Ukraine anger as Macron says 'Don't humiliate "russia'

[Ouroboros]

Another day, another round of infantile drivel from the Looney Lost Causer, too terrified to face up to the facts about his treasonous slaver heroes.

Oh look, more tearful sobbing because you can’t bear to face the fact that the Supreme Court explicitly rejected your narrative.

Yawn. Considering the kind of psychotic, corrupt thugs you cheerlead for in the name of “but the commies”, your redbaiting means literally nothing.

Lincoln was the one man who saved your heroes from a firing squad bud.....and all it got him was bullet.

Which really shows just how wrong his policy of lenience towards the defeated South was.

Nothing the Supreme Court says after the war has the least bearing on the legality of secession. What was the Court doing for the sixty years that the North kept jockeying for hegemony? Nothing, because the judges knew there was no countermanding the Tenth before the populace suffered the rigors of war, after which no one cared about the fine points of the law. Where was the Court when South Carolina threatened to nullify the tariff law? That might have been a good time to examine the limits of secession. Afterward, they’re just blathering.

Lincoln’s leniency means little since he caused the war by not recognizing the Tenth. Oh, and according to you, to maintain a hold on a few acres of land. Well, at least now you’ve gone on record as to what you think the North’s motives were, that everyone from Maine to Michigan fought not to end slavery but to keep custody of Fort Sumter.

 

[Ouroboros]

The fort wasn’t “illegal” at any point. South Carolina ceded all right to it, which made it federal property. South Carolina really, really, really wanting the fort back is irrelevant— they had given it up, and there is no take backsies clause.

Wrong as usual. Slavers attacking American soldiers on American soil is an act of war, no matter how much that triggers you. The fort was legally US government property, the troops there were US soldiers, and your treasonous slaver heroes attacked it anyway.

Nope, states had the power to secede, and their attitude toward slavery had nothing to do with the matter. Not that the North had cleaned its own house, since only in one or two Northern states was slavery illegal.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Supreme Court explicitly stated otherwise. Splat, goes the Looney Lost Causer’s pitiful excuse for “brains”

And since when does a pinko like you care about American jurisprudence? Not at all, unless their incorrect opinion reinforces your reverse racism.

 

[Tigerace117]

Nothing the Supreme Court says after the war has the least bearing on the legality of secession. What was the Court doing for the sixty years that the North kept jockeying for hegemony? Nothing, because the judges knew there was no countermanding the Tenth before the populace suffered the rigors of war, after which no one cared about the fine points of the law. Where was the Court when South Carolina threatened to nullify the tariff law? That might have been a good time to examine the limits of secession. Afterward, they’re just blathering.

Lincoln’s leniency means little since he caused the war by not recognizing the Tenth. Oh, and according to you, to maintain a hold on a few acres of land. Well, at least now you’ve gone on record as to what you think the North’s motives were, that everyone from Maine to Michigan fought not to end slavery but to keep custody of Fort Sumter.

Wrong as usual. The Supreme Court has explicitly shot down your garbage excuse for an “argument”.

Gee bud, the Taney Court not ringing a bell? The pathetically dumb Dred Scott decision? The Court was complicit for years in the South’s efforts to expand and protect slavery.

Gee, funny you would mention the Nullification Crisis, because many courts, INCLUDING the Supreme Court, has called it out as the garbage it truly is.

Wrong as usual. It was your treasonous slaver heroes who started the war; claiming that Lincoln started the war is like claiming Poland started World War Two by refusing to appease Hitler’s territorial demands

Hate to break it to you but no matter how you squirm and sob the South still engaged in an act of war against the United States to protect slavery. Deal with it

 

[Tigerace117]

And since when does a pinko like you care about American jurisprudence? Not at all, unless their incorrect opinion reinforces your reverse racism.

Oh look, more meaningless, tearful howling about “pinkos”.

 

[Tigerace117]

Nope, states had the power to secede, and their attitude toward slavery had nothing to do with the matter. Not that the North had cleaned its own house, since only in one or two Northern states was slavery illegal.

Wrong as usual, on every level, especially since slavery had never been legal at all in half of the STATES of the North in the first place. But what else can you can expect from a Looney Lost Causer but historical lie after historical lie?

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Macron is right, to a point. JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis sounded the same thing. That’s why he secretly offered Kruschev a secret deal to remove missiles from Turkey after the USSR withdrew the Cuban missiles. JFK didn’t want to humiliate Kruschev internally, which would influence him not to withdraw. This way, Kruschev could say he got a trade.

