Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Lack There Of wrote:Can we get a check on differences between these two. It sounds more like tomato, tomahto than anything

*exasperated sigh* One sounds much better for us.

Lack There Of wrote:Can we get a check on differences between these two. It sounds more like tomato, tomahto than anything

I'm thinking they would endorse the person of TFI's choosing, not each other. To do anything less would be invading.

Lack There Of wrote:Can we get a check on differences between these two. It sounds more like tomato, tomahto than anything

I had in mind a small, non-WA detachment reserve of puppets being sent to safeguard against any possible attacks. If needed, they would endorse the current Delegate.

Muh Roads wrote:If we are going to add the WA identification, there needs to be special circumstances. If i have a puppet currently involved in a mission i don't want to reveal whom that is during that mission. Maybe add an exclusion for recognized Libertatem military members?

Good idea.

Muh Roads wrote:I'm thinking they would endorse the person of TFI's choosing, not each other. To do anything less would be invading.

So the use of our military to maintain a regime that is friendly to our goals, sounds like an occupation to me.

Muh Roads wrote:If we are going to add the WA identification, there needs to be special circumstances. If i have a puppet currently involved in a mission i don't want to reveal whom that is during that mission. Maybe add an exclusion for recognized Libertatem military members?

If we're doing this for security than members of the military should be held under even more scrutiny due the likely hood of unfriendly espionage.

Lack There Of wrote:So the use of our military to maintain a regime that is friendly to our goals, sounds like an occupation to me.

It's a transnational republic. Its President, [nation=short]Conservative Idealism in TFI[/nation], was fairly elected by popular vote. Leaders of The Federal Islands 2 have made repeated verbal and material attacks on Libertatem and Reato, so naturally we'll side with our long-time ally.

Lack There Of wrote:So the use of our military to maintain a regime that is friendly to our goals, sounds like an occupation to me.

Would you prefer a dictatorship run by Neutricland? Not that any of this matters. TFI still has a founder.

Muh Roads wrote:Would you prefer a dictatorship run by Neutricland? Not that any of this matters. TFI still has a founder.

Exactly, we were simply going to send people to help Neutricland stay in his beloved region, not stage a damn invasion.

Humpheria wrote:Exactly, we were simply going to send people to help Neutricland stay in his beloved region, not stage a damn invasion.

That's the only thing you libertarians seem to do.

The Time Alliance wrote:That's the only thing you libertarians seem to do.

Oh we got a funny guy. Hey, you see this? We got ourselves a funny guy.

Humpheria wrote:Oh we got a funny guy. Hey, you see this? We got ourselves a funny guy.

Well it's true. All I've seen you do is occupy and invade regions we shouldn't even be worried about.

The Time Alliance wrote:That's the only thing you libertarians seem to do.

For the promotion of Liberty. Why would we invade a region that already promotes Liberty?

Humpheria wrote:Oh we got a funny guy. Hey, you see this? We got ourselves a funny guy.

YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE TO SOMALIA?!!!!

Muh Roads wrote:For the promotion of Liberty. Why would we invade a region that already promotes Liberty?

Right now you sound like a neo-con that will one day reject the War on Communism as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

For you and everyone else: the War on Communism was done in reaction to socialist aggression. We are not waging a ruthless, unprovoked attack; we are defending our property and the property of others.

Libertatem has submitted a condemnation to the REATO Security Council. If it receives a super-majority, it will pass.

[B]Security Council Resolution #5: CONDEMN The Federal Islands 2[/B]

OBSERVING founder [nation=short]Neutricland[/nation]'s history of political repression corruption to win elected office,

SEEING that the founder once again resorted to such practices to secure re-election,

PLEASED at The Federal Islands 2Nd Gen's renewed fight for democracy,

SHOCKED at the illegal secession from the official successor to The Federal Islands,

DISPLEASED at their recent attempts to lure Libertatemites away from their home region,

DISGUSTED at Neutricland's establishment of an all-powerful oligarchy and permanent WA Delegacy,

APPALLED at his suppression of political opposition and free speech,

OUTRAGED at the ejection of several "regional security threats",

The Security Council hereby condemns The Federal Islands 2.

