On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an existential
>>>>>> threat,
>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as recently as
>>>>>> December
>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they like,
>>>>> they still don't get
>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>
>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>
>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>> Look up the words.
>>
>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>>
>>
>
> They're diametrically opposed, pig.

And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.

On 10/4/2023 7:40 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/4/23 12:33 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/4/2023 11:23 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:38:55 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>
>>> Oh? Is Cuba producing nukes? I can't imagine Putin wanting to export
>>> nukes at the present time (as opposed to 60 years ago)
>>
>> Ed's contention, afaics, was that Russia had no right to deny Ukraine
>> NATO membership.  I asked why the U.S. had a right re Cuban missiles.
>>
>>
>
>
> Same reason you have a right to defend yourself if somebody puts a gun
> to your head.

Seems plausible that Russia might judge Ukraine's NATO membership a
threatening shift in the proximity of Russia's adversaries.

On 10/4/2023 7:26 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:38:57 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/2023 4:26 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:56:10 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2023 12:44 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:33:04 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 11:23 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:38:55 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>>>>> arsenal? ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh? Is Cuba producing nukes? I can't imagine Putin wanting to export
>>>>>>> nukes at the present time (as opposed to 60 years ago)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed's contention, afaics, was that Russia had no right to deny Ukraine
>>>>>> NATO membership. I asked why the U.S. had a right re Cuban missiles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The same reason Ukraine wants to join NATO. Russia (or more precisely
>>>>> Putin) would like to return to the days of the Soviet Union and expand
>>>>> the territory currently held by Russia. So Ukraine wants to join NATO
>>>>> in the hopes of limiting Russia's advances while the US saw the Cuban
>>>>> missiles as the threat Russia intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Russia can complain about Ukraine wanting to join NATO all it wants
>>>>> but it's only because of Russia's clear threat to Ukraine's
>>>>> sovereignty that they are pushing for it. Look at all the other
>>>>> countries that have suddenly thought joining NATO might not be a bad
>>>>> idea. For all that Russia complains NATO isn't a threat to Russia, but
>>>>> it is a threat to Putin's wish to expand the Russia territory.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but doesn't that amount to "Because we're the good guys"? Though
>>>> it seems obvious that we indeed are, would that stand up in court?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who is going to take any of us to court and do you think the USA or
>>> Russia is going to care what any court says?
>>
>> I mean "stand up in court" figuratively. Do we justify our actions with
>> at least the appearance of principle, or merely with military might?
>>
>
> Yes.
> We have the appearance of principle but it is always backed up by our
> military might. Often we even seem to be on the right side of actions
> but by no means are we always on the 'right' side.

Unfortunately, that seems about right. So we're ultimately governed by
the law of the jungle, with Emily Post as press secretary.

On 10/4/2023 6:47 PM, chromebook test wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 6:39:05 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/4/2023 4:26 PM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:56:10 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/4/2023 12:44 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:33:04 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 11:23 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:38:55 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>>>>> arsenal? ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh? Is Cuba producing nukes? I can't imagine Putin wanting to export
>>>>>>> nukes at the present time (as opposed to 60 years ago)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed's contention, afaics, was that Russia had no right to deny Ukraine
>>>>>> NATO membership. I asked why the U.S. had a right re Cuban missiles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The same reason Ukraine wants to join NATO. Russia (or more precisely
>>>>> Putin) would like to return to the days of the Soviet Union and expand
>>>>> the territory currently held by Russia. So Ukraine wants to join NATO
>>>>> in the hopes of limiting Russia's advances while the US saw the Cuban
>>>>> missiles as the threat Russia intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> So Russia can complain about Ukraine wanting to join NATO all it wants
>>>>> but it's only because of Russia's clear threat to Ukraine's
>>>>> sovereignty that they are pushing for it. Look at all the other
>>>>> countries that have suddenly thought joining NATO might not be a bad
>>>>> idea. For all that Russia complains NATO isn't a threat to Russia, but
>>>>> it is a threat to Putin's wish to expand the Russia territory.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but doesn't that amount to "Because we're the good guys"? Though
>>>> it seems obvious that we indeed are, would that stand up in court?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who is going to take any of us to court and do you think the USA or
>>> Russia is going to care what any court says?
>
>> I mean "stand up in court" figuratively. Do we justify our actions with
>> at least the appearance of principle, or merely with military might?
>
>
> The indispensable empire makes the rules, and breaks them when it sees fit to secure the empire

If they really were broken only to secure the empire, that might not be
such a bad thing.