In this situation, Putin needs to be humiliated for egregious actions. Having NATO superior weapons sent to Ukraine can win a war of attrition.

Russia has already won the war. They control the Donbas. That's what they wanted.

The choice now is to either negotiate a peace, or keep a war going for another 5-10 years. Humiliation of Putin can only result in a wider war, possible nuclear war, and more devastation for Ukraine.

The smart move now is to split Ukraine, which is what the "intelligence community" wants anyway. They want to give Donbas to Russia, but let the remainder of Ukraine join NATO. Russia gets its buffer zone, the West gets to keep fleecing Ukraine and using it as a money laundering organization. Win win.

There are no good guys in this one, I'm sorry to say.

 

[bave]

Russia has already won the war. They control the Donbas. That's what they wanted.

The choice now is to either negotiate a peace, or keep a war going for another 5-10 years. Humiliation of Putin can only result in a wider war, possible nuclear war, and more devastation for Ukraine.

The smart move now is to split Ukraine, which is what the "intelligence community" wants anyway. They want to give Donbas to Russia, but let the remainder of Ukraine join NATO. Russia gets its buffer zone, the West gets to keep fleecing Ukraine and using it as a money laundering organization. Win win.

There are no good guys in this one, I'm sorry to say.

There was a very interesting professor from University of Chicago, former West Point/State Department guy, talking about this.

Cliffs to this point is that, in his opinion, Ukraine can't negotiate. They have a hardline nationalist core in their political structure that won't accept a deal with Russia. Moreover, Russia will never stop fighting if there isn't a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality.

The fundamental problem is that Ukraine and it appears their military is starting to break.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wrong as usual. The Supreme Court has explicitly shot down your garbage excuse for an “argument”.

Gee bud, the Taney Court not ringing a bell? The pathetically dumb Dred Scott decision? The Court was complicit for years in the South’s efforts to expand and protect slavery.

Gee, funny you would mention the Nullification Crisis, because many courts, INCLUDING the Supreme Court, has called it out as the garbage it truly is.

Wrong as usual. It was your treasonous slaver heroes who started the war; claiming that Lincoln started the war is like claiming Poland started World War Two by refusing to appease Hitler’s territorial demands

Hate to break it to you but no matter how you squirm and sob the South still engaged in an act of war against the United States to protect slavery. Deal with it

All Lincoln had to do to avoid war (had he wanted to do so) would have been to remove the troops from Sumter and then pressed a suit to recover the territory. For roughly three months Pickens importuned the military to leave, and during that time Lincoln kept trying to re-supply the fort. Pickens would have been a fool to let soldiers of a foreign power occupy South Carolina, so he quite rightly attacked. Lincoln used similar measures to keep Delaware under his thumb, but you don’t care about Lincoln’s war-mongering because your hatred of American slavery (and ONLY American slavery) allows you to excuse every other iniquity to stoke your feeble righteousness.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh look, more meaningless, tearful howling about “pinkos”.

So “meaningless,” you can’t even peel yourself off the canyon floor to defend yourself of the charge of being a Commie symp. And no, you still don’t get off because someone somewhere said the same thing about MLK.

 

[Ouroboros]

Wrong as usual, on every level, especially since slavery had never been legal at all in half of the STATES of the North in the first place. But what else can you can expect from a Looney Lost Causer but historical lie after historical lie?

Go on, show us what half baked source you got that nonsense from. Oh, and why didn’t you mention this fun theory back when I reproduced a chart showing census counts from the late 1700s to the Civil War era? That source will provide a million more laughs.

 

[Tigerace117]

All Lincoln had to do to avoid war (had he wanted to do so) would have been to remove the troops from Sumter and then pressed a suit to recover the territory. For roughly three months Pickens importuned the military to leave, and during that time Lincoln kept trying to re-supply the fort. Pickens would have been a fool to let soldiers of a foreign power occupy South Carolina, so he quite rightly attacked. Lincoln used similar measures to keep Delaware under his thumb, but you don’t care about Lincoln’s war-mongering because your hatred of American slavery (and ONLY American slavery) allows you to excuse every other iniquity to stoke your feeble righteousness.

By the time Lincoln was elected there was no avoiding war. Nothing he said would have convinced your treasonous slaver heroes that he would protect slavery—nor should he have—and they were already massing to invade parts of the United States they wanted to seize, such as Kentucky.



That’s like arguing Poland should have laid down its arms and “pressed a suit” at the League of Nations when the Panzers came rolling over the border. Lincoln had no obligation to surrender US government property, nor should he have.