[B]SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE NOW[/B]

Muh Roads wrote:For the promotion of Liberty. Why would we invade a region that already promotes Liberty?

No. Promotion of Liberty on this game is BS. People have Liberty to make whatever region they want. It's not like the regions being communist actually matters.

Pevvania wrote:Right now you sound like a neo-con that will one day reject the War on Communism as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

For you and everyone else: the War on Communism was done in reaction to socialist aggression. We are not waging a ruthless, unprovoked attack; we are defending our property and the property of others.

Lies. We haven't been attacked for a long time. We are currently unjust in our wars.

The Time Alliance wrote:No. Promotion of Liberty on this game is BS. People have Liberty to make whatever region they want. It's not like the regions being communist actually matters.

We don't care if a region is communist. We have at least two communist allies. We care if a region is so Communist that it suppresses any other ideology internally and commits itself to expanding an imperial sphere of influence.

Pevvania wrote:Right now you sound like a neo-con that will one day reject the War on Communism as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle.

Only in game Pev.. Only in game. As you might recall, during our first conversation in NS i told you i'm in favor of a strong national defense and i don't believe in foreign intervention.

The Time Alliance wrote:No. Promotion of Liberty on this game is BS. People have Liberty to make whatever region they want. It's not like the regions being communist actually matters.

Someone wants to win an election.

Pevvania wrote:We don't care if a region is communist. We have at least two communist allies. We care if a region is so Communist that it suppresses any other ideology internally and commits itself to expanding an imperial sphere of influence.

That's not a dang war on Communism. It's a war on Imperialism.

The Time Alliance wrote:Lies. We haven't been attacked for a long time. We are currently unjust in our wars.

Antico

Muh Roads wrote:Only in game Pev.. Only in game. As you might recall, during our first conversation in NS i told you i'm in favor of a strong national defense and i don't believe in foreign intervention.

I hope so. [nation=short]Lack there of[/nation] sadly abandoned our fight, so I am concerned that others may be distracted by idealism.

The Time Alliance wrote:That's not a dang war on Communism. It's a war on Imperialism.

The term is probably outdated, since we've readjusted our focus on certain types of region, but is a mark of an older culture. It's a traditional thing.

Have no worries Pev, i have no intention of giving up the fight.

Muh Roads wrote:Have no worries Pev, i have no intention of giving up the fight.

Huzzah!

The Time Alliance wrote:That's not a dang war on Communism. It's a war on Imperialism.

I don't like it when I agree with you, but I do. We've all seen the lists of "trophy" regions paraded around the RMB, some even going up for adoption. It sends the wrong message about our stance.

Maybe it's not the correct thing to do in the eyes of some, but I don't see a reason not to be proud of Regional accomplishments.

Pevvania wrote:Antico

I hope so. [nation=short]Lack there of[/nation] sadly abandoned our fight, so I am concerned that others may be distracted by idealism.

Upon reading the bottom. I have wonders about the fact we didn't provoke them before they attacked.

Pevvania wrote:The term is probably outdated, since we've readjusted our focus on certain types of region, but is a mark of an older culture. It's a traditional thing.

When your tradition is no longer true. It's no longer tradition but instead the blockage of progress.

Lack There Of wrote:I don't like it when I agree with you, but I do. We've all seen the lists of "trophy" regions paraded around the RMB, some even going up for adoption. It sends the wrong message about our stance.

From what I see. If we are in a war against imperialism we are in a war against ourselves.

We kept the name for traditional purposes. When I arrived, it was called the war on tyranny. We do not limit ourselves to communism, as we also are at war against fascism and other forms of tyranny.

Pevvania wrote:I don't think we should bother quarrelling with the Black Riders. The military incompetence of the Communists means that they're often more effected than we are by their actions, so they can be a useful to us. Our fight is with the Red Fleet, not with a towering morass of loosely interconnected raiding groups.

TBR is too big of a threat to ignore. You've seen what they are capable of bringing up if their interest in a particular region is strong enough. I encourage the liberation of allied regions and support for the natives of conquered regions unless they are the Red Fleet, North Korea, or Right Wing Uprising (which then we take the regions for ourselves).

