Listen to a reading of this article (reading by Tim Foley): During an appearance on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl, Secretary of State Tony Blinken explicitly said that the US would not oppose Ukraine using US-supplied longer-range missiles to attack deep inside Russian territory, a move that Moscow
Removed by mod
Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells? The crackers nearly destroyed the planet over it.
Removed by mod
Because it never lead to missile strikes on the US.
Removed by mod
Why God has produced people like you its beyond my understanding...?
Removed by mod
it is extremely counter-revolutionary to cheer on a proxy of the real evil empire (united states) and the nazis that fight for it
Removed by mod
We have gone far further than any of those.
Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.
That is an entirely different scale of involvement that has never been tested against a large power before.
While also providing direct targeting data for it to happen
Removed by mod
Huh, I remember something almost exactly like this happening 61 years ago that was probably the closest the world has been to nuclear war.
Yep, the US was definitely at fault in the Cuban Missile Crisis for the missile placements in Europe and preparing to invade Cuba
What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.
Distance is pointless when that capability only exists due to the missiles provided.
WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland? Or striking a Western city in turn?
We are relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.
Removed by mod
No, you're bringing morality into this when it doesn't belong. You're confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.
Whether or not there's a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.
Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn't matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it's worth it.
Removed by mod
for my next magic trick watch all your comments disappear
Removed by mod
hey comrade I like dunking on the libs too but this is a little ableist
Removed by mod
You're not a capitalist, you're just a lib bootlicker
Capitalists don't waste their time defending capitalism online, they're busy doing drugs and pretending to work
Removed by mod
Not generally. The capitalist class is a specific thing, it's not based on vibes.
Removed by mod
Of course liberals support capitalism and cannot be socialist. The problem is that capitalist is simply not the word for someone who supports capitalism in the same way that socialist is the word for someone who supports socialism. It's an unintuitive language quirk, but not a unique one.
If we were to redefine capitalist to mean "everyone who supports capitalism" we need a new word for what capitalist means. And considering "everyone who supports capitalism" is a group consisting basically only of liberals and fascists, I don't see why such a word is necessary. 99% of the time you would use this redefined form of capitalist, liberal would be sufficient.
I suspect that you are a pig with shit on its balls
I wasn't replying to you liberal
I'm fairly sure they're talking about the image…
Removed by mod
Dang, you got us you master rhetoritician. There has never been a nuclear war so there's no reason to think there may ever be a nuclear war. Gosh you're smart. Especially when your arguments alternate between smug inanity and barely controlled frothing at the mouth.
Removed by mod