His decision directly led to his pitiful excuse for a “country” being burned to the ground and slavery, which he and his ilk were fighting to defend, being crushed. So yes, his decision to attack US soldiers on US government property was the right one, as it led to the South’s utter annihilation

Oh look, more tearful sobbing about “warmongering” because Lincoln wouldn’t just let your treasonous slaver heroes invade the US. Too funny

 

[Tigerace117]

So “meaningless,” you can’t even peel yourself off the canyon floor to defend yourself of the charge of being a Commie symp. And no, you still don’t get off because someone somewhere said the same thing about MLK.

Yawn. More meaningless blubbering about “commies”, which, as we’ve already established, coming from someone like you is totally meaningless

 

[Tigerace117]

Go on, show us what half baked source you got that nonsense from. Oh, and why didn’t you mention this fun theory back when I reproduced a chart showing census counts from the late 1700s to the Civil War era? That source will provide a million more laughs.

Oh look, the Looney Lost Causer is humiliating himself again. I get that reading isn’t your strong suit, so it’s hardly surprising that you missed the fact that I said states. As in, the region entered the Union as a state…..and as a state slavery hadn’t ever been allowed in the first place.

Duh

Gee, you mean when you humiliated yourself by trying to pretend places like Missouri and Kentucky were part of the North? I was too busy laughing at your colossal ignorance bud

 

[Ouroboros]

By the time Lincoln was elected there was no avoiding war. Nothing he said would have convinced your treasonous slaver heroes that he would protect slavery—nor should he have—and they were already massing to invade parts of the United States they wanted to seize, such as Kentucky.



That’s like arguing Poland should have laid down its arms and “pressed a suit” at the League of Nations when the Panzers came rolling over the border. Lincoln had no obligation to surrender US government property, nor should he have.



His decision directly led to his pitiful excuse for a “country” being burned to the ground and slavery, which he and his ilk were fighting to defend, being crushed. So yes, his decision to attack US soldiers on US government property was the right one, as it led to the South’s utter annihilation

Oh look, more tearful sobbing about “warmongering” because Lincoln wouldn’t just let your treasonous slaver heroes invade the US. Too funny

Let me guess, if I ask you to prove that Southern aggression was inevitable, next you’ll reel out the canard about how the CSA wanted to invade California.

Make up your mind; if the seceded states were really part of the US as Lincoln claimed, they could not “invade the US,” they could only rebel against Union authority.

Wow, you came close to saying that the a North fought the South to end slavery. But you’re too dishonest to state the motives outright, not even the idea that the North fought to regain Sumter. Motives are just too damn hard for you, huh?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yawn. More meaningless blubbering about “commies”, which, as we’ve already established, coming from someone like you is totally meaningless

A non Commie would have no trouble denouncing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. You cannot, so have the courage of your corrupt convictions and stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of MLK.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh look, the Looney Lost Causer is humiliating himself again. I get that reading isn’t your strong suit, so it’s hardly surprising that you missed the fact that I said states. As in, the region entered the Union as a state…..and as a state slavery hadn’t ever been allowed in the first place.

Duh

Gee, you mean when you humiliated yourself by trying to pretend places like Missouri and Kentucky were part of the North? I was too busy laughing at your colossal ignorance bud

Your trips to the canyon floor have totally deranged you. I ask you to prove that slavery was illegal in the Northern states, and you go nuts and make some wacko claim about “states plural.”

And as expected, no citation. Splat you go again.

 

[Tigerace117]

Let me guess, if I ask you to prove that Southern aggression was inevitable, you’ll reel out the canard about how the CSA wanted to invade California.

Make up your mind; if the seceded states were really part of the US as Lincoln claimed, they could not “invade the US,” they could only rebel against Union authority.

Wow, you came close to saying that the a North fought the South to end slavery. But you’re too dishonest to state the motives outright, not even the idea that the North fought to regain Sumter. Motives are just too damn hard for you, huh?

Gee bud, the fact that southerners had just spent the last thirty years sponsoring military expeditions to try and spread slavery by force of arms across the Americas not ringing any bells? The plans to forcibly seize not just California, but places like Kentucky as well? It’s okay bud, I know you Lost Causers don’t know any actual history, which is why you cling to the drivel you created to make yourselves feel better about supporting your treasonous slaver idols

The CSA being as much a “country” as Sealand does not does change the fact that forcibly marching into another state with the intent of annexing it—as the CSA did-is a clear cut invasion, not matter how much you sob

Gee bud, still frantic grasping at straws in hopes of “excusing” the South’s explicit motive of defending slavery as usual I see. Again, too funny

 

[Tigerace117]

Your trips to the canyon floor have totally deranged you. I ask you to prove that slavery was illegal in the Northern states, and you go nuts and make some wacko claim about “states plural.”