Republic Of Minerva wrote:TBR is too big of a threat to ignore.

No, they aren't. In fact, they're much less a threat to us than they are to many of our enemies. It would be highly convenient, and indeed very possible, to ignore them.

What you should be worried about is them being too big to tangle with.

Pevvania wrote:We don't care if a region is communist. We have at least two communist allies. We care if a region is so Communist that it suppresses any other ideology internally and commits itself to expanding an imperial sphere of influence.

Our war is literally called "The War on Communism." Shouldn't we not discriminate by levels of communism and just try and thwart the ideology all together?

Muh Roads wrote:We kept the name for traditional purposes. When I arrived, it was called the war on tyranny. We do not limit ourselves to communism, as we also are at war against fascism and other forms of tyranny.

And also, why don't we just call this war "The War on All Ideologies That Stand In The Way Of Capitalism" ?

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:No, they aren't. In fact, they're much less a threat to us than they are to many of our enemies. It would be highly convenient, and indeed very possible, to ignore them.

What you should be worried about is them being too big to tangle with.

And even with combined REATO forces we don't stand a chance to dissolve them. The also don't even have a WAD, so invasion is useless. It is definitely in the best interest of everyone to ignore them, and try diplomacy if needed.

Diplomacy? With TBR? Buahahahahahahaha!

Don't make me laugh.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Our war is literally called "The War on Communism." Shouldn't we not discriminate by levels of communism and just try and thwart the ideology all together?

And also, why don't we just call this war "The War on All Ideologies That Stand In The Way Of Capitalism" ?

And even with combined REATO forces we don't stand a chance to dissolve them. The also don't even have a WAD, so invasion is useless. It is definitely in the best interest of everyone to ignore them, and try diplomacy if needed.

"War on Tyranny. "

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Diplomacy? With TBR? Buahahahahahahaha!

Don't make me laugh.

It's possible. I was in talks with them once in an old region.

Ronald Reagan And Rick Grimes wrote:Our war is literally called "The War on Communism." Shouldn't we not discriminate by levels of communism and just try and thwart the ideology all together?

And also, why don't we just call this war "The War on All Ideologies That Stand In The Way Of Capitalism" ?

I feel as though this is already how the rest of the world perceives us

Lack There Of wrote:I feel as though this is already how the rest of the world perceives us

They aren't wrong.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Diplomacy? With TBR? Buahahahahahahaha!

Don't make me laugh.

Trying diplomacy with The Black Riders is like trying to negotiate with raiders in Fallout: they're mindless, brutish opportunists who will attack anything that moves. They don't care about alliances or enemies; they just want the satisfaction of destroying.

Pevvania wrote:Trying diplomacy with The Black Riders is like trying to negotiate with raiders in Fallout: they're mindless, brutish opportunists who will attack anything that moves. They don't care about alliances or enemies; they just want the satisfaction of destroying.

That being said, we could goad them into attacking regions that get on our nerves. After all, giving tips that X region's founder is away never hurt.

.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:That being said, we could goad them into attacking regions that get on our nerves. After all, giving tips that X region's founder is away never hurt.

Helping The Black Riders is the most inappropriate and most wimpy way to attack our enemies.

So in 5 hours War between Russia and Ukraine will be official unless Ukraine moves it's navy.

The Time Alliance wrote:So in 5 hours War between Russia and Ukraine will be official unless Ukraine moves it's navy.

Ukraine needs to fight these imperialistic barbarians! The will of a freedom-seeking people must triumph over an evil empire that continues to expand its grip on the region.

Pevvania wrote:Ukraine needs to fight these imperialistic barbarians! The will of a freedom-seeking people must triumph over an evil empire that continues to expand its grip on the region.

Agreed.

Pevvania wrote:Ukraine needs to fight these imperialistic barbarians! The will of a freedom-seeking people must triumph over an evil empire that continues to expand its grip on the region.

Ukraine can't do squat. Putin is one if not THE best leader in the world. Compared to him no other leader has balls. I admire Putin for saying it as it is and not pussy- footing around everything like America, Britain, France, Germany, and all those other countries in the G8 or G20 or EU

Ukraine better surrender and move it's navy. Otherwise war will be Ukraine's fault.

