Phorum.com.gr

ΣΑΤΑΝΙΚΟΣ ΕΓΚΕΦΑΛΟΣ έγραψε: 21 Φεβ 2025, 22:35

Scouser έγραψε: 21 Φεβ 2025, 22:31

ΣΑΤΑΝΙΚΟΣ ΕΓΚΕΦΑΛΟΣ έγραψε: 21 Φεβ 2025, 22:29

όχι
αλλά δεν τους προλαβαίνω, χαμός γίνεται. έλειψα λίγες ώρες από το τραπέζι μου για μια συνάντηση και δεν προλαβαίνω τα μεμες

Η έτσι δεν θέλει να συμμορφωθεί με την executive order που αποκλείει τους τράβελους από το να αγωνίζονται σε γυναικείες διοργανώσεις. Ας πάει στα δικαστήρια όπως απειλεί, θα πάει πολύ καλά με αυτό το Supreme Court.

σκληρός ο νόμος αλλά νόμος, αδερφέ

Scouser έγραψε: 21 Φεβ 2025, 23:00 JD like a boss:

In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.

2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.

Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.

But the bigger issue, as I think Niall knows, is that most of those loudly shouting "appeasement" are people who aren't dealing with the reality on the ground.

3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.

The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.

4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it.

Και απάντηση άρχοντα Niall:

I very much appreciate this response. Yesterday was a bit like one of those pub brawls after which the combatants shake hands and have a drink. I'll watch with keen interest how the negotiations go. I still disagree with what @realDonaldTrump said about @ZelenskyyUa, but what matters is achieving peace and security for Ukrainians, ensuring that Russia is not rewarded for its aggression, and above all strengthening America's global position. Again, I wish you luck.

Men of culture σε υψηλού επιπέδου συζητήσεις, την ώρα που τα ανχιντζντ αντιτραμπικά ορκς τσιρίζουν, βγάζουν αφρούς και κάνουν μέρα νύχτα επίδειξη της άγνοιας και της αδυναμίας τους να συζητήσουν σαν έλλογα όντα.

Unique έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 10:22 https://twitter.com/Brick_Suit/status/1 ... 7728783665

πατησιωτης έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 23:03

Scouser έγραψε: 21 Φεβ 2025, 23:00 JD like a boss:

In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.

2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.

Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.

But the bigger issue, as I think Niall knows, is that most of those loudly shouting "appeasement" are people who aren't dealing with the reality on the ground.

3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.

The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.

4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it.

Και απάντηση άρχοντα Niall:

I very much appreciate this response. Yesterday was a bit like one of those pub brawls after which the combatants shake hands and have a drink. I'll watch with keen interest how the negotiations go. I still disagree with what @realDonaldTrump said about @ZelenskyyUa, but what matters is achieving peace and security for Ukrainians, ensuring that Russia is not rewarded for its aggression, and above all strengthening America's global position. Again, I wish you luck.

Men of culture σε υψηλού επιπέδου συζητήσεις, την ώρα που τα ανχιντζντ αντιτραμπικά ορκς τσιρίζουν, βγάζουν αφρούς και κάνουν μέρα νύχτα επίδειξη της άγνοιας και της αδυναμίας τους να συζητήσουν σαν έλλογα όντα.