On 10/4/23 10:22 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an existential
>>>>>>> threat,
>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as recently
>>>>>>> as December
>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they like,
>>>>>> they still don't get
>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>>
>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>> Look up the words.
>>>
>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>
> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.

Nope. They're diametrically opposed goals, pig. You can fake ignorance
all you want, but words have meanings.

NATO exists to check the power of Russia, and the old Warsaw Pact
alliance. That wasn't the goal for missiles in Cuba.

Offense. Defense. It doesn't matter what side you're on... facts are
like that.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an existential
>>>>>>> threat,
>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as recently
>>>>>>> as December
>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they like,
>>>>>> they still don't get
>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>>
>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>> Look up the words.
>>>
>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>
> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>

Doesn't change the facts of the case.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/4/23 10:51 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/4/2023 7:26 PM, shawn wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:38:57 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/4/2023 4:26 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 15:56:10 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/4/2023 12:44 PM, shawn wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 12:33:04 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 11:23 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:38:55 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>>>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to
>>>>>>>>> stop".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh? Is Cuba producing nukes? I can't imagine Putin wanting to
>>>>>>>> export
>>>>>>>> nukes at the present time (as opposed to 60 years ago)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed's contention, afaics, was that Russia had no right to deny
>>>>>>> Ukraine
>>>>>>> NATO membership.  I asked why the U.S. had a right re Cuban
>>>>>>> missiles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The same reason Ukraine wants to join NATO. Russia (or more precisely
>>>>>> Putin) would like to return to the days of the Soviet Union and
>>>>>> expand
>>>>>> the territory currently held by Russia. So Ukraine wants to join NATO
>>>>>> in the hopes of limiting Russia's advances while the US saw the Cuban
>>>>>> missiles as the threat Russia intended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Russia can complain about Ukraine wanting to join NATO all it
>>>>>> wants
>>>>>> but it's only because of Russia's clear threat to Ukraine's
>>>>>> sovereignty that they are pushing for it. Look at all the other
>>>>>> countries that have suddenly thought joining NATO might not be a bad
>>>>>> idea. For all that Russia complains NATO isn't a threat to Russia,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> it is a threat to Putin's wish to expand the Russia territory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but doesn't that amount to "Because we're the good guys"?  Though
>>>>> it seems obvious that we indeed are, would that stand up in court?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who is going to take any of us to court and do you think the USA or
>>>> Russia is going to care what any court says?
>>>
>>> I mean "stand up in court" figuratively.  Do we justify our actions with
>>> at least the appearance of principle, or merely with military might?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>> We have the appearance of principle but it is always backed up by our
>> military might. Often we even seem to be on the right side of actions
>> but by no means are we always on the 'right' side.
>
> Unfortunately, that seems about right.  So we're ultimately governed by
> the law of the jungle, with Emily Post as press secretary.
>
>

Welcome! Is this your first day on the planet?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/4/23 10:49 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/4/2023 7:40 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/4/23 12:33 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2023 11:23 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 22:38:55 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>>
>>>> Oh? Is Cuba producing nukes? I can't imagine Putin wanting to export
>>>> nukes at the present time (as opposed to 60 years ago)
>>>
>>> Ed's contention, afaics, was that Russia had no right to deny Ukraine
>>> NATO membership.  I asked why the U.S. had a right re Cuban missiles.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Same reason you have a right to defend yourself if somebody puts a gun
>> to your head.
>
> Seems plausible that Russia might judge Ukraine's NATO membership a
> threatening shift in the proximity of Russia's adversaries.

You think Ukraine isn't going to be an adversary whether they join NATO
or not? That's naive. Russia also judged Ukraine to be full of Nazis.
Doesn't mean shit. Nothing changes the facts of the case.

Russia just gained more NATO territory on it's borders, pig. And
they're going to gain more NATO neighbors after this conflict is over too.

Everything Russia is doing is counterproductive, if that's their goal.
But it isn't. It's naked aggression and a land grab. And if it's
allowed to continue, it's only a matter of time before it triggers a
NATO World War.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
>>>>>>>> existential threat,
>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as recently
>>>>>>>> as December
>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to stop".
>>>>>
>>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>>> Look up the words.
>>>>
>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>>
>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>>
>
> Doesn't change the facts of the case.

"Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.

On 10/5/23 10:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
>>>>>>>>> existential threat,
>>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as recently
>>>>>>>>> as December
>>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
>>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
>>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to
>>>>>>> stop".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>>>> Look up the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>>>
>>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't change the facts of the case.
>
> "Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.