The Time Alliance wrote:Ukraine can't do squat. Putin is one if not THE best leader in the world. Compared to him no other leader has balls. I admire Putin for saying it as it is and not pussy- footing around everything like America, Britain, France, Germany, and all those other countries in the G8 or G20 or EU

That's debatable. The Soviet Union was defeated by a small army of guerillas and stinger missiles. Ukraine has a very large army, and has a chance against the Federation's might.

Putin has strength, I'll give him that. If only we had Reagan again. He took no sh*t whatsoever from Russia, and actively worked to destroy their empire. But instead, we have Obama.

Pevvania wrote:That's debatable. The Soviet Union was defeated by a small army of guerillas and stinger missiles. Ukraine has a very large army, and has a chance against the Federation's might.

Putin has strength, I'll give him that. If only we had Reagan again. He took no sh*t whatsoever from Russia, and actively worked to destroy their empire. But instead, we have Obama.

This isn't the Soviet Union though is it? This is Putin Union. Much stronger than the Soviets. Putin conquered all of Crimea without a single casualty. That's who Ukraine is up against. You also forgot Ukraine just finished a civil war. They are weak.

Reagan was awful. Okay? He was a warmonger like McCain. Between Obama and Reagan. I choose Death.

I feel as though there is no good out come possible at this point

Lack There Of wrote:I feel as though there is no good out come possible at this point

So long as America doesn't intervene. Im happy.

The Time Alliance wrote:Ukraine can't do squat. Putin is one if not THE best leader in the world. Compared to him no other leader has balls. I admire Putin for saying it as it is and not pussy- footing around everything like America, Britain, France, Germany, and all those other countries in the G8 or G20 or EU

For the record, Obama has not been afraid to intervene in foreign nations via force during his tenure.

The Time Alliance wrote:Ukraine better surrender and move it's navy. Otherwise war will be Ukraine's fault.

There are a host of issues that are causing this conflict. It is completely unfair to place the blame squarely on ukraine, regardless of whatever political wrangling Russia has done.

The Time Alliance wrote:So long as America doesn't intervene. Im happy.

Make no mistake, whenever the petro-dollar is in peril the US will be there in some way shape or form

The Time Alliance wrote:This isn't the Soviet Union though is it? This is Putin Union. Much stronger than the Soviets. Putin conquered all of Crimea without a single casualty. That's who Ukraine is up against. You also forgot Ukraine just finished a civil war. They are weak.

Reagan was awful. Okay? He was a warmonger like McCain. Between Obama and Reagan. I choose Death.

HOW DARE YOU TALK BAD 'BOUT REAGAN.

Alchandria wrote:HOW DARE YOU TALK BAD 'BOUT REAGAN.

QUICKLY, LET US MOVE INTO TTA AND TEAR DOWN [I]ALL[/I] THE WALLS.

Miencraft wrote:QUICKLY, LET US MOVE INTO TTA AND TEAR DOWN [I]ALL[/I] THE WALLS.

WHY WOULD THEY NEED WALLS...

WITHOUT ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Lack There Of wrote:For the record, Obama has not been afraid to intervene in foreign nations via force during his tenure.

There are a host of issues that are causing this conflict. It is completely unfair to place the blame squarely on ukraine, regardless of whatever political wrangling Russia has done.

Make no mistake, whenever the petro-dollar is in peril the US will be there in some way shape or form

None of the wars he got us in had anything to do with us. He wimps out when faced with a real challenge.

It's Ukraine and America's fault. However Russia warned Ukraine to move their fleet. If they don't move it war is their fault.

It's not our war.

Alchandria wrote:HOW DARE YOU TALK BAD 'BOUT REAGAN.

Miencraft wrote:QUICKLY, LET US MOVE INTO TTA AND TEAR DOWN [I]ALL[/I] THE WALLS.

We have no walls. We have the balls to fight.

Post self-deleted by Miencraft.

The Time Alliance wrote:We have no walls.

But then what do you live in?

Miencraft wrote:But then what do you live in?

Space Ships.....TARDISES.

Miencraft wrote:But then what do you live in?

