have no business putting boots on the ground in Ukraine, there's nothing mandating them to do so. The best they can do is supply military aid which they have done fantastic well.

It wasn't until recently that that Ukraine was pro western, it has always fall under the sphere of influence of Russia, there was never time the west/US had an opportunity to craft a defence Treaty for Ukraine. one the major reasons why putin invaded was the talk of Ukraine joining NATO, if they had been drafted into the organisation. you think Putin is Crazy enough to invade a NATO member.

People saying the US should fight in Ukraine, are juveniles when it comes to international politics.

there was no any defence pac between us and kuwait when sadam invaded

Watcharena:
there was no any defence pac between us and kuwait when sadam invaded

Read my post well, I never said there was a defence pact with Kuwait, I said their defense was under the the US, the UN security Council which included both Russia and China pass a resolution which allow the use of force against Iraq, the Kuwaiti government ask for help the US government accepted and the defence of Kuwaiti was brought under the US.

dvkot:
We all know you are a drunkard but have you started doing drugs also?

your ranting can't make Russia to win. You either take it or leave

Plus1234:
When I see your prophecy ,I know that the opposite will happen. Mr fake prophet ,silly son of devil.

your foolish ranting can't undo what is already going to happen. Continue using multiple moniker

okeysoninv:
your foolish ranting can't undo what is already going to happen. Continue using multiple moniker

Foolish prophet if Satan.

obedience4:


Trying to play smart, Iraq invaded Kuwait, a country whose defence was under the US, the US have times over the years entered into a war path when it allies whom it had a "DEFENSE PACT" was invaded, the key word here is "DEFENSE PACT" the US fought against the communist north Koreans when they invaded south Korea, fought against the vitcong when they invaded south Vietnam, the US would only intervene when there is a legal right to intervene, what the US in doing in the middle-east in defence of isreal is because of the DEFENSE PACT with isreal, the US can't come to Taiwan aid incase of a Chinese invasion, because there is no mutual DEFENSE PACT with the US, but China invading south Korea now that's a new ball game because the US is mandated by the Treaty it signed to come to south Korea aid incase of an invasion

The US have no business putting boots on the ground in Ukraine, there's nothing mandating them to do so. The best they can do is supply military aid which they have done fantastic well.

It wasn't until recently that that Ukraine was pro western, it has always fall under the sphere of influence of Russia, there was never time the west/US had an opportunity to craft a defence Treaty for Ukraine. one the major reasons why putin invaded was the talk of Ukraine joining NATO, if they had been drafted into the organisation. you think Putin is Crazy enough to invade a NATO member.

People saying the US should fight in Ukraine, are juveniles when it comes to international politics.

Let's assume they have these pacts, pacts are legal obligations, so the US honored the pact. I admire that commitment.

You've established that "defense pacts" are needed before the US put boots on ground.

Now, kindly explain the defense pacts that allowed the US to put boots in Syria and also Libya.

I don't remember the UN Security Council allowing the invasion in those two countries.

usmanpogo:


Let's assume they have these pacts, pacts are legal obligations, so the US honored the pact. I admire that commitment.

You've established that "defense pacts" are needed before the US put boots on ground.

Now, kindly explain the defense pacts that allowed the US to put boots in Syria and also Libya.

I don't remember the UN Security Council allowing the invasion in those two countries.

The case of Syria were counter terrorism operations, against the Islamic State, the United States military never engaged in ground attacks against troops loyal to Bashir, trump conducted airstrike when basir was accused of using gases against civilians, the US sent weapons to some groups like the kurdish forces but never enagage in operations against government forces.

In the case of Libya there was a UN security Council resolution which was supported by china and Russia as permanent members of the council and also non nato members like Jordan and Qatar was also among the coalition enforcing the no flight zone in Libya, there was no ground invasion of Libya only airstrikes
Just as in Ukraine and syria the US sent military aid to some factions against Gaddafi

most of you guys don't know that china and Russia were also part of the Libya intervention as both nations had veto powers to stop the intervention yet didn't, when the US brought the Ukrainian invasion to the UN Security Council, china abstained and Russia vetoed it, yet the same Russia you guys are hyping failed to veto the UN Security Council resolution for a no fly zone in libya.

okeysoninv:
your ranting can't make Russia to win. You either take it or leave

so you think Ukraine will march to Moscow😂

gigabyte13:



Because Ukraine is and was never a NATO member.....
Let your overrated lRAN (Russia) attack any NATO member, and see real hellfire on earth.
Your overrated IRAN (Russia) threatened Sweden with fire and brimstone if they joined NATO, Sweden is now a full flesh NATO member, let your warlord carry out his threate

OGBENI REST....
RUSSIA NA JUST ANOTHER BACKING MOUSE
EKUKE........
OVERRATED IRAN

The joke is still on you bro. Libya was attacked , Afghanistan, Iraq , Vietnam so why wait until Russia attacks a NATO member state before they attack Russia since Russia is weak like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran?