Σε αυτά βέβαια υπάρχει απάντηση αλλά δεν μπορούν να την πουν οι φιλοουκρανοί διότι και αυτοί ηθικολογούν.
Δεν θυμάμαι όταν εισέβαλαν οι Σοβιετικοί στο Αφγανιστάν και οι Αμερικανοί έστελναν όπλα στους αντάρτες να βγήκε κάποιος και να είπε είναι meatgrinder ας σταματήσουμε και ας αφήσουμε να νικήσουν οι Σοβιετικοί διότι από τον πόλεμο σκοτώνονται πολλοί Αφγανοί και που θα πάει αυτό.Και δεν το είπαν παρ ότι βέβαια δεν συγκρίνεται μια ευρωπαική χώρα που αμύνεται με ομάδες ισλαμιστών ανταρτών.Αλλά τότε ήθελαν να φθείρουν όσο μπορούν τους Ρώσους και το έκαναν.Όταν ο ανταγωνιστής μπλέκει σε παρόμοια κατάσταση τον αφήνεις να φθείρεται,δεν προσπαθείς να το λήξεις για να σωθούν στρατιώτες και συτό ισχύει από την εποχή του Βιετνάμ και μετά.Τα ανθρωπιστικά των Τραμπ - Βανς είναι δικαιολογία για τον πραγματικό λόγο,δεν θέλουν την αποδυνάμωση της Ρωσίας,ο καθένας μπορεί να δώσει την εξήγηση που τον βολεύει.Αυτό βέβαια δεν μπορούν να το αντικρούσουν οι φιλοουκρανοί καθώς ηθικολογούν και αυτοί και δεν θέλουν κυνικά επιχειρήματα.Όμως στο μέλλον θα το προσάψουν μέσα στην Αμερική οι πάντες στον Τραμπ.Θα είναι ο άνθρωπος που σταμάτησε την αιμορραγία της Ρωσίας και της χάρισε όση Ουκρανία της χαρίσει.Αυτό θα ακολουθεί και αυτόν και τους Ρεπουμπλικανούς για πάντα διότι δεν είνσι ούτε Βιετνάμ ούτε Ιράκ,δεν σκοτώνονται Αμερικανοί.

Scouser έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 23:30 Το πιο σημαντικό όμως, στο οποίο δεν έχει απάντηση κανένας φιλοουκρανός, είναι αυτό που λέει ο Βανς για plausible path to victory της Ουκρανίας. Yπάρχει τέτοιο πράγμα; Αν υπάρχει, να μας το πουν τώρα.

Yochanan έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 23:34 Πώς εξηγείς πατησιωτης τον πραγματικό λόγο που λες - ότι δλδ δε θέλουν την περαιτέρω αποδυνάμωση της Ρωσιας; Σαν αντίβαρο στην Κίνα; Αυτό πώς αφου είναι σύμμαχοι;

πατησιωτης έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 23:03

Spoiler

Scouser έγραψε: 21 Φεβ 2025, 23:00 JD like a boss:

In this thread I'll respond to some of what I've seen out there. Let's start with Niall:

1) On the general background, yes, you have been more right than wrong on a lot of the details of the conflict. Which is why I'm surprised to hear you call the administration's posture "appeasement." We are negotiating to end the conflict. It is "appeasement" only if you think the Ukrainians have a credible pathway to victory. They don't, so it's not.

2) As far as I can tell, accusations of "appeasement" hinge on a few arguments (not all of them from Niall, to be clear). The first is a criticism that we're even talking to the Russians. Well, the President believes to conduct diplomacy, you actually have to speak to people. This used to be called statesmanship. Second, the idea--based often on fake media reports--that we've "given the Russians everything they want." Third, that if we just passed another aid package, Ukraine would roll all the way to Moscow, raise Navalny from the dead, and install a democratic and free leader to Russia (I exaggerate, but only a little). All of these arguments are provably, demonstrably false.

Many people who have gotten everything wrong about Russia say they know what Russia wants. Many people who know the media reports fake garbage take anonymously sourced reports on a complex negotiation as gospel truth.

But the bigger issue, as I think Niall knows, is that most of those loudly shouting "appeasement" are people who aren't dealing with the reality on the ground.

3) On the specifics of the negotiation, I"m not confirming details publicly for obvious reasons, but much of what I've seen leaked ranges from entirely bogus to missing critical info. The president has set goals for the negotiation, and I am biased, but I think he's awfully good at this. But we're not going to telegraph our negotiating posture to make people feel better. The president is trying to achieve a lasting piece, not massage the egos or anxieties of people waving Ukraine flags.

The idea that the President of the United States has to start the negotiation by saying "maybe we'll let Ukraine into NATO" defies all common sense. Again, it's not appeasement to acknowledge the realities on the ground--realities President Trump has pointed to for years in some cases.