Communes.

Alchandria wrote:Communes.

The Time Alliance wrote:Space Ships.....TARDISES.

Gotta have those walls though.

Especially in a spaceship.

Miencraft wrote:Gotta have those walls though.

Especially in a spaceship.

We prefer the term "Pocket Universes outside our own".

The Time Alliance wrote:None of the wars he got us in had anything to do with us. He wimps out when faced with a real challenge.

It's Ukraine and America's fault. However Russia warned Ukraine to move their fleet. If they don't move it war is their fault.

It's not our war. We have no walls. We have the balls to fight.

All the "wars" Obama has engaged in have been an in attempt to prolong the dollars value.

A conflict of this type has been inevitable for some time due to Gazprom's rapid and recent growth in world markets especially in Europe.

Any war that influences the future of western energy sources is, in fact, of great concern to the US whether that be a good thing or not.

The Time Alliance wrote:This isn't the Soviet Union though is it? This is Putin Union. Much stronger than the Soviets. Putin conquered all of Crimea without a single casualty. That's who Ukraine is up against. You also forgot Ukraine just finished a civil war. They are weak.

Reagan was awful. Okay? He was a warmonger like McCain. Between Obama and Reagan. I choose Death.

No way is Russia stronger now than it was before. Ukraine has a strong military, and could put up a good fight.

No he wasn't. He was absolutely nothing like McCain - the latter is a brutish war hawk while Reagan was a skilled statesman who turned to diplomacy when the Soviet leadership changed, and often got his way without resorting to military action.

Pevvania wrote:No way is Russia stronger now than it was before. Ukraine has a strong military, and could put up a good fight.

No he wasn't. He was absolutely nothing like McCain - the latter is a brutish war hawk while Reagan was a skilled statesman who turned to diplomacy when the Soviet leadership changed, and often got his way without resorting to military action.

Russia is strong. It has good politicians a strong military and strong allies. They also have the balls to fight. Ukraine is in shambles. Bad politicians, weaker military, civil unrest and balls.

Only when leadership changed.

Lack There Of wrote:All the "wars" Obama has engaged in have been an in attempt to prolong the dollars value.

A conflict of this type has been inevitable for some time due to Gazprom's rapid and recent growth in world markets especially in Europe.

Any war that influences the future of western energy sources is, in fact, of great concern to the US whether that be a good thing or not.

Libya? Egypt? Syria? Yeah. It was vital we fought them.

Look we get 40 percent of our oil from Middle East. The rest comes from US and South America. For the record I couldn't care less if Europe is hurt. In my mind the smartest move is to ally Russia and China.

The Time Alliance wrote:Russia is strong. It has good politicians a strong military and strong allies. They also have the balls to fight. Ukraine is in shambles. Bad politicians, weaker military, civil unrest and balls.

Only when leadership changed. Libya? Egypt? Syria? Yeah. It was vital we fought them.

Look we get 40 percent of our oil from Middle East. The rest comes from US and South America. For the record I couldn't care less if Europe is hurt. In my mind the smartest move is to ally Russia and China.

Good point.

Not the point. Reagan was not a warmonger, but a strong leader that had the guts to stand up to an empire and changed course when a leader took power that had a mindset for change.

It's actually around 20%.

Pevvania wrote:Good point.

Not the point. Reagan was not a warmonger, but a strong leader that had the guts to stand up to an empire and changed course when a leader took power that had a mindset for change.

It's actually around 20%.

It wasn't an empire. Communism is Anti- Imperialistic.

No. You don't. We aren't saying anything about 20 percent of anything.

It's more of 8.1 percent

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

Who is up for a night at either the libertatem pub or the ffs libertatem iru cafe?

Alchandria wrote:Who is up for a night at either the libertatem pub or the ffs libertatem iru cafe?

Are you drunk?

The Time Alliance wrote:

Only when leadership changed. Libya? Egypt? Syria? Yeah. It was vital we fought them.

Look we get 40 percent of our oil from Middle East. The rest comes from US and South America. For the record I couldn't care less if Europe is hurt. In my mind the smartest move is to ally Russia and China.