First of all technically the US have no offical diplomatic relations with Taiwan, the US as many other countries have adopted the one China policy making the PRC the only legitimate government.,how will the USA signed a defence Treaty with a Taiwan nation, when the same US recognises the communist government of the peoples Republic of China as the only one government in both China and Taiwan, the only thing the US can do which it has done well is enabling the Taiwanese making sure they possess the technology and tools it requires to defend itself.

Like I pointed out, the Ukraine has always been on under the influence of Russia, and it was only after the revolution that brought a pro western government, thus there wasn't enough ground work to bring Ukraine into a US defense pact

Cuba is a Russia ally, we all know how the US reacted the last time the Soviet Union tried to use Cuba to counter US influence in North America, how many defence pacts dose Russia have with countries that are anti US,?

When I see your nuclear rants on this thread, i just laughed, it shows how shallow your thinking is, and it seems you are missing some neurons in that your underdeveloped brain of yours. Pakistan is the country known to have the least stockpiles of Nukes yet Pakistan has enough nukes to destroy the entire world ten times over, and you are F00lishly threatening a USA who currently have one of the largest stockpiles of nukes, A country who has indeed used one, a nation who currently has over 7 nuclear armed subs lurking in the oceans ready at a moment notice to bring down hell, you are the most dullest fellow I have seen, stick to copy and paste propaganda .

🇷🇺 🤝🏻 🇨🇳

[b]Pokrovsky direction: retreat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces south of Zhelanny...

This information has not yet been confirmed, but it is in our channels. According to it, the enemy, realizing that they could hold us back to the south of the settlement. He is not able to do what he wants, he quickly retreats (more correctly, runs) to the south, without stopping in the village. Ptichye towards Kalinovo.

Here he will try to hold out for at least some time (I don’t think long) on ​​the heights beyond the line of ponds, which are the last natural line of defense before Karlovka.

Judging by the actions, the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine does not particularly expect that it will be able to keep us here, and therefore it has already evacuated its support workers from the Karlovka dachas and is preparing the evacuation of Karlovka itself.

But I think these measures are already too late. By and large, it’s time for them to think about a general retreat across the Volchya River from Karlovka to at least Krasnogorovka in order to try, by regrouping their forces (and reducing the front), to restore a stable front line.

But this is unlikely, given the fact that official Kyiv expects victories from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and not “reductions in the front line.”[/b]

dermmy:


If the invasion of Kursk is about scoring a point for Ukraine in Zelensky's mind and his dull supporters then they are all clowns together. How on earth do you think you can occupy a country as big as Russia even the almighty Nazi Germany with 3 millions troops failed. For whatever reason he tried this he should be called a clown for it but I know the West pushed him into doing this that should tell you the West itself is confused and has no concrete strategy as to how to stab Russia in the heart.

I can't even call it an invasion it should be termed a suicide. Ukraine committed suicide by invading Kursk. Scoring points at this stage of the war while Russia keeps grabbing land. From the beginning of the war it has always been about scoring points for Zelensky and then come to the media and start bragging. How has his points helped the cause of the war? Zelensky is a clown for real.

they didn't even occupy the whole oblast they are fighting in Tony pieces and Russia is dealing with them

dvkot:
so you think Ukraine will march to Moscow😂

when the time comes, don't change moniker because I will remind you. Don't come and say he has edit ooo.

obedience4:



The case of Syria were counter terrorism operations, against the Islamic State, the United States military never engaged in ground attacks against troops loyal to Bashir, trump conducted airstrike when basir was accused of using gases against civilians, the US sent weapons to some groups like the kurdish forces but never enagage in operations against government forces.

In the case of Libya there was a UN security Council resolution which was supported by china and Russia as permanent members of the council and also non nato members like Jordan and Qatar was also among the coalition enforcing the no flight zone in Libya, there was no ground invasion of Libya only airstrikes
Just as in Ukraine and syria the US sent military aid to some factions against Gaddafi

most of you guys don't know that china and Russia were also part of the Libya intervention as both nations had veto powers to stop the intervention yet didn't, when the US brought the Ukrainian invasion to the UN Security Council, china abstained and Russia vetoed it, yet the same Russia you guys are hyping failed to veto the UN Security Council resolution for a no fly zone in libya.