Sure, if that side is you.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/5/23 10:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
>>>>>>>>> existential threat,
>>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as recently
>>>>>>>>> as December
>>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
>>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
>>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
>>>>>>> arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to
>>>>>>> stop".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>>>> Look up the words.
>>>>>
>>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>>>
>>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn't change the facts of the case.
>
> "Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.

Oh, please... show a single instance where NATO has acted as an aggressor.

The Alliance is founded on the principle of collective defense, meaning
that if one NATO Ally is attacked, then all NATO Allies are attacked.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/5/2023 7:00 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/5/23 10:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
>>>>>>>>>> existential threat,
>>>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as
>>>>>>>>>> recently as December
>>>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
>>>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
>>>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's
>>>>>>>> nuclear arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is
>>>>>>>> powerless to stop".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>>>>> Look up the words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively
>>>>>> deterrent"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>>>>
>>>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't change the facts of the case.
>>
>> "Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.
>
> Oh, please... show a single instance where NATO has acted as an aggressor.
>
> The Alliance is founded on the principle of collective defense, meaning
> that if one NATO Ally is attacked, then all NATO Allies are attacked.

No one has ever wanted a hostile military alliance on their doorstep.

On 10/5/23 7:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/5/2023 7:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/5/23 10:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
>>>>>>>>>>> existential threat,
>>>>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as
>>>>>>>>>>> recently as December
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
>>>>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
>>>>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's
>>>>>>>>> nuclear arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is
>>>>>>>>> powerless to stop".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>>>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>>>>>> Look up the words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively
>>>>>>> deterrent"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>>>>>
>>>>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't change the facts of the case.
>>>
>>> "Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.
>>
>> Oh, please... show a single instance where NATO has acted as an
>> aggressor.
>>
>> The Alliance is founded on the principle of collective defense,
>> meaning that if one NATO Ally is attacked, then all NATO Allies are
>> attacked.
>
> No one has ever wanted a hostile military alliance on their doorstep.

Maybe you shouldn't have a history of invading neighboring sovereign
countries, then. And what constitutes "hostile" to you, pig? "An
attack on one is an attack on all." doesn't sound hostile, does it?

You keep dancing around the subject. Where is NATO ever been an
offensive alliance?

All you have to do is provide a few examples of NATO aggression.
I'm not holding my breath.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 7:00:42 PM UTC-4, FPP wrote:
> On 10/5/23 10:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
> > On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
> >> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
> >>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> chromebook test
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
> >>>>>>>>> existential threat,
> >>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as recently
> >>>>>>>>> as December
> >>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
> >>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
> >>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's nuclear
> >>>>>>> arsenal? ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is powerless to
> >>>>>>> stop".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Only completely. I just explained it to you.
> >>>>>> Offense, Defense.
> >>>>>> Look up the words.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
> >>>
> >>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Doesn't change the facts of the case.
> >
> > "Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.
> Oh, please... show a single instance where NATO has acted as an aggressor..

Reflecting on his legacy in a Fox News interview aired on Sunday, Obama said his “worst mistake” was “probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya” Obama has conceded that the intervention “didn’t work”.

What was the first thing the empire did after the invasion of Libya?
Secure the bank and confiscate 140 tons of Libyan bullion, and an equal amount of Libyan silver.

tags: sodomized with a bayonet and then murdered, the empire never ended

--------------

keep a song in your heart uhmerka !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwS6OkgUXKE

On 10/5/2023 7:42 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/5/23 7:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/5/2023 7:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 10/5/23 10:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
>>>>>>>>>>>> existential threat,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as
>>>>>>>>>>>> recently as December
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
>>>>>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
>>>>>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's
>>>>>>>>>> nuclear arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is
>>>>>>>>>> powerless to stop".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>>>>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>>>>>>> Look up the words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively
>>>>>>>> deterrent"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't change the facts of the case.
>>>>
>>>> "Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.
>>>
>>> Oh, please... show a single instance where NATO has acted as an
>>> aggressor.
>>>
>>> The Alliance is founded on the principle of collective defense,
>>> meaning that if one NATO Ally is attacked, then all NATO Allies are
>>> attacked.
>>
>> No one has ever wanted a hostile military alliance on their doorstep.
>
>
> Maybe you shouldn't have a history of invading neighboring sovereign
> countries, then.  And what constitutes "hostile" to you, pig?  "An
> attack on one is an attack on all." doesn't sound hostile, does it?
>
> You keep dancing around the subject.  Where is NATO ever been an
> offensive alliance?
>
> All you have to do is provide a few examples of NATO aggression.
> I'm not holding my breath.