Of course Libya was about the oil! We only aided the rebels because Muammar Gaddafi was attempting to get the north african nations to switch to an independent gold based currency which would negate the power of the dollar in that area and seriously weaken the stability of the Petrodollar. Did you notice how the first thing the intern government did was to create a central bank that used US dollars as its currency?

We supported the several regime changes in egypt because we wanted each new one to maintain the use of the dollar in its oil exchanges regardless of its internal politics.

Syria is the victim of geo politics. The saudis want Assed gone to expand their oil influence and we want their oil to expand because they are the original Petrodollar state and wield significant influence.

And its not about the amount of oil we trade in from the middle east its what the rest of the world does. As long as Europe and asia need middle eastern oil they have to buy it in dollars which is how our fiat maintains its value despite the clear recklessness of the Feds monetary polices.

The Time Alliance wrote:Are you drunk?

Yes. *Hits TTA with brick*

The Time Alliance wrote:It wasn't an empire. Communism is Anti- Imperialistic.

No. You don't. We aren't saying anything about 20 percent of anything.

It's more of 8.1 percent

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

The Soviet Union was not communist, and neither was China and neither is North Korea. They're all state socialist. Forget ideology for a minute; there's no denying the existence of the Warsaw Pact and the tight grip they had over a significant part of the world.

Lack There Of wrote:Of course Libya was about the oil! We only aided the rebels because Muammar Gaddafi was attempting to get the north african nations to switch to an independent gold based currency which would negate the power of the dollar in that area and seriously weaken the stability of the Petrodollar. Did you notice how the first thing the intern government did was to create a central bank that used US dollars as its currency?

We supported the several regime changes in egypt because we wanted each new one to maintain the use of the dollar in its oil exchanges regardless of its internal politics.

Syria is the victim of geo politics. The saudis want Assed gone to expand their oil influence and we want their oil to expand because they are the original Petrodollar state and wield significant influence.

And its not about the amount of oil we trade in from the middle east its what the rest of the world does. As long as Europe and asia need middle eastern oil they have to buy it in dollars which is how our fiat maintains its value despite the clear recklessness of the Feds monetary polices.

I don't give a crap if the government has you believing those wars were just. All this is just American Imperialism and of all people I can't believe the libertarians fell for it.

Pevvania wrote:The Soviet Union was not communist, and neither was China and neither is North Korea. They're all state socialist. Forget ideology for a minute; there's no denying the existence of the Warsaw Pact and the tight grip they had over a significant part of the world.

It was as communist as your going to get. I'm not stupid. The Warsaw Pact was no more Imperialistic than what America did with NATO and the significant grip we have on the world.

The Time Alliance wrote:I don't give a crap if the government has you believing those wars were just. All this is just American Imperialism and of all people I can't believe the libertarians fell for it.

Besides look at Switzerland, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada. They stay out of these wars. Look at their economics.

The Time Alliance wrote:I don't give a crap if the government has you believing those wars were just. All this is just American Imperialism and of all people I can't believe the libertarians fell for it.

For the record i think these series of wars to protect the petrodollar have been some of the most grievous wastes of life and capital in human history, and the government wants us all to believe that they were defending freedom. When was the last time you heard some one in the state department eve use the word "Petrodollar?" It is imperialism fueled by the central bank and no one is trying to justify it, i was merely informing you as to why this conflict is inevitable and the interest of the US in the situation.

Lack There Of wrote:For the record i think these series of wars to protect the petrodollar have been some of the most grievous wastes of life and capital in human history, and the government wants us all to believe that they were defending freedom. When was the last time you heard some one in the state department eve use the word "Petrodollar?" It is imperialism fueled by the central bank and no one is trying to justify it, i was merely informing you as to why this conflict is inevitable and the interest of the US in the situation.

I apologize. I thought what you were trying to do was justify our involvement in those wars and America's Imperialism by stating it was all about oil and "Freedom from Freedom"

Well it was all about oil and its the same reason we will undoubtedly be involved in the Ukrainian situation when it becomes pertinent

Lack There Of wrote:Well it was all about oil and its the same reason we will undoubtedly be involved in the Ukrainian situation when it becomes pertinent

No it wasn't. The government tells us it's all about oil. I mean oil plays a part but it's not all oil. The Government likes to expand its influence. That's how it does so. By interfering in other countries politics. And no. If we go to war with Ukraine it'll only be to defend Europe, Ukraine and to stop Russia's Imperialism so we can spread our Imperialism.