And as expected, no citation. Splat you go again.

Oh look, yet another example of the Looney Lost Causer demonstrating he has no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

But then again, what else can one expect from someone dumb enough to try and claim places like Kentucky and Missouri were “the North”?

 

[Tigerace117]

A non Commie would have no trouble denouncing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. You cannot, so have the courage of your corrupt convictions and stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of MLK.

A Lost Causer hysterically screeching about “commies” is just too funny. You frantically defend a regime which explicitly went to war to defend slavery bud, you don’t HAVE any room to talk

And no amount of tearful sobbing because I pointed out how stupid your redbaiting is can change that

 

[Ouroboros]

Gee bud, the fact that southerners had just spent the last thirty years sponsoring military expeditions to try and spread slavery by force of arms across the Americas not ringing any bells? The plans to forcibly seize not just California, but places like Kentucky as well? It’s okay bud, I know you Lost Causers don’t know any actual history, which is why you cling to the drivel you created to make yourselves feel better about supporting your treasonous slaver idols

The CSA being as much a “country” as Sealand does not does change the fact that forcibly marching into another state with the intent of annexing it—as the CSA did-is a clear cut invasion, not matter how much you sob

Gee bud, still frantic grasping at straws in hopes of “excusing” the South’s explicit motive of defending slavery as usual I see. Again, too funny

Same old drivel, except that somehow you overlooked the opportunity I gave you to clarify your stance on the South's reputed membership in the Union. Let me remind me:

Make up your mind; if the seceded states were really part of the US as Lincoln claimed, they could not “invade the US,” they could only rebel against Union authority.

Were the seceded states still part of the Union? If so, they can't invade the U.S., since they're part of the U.S. They can rebel against the Union authority, but that's not invasion. Are you ever going to learn how to use words properly?

 

[Ouroboros]

Oh look, yet another example of the Looney Lost Causer demonstrating he has no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

But then again, what else can one expect from someone dumb enough to try and claim places like Kentucky and Missouri were “the North”?

They were of the political North because they allied themselves with the physical North. If they didn't belong to the North, what then was their allegiance?

Ah, never mind; I'm sure you'll ignore the discrepancy just like when you were blathering about "states plural" for some unknown reason.

 

[Ouroboros]

A Lost Causer hysterically screeching about “commies” is just too funny. You frantically defend a regime which explicitly went to war to defend slavery bud, you don’t HAVE any room to talk

And no amount of tearful sobbing because I pointed out how stupid your redbaiting is can change that

Redbaiting is entirely appropriate with a Red devoted to destroying everything about American history in order to promote the fallacies of Communism, which you've done again and again just on this threat.

And you're still not in any sort of league with MLK.

 

[Tigerace117]

Same old drivel, except that somehow you overlooked the opportunity I gave you to clarify your stance on the South's reputed membership in the Union. Let me remind me:



Were the seceded states still part of the Union? If so, they can't invade the U.S., since they're part of the U.S. They can rebel against the Union authority, but that's not invasion. Are you ever going to learn how to use words properly?

Same old Lost Cause drivel.

Gee, you can’t have it both ways bud. If the South supposedly WASN’T part of the Union anymore— a idea literally not a single country on earth EVER agreed with— then the Union had even LESS reason or obligation(not that they ever had any in the first place) to surrender US government property or allow them to attack the United States. If they remained nothing more than treasonous slaver scum— which, of course, is EXACTLY what they were— then, again, the Union had no obligation whatsoever to allow them to wage war against the Union in the name of saving slavery.

No matter how much that triggers you

 

[Tigerace117]

They were of the political North because they allied themselves with the physical North. If they didn't belong to the North, what then was their allegiance?

Ah, never mind; I'm sure you'll ignore the discrepancy just like when you were blathering about "states plural" for some unknown reason.

Except they weren’t part of the “North” in any way, shape or form as which is why any honest— or intelligent— historian— groups the Border States in their own separate category. Their “allegiance” was to whomever wasn’t actively invading them...and the South was the one massing troops for an attempt at their own version of the Anschluss, as shown by the invasion of Kentucky.

But I get that Lost Causers like you are neither honest nor intelligent