I'm just trying to remember when Cuba or Russia attacked the U.S. If it
was never, I'm wondering why we gave a shit about those atomic missiles.

On 10/5/23 10:57 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/5/2023 7:42 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/5/23 7:19 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/5/2023 7:00 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>> On 10/5/23 10:22 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/5/2023 2:06 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/4/23 10:23 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 7:39 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/4/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/4/2023 2:31 AM, FPP wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/3/23 10:38 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/3/2023 6:33 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> chromebook test
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NATO: Russia has considered NATO expansion east as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existential threat,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and has said so MANY times since at least 2008, and as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recently as December
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2021 just before the Ukraine invasion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again; fuck Russia, they can "consider it a threat" all they
>>>>>>>>>>>> like, they still don't get
>>>>>>>>>>>> to veto Ukraine's (or any other country's) membership in NATO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, how is that different from the U.S. vetoing Cuba's
>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear arsenal?  ...unless "don't get to veto" means "is
>>>>>>>>>>> powerless to stop".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only completely.  I just explained it to you.
>>>>>>>>>> Offense,  Defense.
>>>>>>>>>> Look up the words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively
>>>>>>>>> deterrent"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And which words are chosen depends on which side you're on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doesn't change the facts of the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Facts" are seldom relevant to the side choosing the words.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, please... show a single instance where NATO has acted as an
>>>> aggressor.
>>>>
>>>> The Alliance is founded on the principle of collective defense,
>>>> meaning that if one NATO Ally is attacked, then all NATO Allies are
>>>> attacked.
>>>
>>> No one has ever wanted a hostile military alliance on their doorstep.
>>
>>
>> Maybe you shouldn't have a history of invading neighboring sovereign
>> countries, then.  And what constitutes "hostile" to you, pig?  "An
>> attack on one is an attack on all." doesn't sound hostile, does it?
>>
>> You keep dancing around the subject.  Where is NATO ever been an
>> offensive alliance?
>>
>> All you have to do is provide a few examples of NATO aggression.
>> I'm not holding my breath.
>
> I'm just trying to remember when Cuba or Russia attacked the U.S.  If it
> was never, I'm wondering why we gave a shit about those atomic missiles.

Maybe you need meds, pig. For your "memory". Russia just did in 2018.

> Special Forces Soldiers Reveal First Details of Battle With Russian Mercenaries in Syria.
> The continuous thunder of Russian guns pounded the American positions in a burned-out natural gas refinery in eastern Syria. Tracers crisscrossed the Syrian sky. The Special Forces soldiers felt the rumble of the explosions through the armored cabins of their trucks.
>
> Overhead, America’s most lethal aircraft—F-15E strike fighters, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and MQ-9 Reapers—pounded the Russian guns and enemy formations below.

> As the Special Forces convoy approached the refinery, the Russian mercenaries and Syrian forces attacked the outpost, using a mixture of tank fire, large artillery, and mortar rounds.The air was filled with dust and shrapnel. The commandos crouched behind trucks or dirt berms as the Russian mercenaries advanced behind the artillery barrage.
>
> One Predator was on station when the attack started. It fired all of its hellfire missiles, destroying the enemy artillery so the U.S. troops could focus on the ground fight. Then the Predator lingered over the battlefield to provide a video feed of the fighting to battle captains in the command center and officials in Washington.

Oh... and if you're wondering how it turned out? Well, let's just say
the Russians won't be doing that again anytime soon.

> The exact casualty count for the Feb. 7 fight is unclear, but sources have estimated between 100 and 300 Russian and pro-Syrian fighters were killed or wounded in the battle.
> “To make it short, we’ve had our fucking asses kicked,” one Wagner Group veteran says in a recording. “They tore us to pieces. … They beat our asses like we were little pieces of shit.”
>
> Nine of the 10 tanks were destroyed, as well as all six artillery pieces. The Special Forces team destroyed the lone surviving tank a few days later.
> “We did not sustain a single injury,” Chauncey says. “We didn’t sustain a single death. I mean, guys were dinged up. Guys had PTSD from that battle, but everyone made it home.”

You might want to write this down, pig. You know... in case your
"memory" fails again.

https://thewarhorse.org/special-forces-soldiers-reveal-first-details-of-battle-with-russian-mercenaries-in-syria/#:~:text=As%20the%20Special%20Forces%20convoy,filled%20with%20dust%20and%20shrapnel.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 19:39:08 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>
>They're diametrically opposed, pig.