The Time Alliance wrote:No it wasn't. The government tells us it's all about oil. I mean oil plays a part but it's not all oil. The Government likes to expand its influence. That's how it does so. By interfering in other countries politics. And no. If we go to war with Ukraine it'll only be to defend Europe, Ukraine and to stop Russia's Imperialism so we can spread our Imperialism.

And some oil.

The Time Alliance wrote:It was as communist as your going to get. I'm not stupid. The Warsaw Pact was no more Imperialistic than what America did with NATO and the significant grip we have on the world.

Except America didn't invade an ally when it opposed its interests. Russia did.

The Time Alliance wrote:Besides look at Switzerland, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada. They stay out of these wars. Look at their economics.

Canada is a part of the War on Terror, and Japan has never recovered from the recession it suffered in the 90s.

The Time Alliance wrote:I don't give a crap if the government has you believing those wars were just. All this is just American Imperialism and of all people I can't believe the libertarians fell for it.

We're a generally noninterventionist bunch ideologically, except for me and a handful of other neo-libertarians here.

The Time Alliance wrote:No it wasn't. The government tells us it's all about oil. I mean oil plays a part but it's not all oil. The Government likes to expand its influence. That's how it does so. By interfering in other countries politics. And no. If we go to war with Ukraine it'll only be to defend Europe, Ukraine and to stop Russia's Imperialism so we can spread our Imperialism.

Who is this person in the government that has been telling the american people that its about preserving the value of the Petrodollar? All i've heard is that we have to make the world safe for democracy. And were in agreeance that it is to "defend" Europe, only it will be to "defend" them from further trading and reliance on Gazprom products.

Pevvania wrote:Except America didn't invade an ally when it opposed its interests. Russia did.

When? Israel. Obama basically has betrayed them.

Pevvania wrote:Canada is a part of the War on Terror, and Japan has never recovered from the recession it suffered in the 90s.

War on terror is different from involvement in every revolution in the world.

Lack There Of wrote:Who is this person in the government that has been telling the american people that its about preserving the value of the Petrodollar? All i've heard is that we have to make the world safe for democracy. And were in agreeance that it is to "defend" Europe, only it will be to "defend" them from further trading and reliance on Gazprom products.

I said oil and "Freedom". The media, President, Democrats and Republicans in senate always justify everything as Oil and Democracy.

Defense from Russian products to let American products take their place.

The Time Alliance wrote:When? Israel. Obama basically has betrayed them. War on terror is different from involvement in every revolution in the world.

Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And, just putting this out there: Canada is one of the most overrated countries on Earth.

Just so everyone gets a little bit of information about this. If the US gets involved it will be because of Bill Clinton.

Pevvania wrote:Hungary and Czechoslovakia. And, just putting this out there: Canada is one of the most overrated countries on Earth.

Overrated? Yeah.....so Overrated. Not America, China or Russia, but Canada?

Canada isn't respected as much as it should be.

Humpheria wrote:Just so everyone gets a little bit of information about this. If the US gets involved it will be because of Bill Clinton.

No. Be Obama. Blame Bush.

Humpheria wrote:Just so everyone gets a little bit of information about this. If the US gets involved it will be because of Bill Clinton.

Honestly, it all comes back to Nixon

The Time Alliance wrote:No. Be Obama. Blame Bush.

In 1994 Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum. The UK Prime Minister, the president of Russia, and the president of Ukraine also signed. The agreement stated that Ukraine would relinquish it's nuclear weapons to Russia. Now Russia, the US, and the UK are obligated to protect Ukraine's sovereignty from foreign invasion. If Russia invades, the US and the UK have to go to war with Russia. Not oil, that is a lie.

http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

Post self-deleted by The Time Alliance.

Lack There Of wrote:Honestly, it all comes back to Nixon

Nope. James Madison.