4) Many of the subjective criticisms amount to pearl clutching that don't ultimately matter. I'm happy to defend POTUS's criticisms of the Ukrainian leadership (not that it matters, because he's the president, but I agree with him). You're welcome to disagree. But these critiques of POTUS don't bear on the war or on his negotiation to end it.

Και απάντηση άρχοντα Niall:

I very much appreciate this response. Yesterday was a bit like one of those pub brawls after which the combatants shake hands and have a drink. I'll watch with keen interest how the negotiations go. I still disagree with what @realDonaldTrump said about @ZelenskyyUa, but what matters is achieving peace and security for Ukrainians, ensuring that Russia is not rewarded for its aggression, and above all strengthening America's global position. Again, I wish you luck.

Men of culture σε υψηλού επιπέδου συζητήσεις, την ώρα που τα ανχιντζντ αντιτραμπικά ορκς τσιρίζουν, βγάζουν αφρούς και κάνουν μέρα νύχτα επίδειξη της άγνοιας και της αδυναμίας τους να συζητήσουν σαν έλλογα όντα.

Σε αυτά βέβαια υπάρχει απάντηση αλλά δεν μπορούν να την πουν οι φιλοουκρανοί διότι και αυτοί ηθικολογούν.
Δεν θυμάμαι όταν εισέβαλαν οι Σοβιετικοί στο Αφγανιστάν και οι Αμερικανοί έστελναν όπλα στους αντάρτες να βγήκε κάποιος και να είπε είναι meatgrinder ας σταματήσουμε και ας αφήσουμε να νικήσουν οι Σοβιετικοί διότι από τον πόλεμο σκοτώνονται πολλοί Αφγανοί και που θα πάει αυτό.Και δεν το είπαν παρ ότι βέβαια δεν συγκρίνεται μια ευρωπαική χώρα που αμύνεται με ομάδες ισλαμιστών ανταρτών.Αλλά τότε ήθελαν να φθείρουν όσο μπορούν τους Ρώσους και το έκαναν.Όταν ο ανταγωνιστής μπλέκει σε παρόμοια κατάσταση τον αφήνεις να φθείρεται,δεν προσπαθείς να το λήξεις για να σωθούν στρατιώτες και συτό ισχύει από την εποχή του Βιετνάμ και μετά.Τα ανθρωπιστικά των Τραμπ - Βανς είναι δικαιολογία για τον πραγματικό λόγο,δεν θέλουν την αποδυνάμωση της Ρωσίας,ο καθένας μπορεί να δώσει την εξήγηση που τον βολεύει.Αυτό βέβαια δεν μπορούν να το αντικρούσουν οι φιλοουκρανοί καθώς ηθικολογούν και αυτοί και δεν θέλουν κυνικά επιχειρήματα.Όμως στο μέλλον θα το προσάψουν μέσα στην Αμερική οι πάντες στον Τραμπ.Θα είναι ο άνθρωπος που σταμάτησε την αιμορραγία της Ρωσίας και της χάρισε όση Ουκρανία της χαρίσει.Αυτό θα ακολουθεί και αυτόν και τους Ρεπουμπλικανούς για πάντα διότι δεν είνσι ούτε Βιετνάμ ούτε Ιράκ,δεν σκοτώνονται Αμερικανοί.

sharp έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 23:50 Αυτό κι εγώ το πιστεύω.

πατησιωτης έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 23:55

sharp έγραψε: 22 Φεβ 2025, 23:50 Αυτό κι εγώ το πιστεύω.

Έγραψα και τον λόγο.Δεν πιστεύω τα της ΟΑΚΚΕ που λέει ότι ετοιμάζουν πόλεμο στην Ευρώπη,αντίθετα θα προσπαθήσουν από τα μέσα να αλλάξουν την Ευρώπη και ήδη το κάνουν με την υποστήριξη του Μασκ στο AFD και άλλους παρόμοιους.Θα δούμε όμως.