I was wrong, the UNSC did pass the intervention act to prevent the allegedly killing of civilians by the the administration. The intervention allowed for a no-fly zone in Libya to ground all military aircraft.
Guess who championed this campaign ?

The campaign or intervention was supposed to defend civilians or reduce the casualties of the civil war. The moment the intervention went from defensive to offensive, eventually leading to the death of Gaddafi was an overkill.

Nato coordinating and supporting rebels and anti-regime forces is a move to destabilize the country or exact influence.

The issue of Syria, the US is currently occupying the oil rich regions, I guess they are there to fight and defend the civilians in those places too.

What international law allowed the US to put boots in Syria ? Was it the UNSC as well ?
You can't just go into other people's country and occupy it and claim you're fighting terrorism. You claimed they didn't fight the government forces, I guess Assad invited them to Syria .

Syria shares no land border or Maritime with the US, how in God's name is the US affected by the situation in Syria ?

usmanpogo:



I was wrong, the UNSC did pass the intervention act to prevent the allegedly killing of civilians by the the administration. The intervention allowed for a no-fly zone in Libya to ground all military aircraft.
Guess who championed this campaign ?

The campaign or intervention was supposed to defend civilians or reduce the casualties of the civil war. The moment the intervention went from defensive to offensive, eventually leading to the death of Gaddafi was an overkill.

Nato coordinating and supporting rebels and anti-regime forces is a move to destabilize the country or exact influence.

The issue of Syria, the US is currently occupying the oil rich regions, I guess they are there to fight and defend the civilians in those places too.

What international law allowed the US to put boots in Syria ? Was it the UNSC as well ?
You can't just go into other people's country and occupy it and claim you're fighting terrorism. You claimed they didn't fight the government forces, I guess Assad invited them to Syria .

Syria shares no land border or Maritime with the US, how in God's name is the US affected by the situation in Syria ?

I think you should read more about the UNSC resolution 1973, there is a major resolution which states and I quote
authorizes "all necessary measures [...] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"

Gaddafi was instigator in chief of the killings in Libya he was responsible for the mass murder in Libya and removing him from power was a "necessary measure" to mitigate against the senseless killings of civilians. You saying it was offensive operation instead of a defensive operations doesn't matters
it all about how you defined the phrase "necessary measures" dose military operations were deemed necessary to prevent civilians casualties, the UNSC gave the go ahead for the USA and Co to used any means to prevent civilians deaths, and removing Gaddafi was deem a necessary measure.

During the peak of the civil war, the Syria government had collapse, the country was in ruins and ISIS took advantage and became a formidable force, note isis killed American citizens, beheading them on live videos, invaded iraq which houses US bases with US citizens, iraq hosted USA consulate with American citizens,so the US should fold its hands till its citizens are killed, this is not about Borders The US was there to protect it interests, same as Iran, same as Turkey and also Russia.

The USA had to do what it needed to crub isis, during isis regin of terror they were able to carry out attacks on Europe and even had an affiliation with a splinter cell of boko haram in West Africa, they had took vast amount of territorial gains were involved in young girls trade. The intervention of the US was necessary to counter the rise of ISIS's, and without the US intervention nobody knows how far ISIS' would have gone.

US occupying oil rich areas and using Syria oil is mere propaganda, this are folklore, tales by moonlight

obedience4:



I think you should read more about the UNSC resolution 1973, there is a major resolution which states and I quote
authorizes "all necessary measures [...] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"

Gaddafi was instigator in chief of the killings in Libya he was responsible for the mass murder in Libya and removing him from power was a "necessary measure" to mitigate against the senseless killings of civilians. You saying it was offensive operation instead of a defensive operations doesn't matters
it all about how you defined the phrase "necessary measures" dose military operations were deemed necessary to prevent civilians casualties, the UNSC gave the go ahead for the USA and Co to used any means to prevent civilians deaths, and removing Gaddafi was deem a necessary measure.

During the peak of the civil war, the Syria government had collapse, the country was in ruins and ISIS took advantage and became a formidable force, note isis killed American citizens, beheading them on live videos, invaded iraq which houses US bases with US citizens, iraq hosted USA consulate with American citizens,so the US should fold its hands till its citizens are killed, this is not about Borders The US was there to protect it interests, same as Iran, same as Turkey and also Russia.