Obviously.

That said it's commonly used in the art of propaganda...

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 22:57:33 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>> All you have to do is provide a few examples of NATO aggression.
>> I'm not holding my breath.
>
>I'm just trying to remember when Cuba or Russia attacked the U.S. If it
>was never, I'm wondering why we gave a shit about those atomic missiles.

How often does "the button" have to be "pushed" to REALLY REALLY keep
the number 0.

(And before anybody starts talking about WW2 let's remember how WW2 in
the Pacific started - e.g. Japanese attacks in quite a few places
besides Pearl Harbor some of which belonged to the US (Guam, the
Phillipines etc) and those that weren't (Hong Kong)

On 10/6/23 2:38 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 22:57:33 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> All you have to do is provide a few examples of NATO aggression.
>>> I'm not holding my breath.
>>
>> I'm just trying to remember when Cuba or Russia attacked the U.S. If it
>> was never, I'm wondering why we gave a shit about those atomic missiles.
>
> How often does "the button" have to be "pushed" to REALLY REALLY keep
> the number 0.
>
> (And before anybody starts talking about WW2 let's remember how WW2 in
> the Pacific started - e.g. Japanese attacks in quite a few places
> besides Pearl Harbor some of which belonged to the US (Guam, the
> Phillipines etc) and those that weren't (Hong Kong)
>

I also remember the Berlin Airlift. (Well, remember studying it.)
Not all aggression needs to be violent.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/6/23 2:32 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 19:39:08 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> What "offensive" preparations can't be called "defensively deterrent"?
>>
>> They're diametrically opposed, pig.
>
> Obviously.
>
> That said it's commonly used in the art of propaganda...
>

Might apply, if someone could show that NATO ever did it.
On the other hand, Russia has always acted as an aggressor.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 02:50:34 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/6/23 2:38 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 22:57:33 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> All you have to do is provide a few examples of NATO aggression.
>>>> I'm not holding my breath.
>>>
>>> I'm just trying to remember when Cuba or Russia attacked the U.S. If it
>>> was never, I'm wondering why we gave a shit about those atomic missiles.
>>
>> How often does "the button" have to be "pushed" to REALLY REALLY keep
>> the number 0.
>>
>> (And before anybody starts talking about WW2 let's remember how WW2 in
>> the Pacific started - e.g. Japanese attacks in quite a few places
>> besides Pearl Harbor some of which belonged to the US (Guam, the
>> Phillipines etc) and those that weren't (Hong Kong)
>>
>I also remember the Berlin Airlift. (Well, remember studying it.)
>Not all aggression needs to be violent.

Very good point.

On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 02:52:14 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:

>Might apply, if someone could show that NATO ever did it.
>On the other hand, Russia has always acted as an aggressor.

While it wasn't a NATO operation several NATO members beyond the US
took part in Iraq 1991 and 2003.

And both of those WERE offensive operations launched against a rogue
regime.

On 10/7/23 1:58 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 02:52:14 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Might apply, if someone could show that NATO ever did it.
>> On the other hand, Russia has always acted as an aggressor.
>
> While it wasn't a NATO operation several NATO members beyond the US
> took part in Iraq 1991 and 2003.
>
> And both of those WERE offensive operations launched against a rogue
> regime.
>

Sure. But NATO did not join in in any way, shape or form.
NATO as an organization had no role in the decision to undertake the
campaign or to conduct it.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/7/2023 10:58 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 02:52:14 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Might apply, if someone could show that NATO ever did it.
>> On the other hand, Russia has always acted as an aggressor.
>
> While it wasn't a NATO operation several NATO members beyond the US
> took part in Iraq 1991 and 2003.
>
> And both of those WERE offensive operations launched against a rogue
> regime.

I seem to remember an invasion of Kuwait being involved in at least one
of those.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/7/23 4:55 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 10/7/2023 10:58 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023 02:52:14 -0400, FPP <fredp1571@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Might apply, if someone could show that NATO ever did it.
>>> On the other hand, Russia has always acted as an aggressor.
>>
>> While it wasn't a NATO operation several NATO members beyond the US
>> took part in Iraq 1991 and 2003.
>>
>> And both of those WERE offensive operations launched against a rogue
>> regime.
>
> I seem to remember an invasion of Kuwait being involved in at least one
> of those.
>

Not sure what that means. Some NATO signatories were involved, and many
weren't.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0