Humpheria wrote:In 1994 Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum. The UK Prime Minister, the president of Russia, and the president of Ukraine also signed. The agreement stated that Ukraine would relinquish it's nuclear weapons to Russia. Now Russia, the US, and the UK are obligated to protect Ukraine's sovereignty from foreign invasion. If Russia invades, the US and the UK have to go to war with Russia. Not oil, that is a lie.

http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

Seriously? I thought we were joking. Well......now I'm stuck.

The Time Alliance wrote:Nope. James Madison.

Seriously? I thought we were joking. Well......now I'm stuck.

No I'm not.

Russia signed it as well. If Russia can break it lets grow some balls. Let's break it.

The Time Alliance wrote:No I'm not.

Russia signed it as well. If Russia can break it lets grow some balls. Let's break it.

Problem is, that agreement was signed in accordance with UN requirements. Russia is breaking international law, they will have NATO and the EU turned against them, we don't need that right now. We are bound by law and we must follow it or we will face the wrath of everything we have created since 1917.

Humpheria wrote:In 1994 Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum. The UK Prime Minister, the president of Russia, and the president of Ukraine also signed. The agreement stated that Ukraine would relinquish it's nuclear weapons to Russia. Now Russia, the US, and the UK are obligated to protect Ukraine's sovereignty from foreign invasion. If Russia invades, the US and the UK have to go to war with Russia. Not oil, that is a lie.

http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/budapest-memorandums-security-assurances-1994/p32484

Since when have the post soviet, weak russia, agreements been relevant to the international community. Putin surely doesnt hold them as legitmate and the Western Powers will not go into a direct war to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.

The Time Alliance wrote:Nope. James Madison.

Yep nixon. He is the one who took us off gold and got us involved in nearly war after vietnam. this video explains it pretty well, but im not sure i buy his claims of ww3. Regardless, the back ground information presented is impeccable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djwPqAJ_3GY&noredirect=1

Humpheria wrote:Problem is, that agreement was signed in accordance with UN requirements. Russia is breaking international law, they will have NATO and the EU turned against them, we don't need that right now. We are bound by law and we must follow it or we will face the wrath of everything we have created since 1917.

Screw International law. NATO is driven by US. EU is worthless.

Face the wrath of Organizations that fail or that we control or save ourselves from war.

Reminds me of a quote from a song.

"Sometimes to win you have to sin."

Lack There Of wrote:Since when have the post soviet, weak russia, agreements been relevant to the international community. Putin surely doesnt hold them as legitmate and the Western Powers will not go into a direct war to protect Ukrainian sovereignty.

Yep nixon. He is the one who took us off gold and got us involved in nearly war after vietnam. this video explains it pretty well, but im not sure i buy his claims of ww3. Regardless, the back ground information presented is impeccable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djwPqAJ_3GY&noredirect=1

Russia has one thing up on us. They aren't scared of international laws.

James Madison started all this.

That agreement is sanctified by the UN, and NATO, and the EU. Just because Putin wants more land doesn't nullify international law. It is also enforceable by China and France.

The Time Alliance wrote:Screw International law. NATO is driven by US. EU is worthless.

Face the wrath of Organizations that fail or that we control or save ourselves from war.

Reminds me of a quote from a song.

"Sometimes to win you have to sin."

Russia has one thing up on us. They aren't scared of international laws.

You sir would make an excellent real life executive and foreign affairs official. Never run for President.

Humpheria wrote:That agreement is sanctified by the UN, and NATO, and the EU. Just because Putin wants more land doesn't nullify international law. It is also enforceable by China and France.

Implying International law matters.

Implying Russia cares about International law.

Implying NATO and EU have REAL power.

Humpheria wrote:You sir would make an excellent real life executive and foreign affairs official. Never run for President.

Why not?

Breaking off all of America's ties to the organizations that we started. Regardless of your condescending manner, there is such a thing as consequences. And you may feel more intelligent and cultured by being an establishment-hater, but some things you just have to do.

Humpheria wrote:Breaking off all of America's ties to the organizations that we started. Regardless of your condescending manner, there is such a thing as consequences. And you may feel more intelligent and cultured by being an establishment-hater, but some things you just have to do.

That was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.