The USA had to do what it needed to crub isis, during isis regin of terror they were able to carry out attacks on Europe and even had an affiliation with a splinter cell of boko haram in West Africa, they had took vast amount of territorial gains were involved in young girls trade. The intervention of the US was necessary to counter the rise of ISIS's, and without the US intervention nobody knows how far ISIS' would have gone.

US occupying oil rich areas and using Syria oil is mere propaganda, this are folklore, tales by moonlight

Bro, you claimed the US never attacked forces loyal to Assad, so who was the airstrikes against ? Are there proof that Assad really gassed civilians or it's another instance of weapon of Mass destruction


Resolution 1973 authorizes Chapter VII measures for the protection of civilians in Libya, authorizes member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, and imposes both a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace and an arms embargo.

As you can see the resolution is not a Carte Blanche, the resolution is defensive, take any means necessary to defend the civilians doesn't correlate with coordinating with rebels or political assassination.

The resolution was misinterpreted the second time on the same country twice.

Are you saying there was no wrongdoing by the interventionist in this context ?

shoodboi2:


Suicide bombings happened in the past but they rarely happened in Tel Aviv. It was mostly confined to Jerusalem and areas closer to the Palestinians.

So you agree that the Palestinians were terrorist always looking for Jews to blow up.



Any way there have been more than 15 suicide bombings attempt in Tel Aviv since the 2000s.

WriterrNg:
⚡Narendra Modi:

Bilateral trade between India and Malaysia is being conducted in the Rupee and the Ringgit.

It is the lords doing and it is marvelous in our eyes

Now billions of dollars that should have been used have now been dumped back to the USA where it will lay idle and useless lol

As more countries do this the world will be free and USA economy will tank

It will reset their brains to begin to beg for mercy

Kingsnairaland:


It is the lords doing and it is marvelous in our eyes

Now billions of dollars that should have been used have now been dumped back to the USA where it will lay idle and useless lol

As more countries do this the world will be free and USA economy will tank

It will reset their brains to begin to beg for mercy

Bro, just a few countries trading in their local currencies would change nothing, the US dollar is gonna remain the dominant currency for at least another century or two. One thing I admire about the US is how they protect their interest. I'm certain they are working behind the scenes to counter all these moves.

I have always wondered what currency is used when the EU trades with the US.

usmanpogo:


Bro, you claimed the US never attacked forces loyal to Assad, so who was the airstrikes against ? Are there proof that Assad really gassed civilians or it's another instance of weapon of Mass destruction


Resolution 1973 authorizes Chapter VII measures for the protection of civilians in Libya, authorizes member states to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, and imposes both a no-fly zone over Libyan airspace and an arms embargo.

As you can see the resolution is not a Carte Blanche, the resolution is defensive, take any means necessary to defend the civilians doesn't correlate with coordinating with rebels or political assassination.

The resolution was misinterpreted the second time on the same country twice.

Are you saying there was no wrongdoing by the interventionist in this context ?

The resolution is base on interpretation, depending on how you want to interpret it and on what context you are looking at when interpreting it

The key word is "necessary measures" the US were enforcing a no-fly zone but later started conducting airstrike in support of some anti government elements on the basis that this were "necessary measures" to prevent civilians deaths. NATO agurement is that they had to start conducting airstrike on governments forces loyal to Gaddafi to prevent civilians casualties.
This airstrike and support were vital to Gaddafi loss of power and eventually his death. If the airstrikes actually prevented civilians deaths or was just a means or smoke screen to remove Gaddafi it is hard to tell.

The bottom line of the whole matter is NATO acted on a legal framework which was backed by the UNSC resolution for NATO to use all "necessary measures" to secure and protect civilians, "necessary measures" can mean anything from airstrike to lunching a nuke depending on the interpretation and the context being used.

A perfect example is Russia, one of the reasons which putin gave for invading Ukraine was that they were protecting Russian speaking people in the dobass region, this is Russia virtually invading another nation because it feels its protecting civilians, someone looking at that context will Putin invading Ukraine was a"necessary measure" to protect ethic Russians in the dombass, THIS IS NONSENSE because
No Russian speaking person was being persecuted or killed in the dombass.


There is enough of proof on the chemical attack by government forces in Syria there was a global outcry after pictures and videos circulated after the attacks, and trump conducted airstrike on chemical weapons facilities In Syria, this was major news


I am not in support of the airstrike in Libya, but nothing they did was illegal, it was conducted by virtue of the UNSC resolution, infact nigeria was a non permanent member then and they voted yes.