Why is only one side of this story published?

That's because there are no mermaids to convince.

Suppose instead that mermaids gulped up huge amounts of water at the behest of Germany. Draining it, instead of freezing it.

Would it be fair for us to bust a few mermaid heads to get the majority to spit that water out? Damned straight it would, and as an American citizen, I'd conquer those mermaids and take them as war brides.

Just like countries don't need walls. Oh wait, how's that immigration crisis working out in the US?

In fact, Russia repeatedly got invaded (starting with the Mongols), before they expanded their country.

Cuban missile crisis.

I do understand where you are coming from, but I'm pretty sure that buffer zones (like the Chinese south sea fortress islands, and the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans for the US) are a fairly strategic concept for Super Powers - from other Powers.

That said - Bulma appears to me to be a fairly extreme conspiracy theorist. The only saving grace may be that he reads alternative news (if in fact it is alternative news, and not purely conspiracy sites). We in the West seem to pride ourselves on our sense of fairness and justice...all the while reading only our news websites, and not those of the 'other side'. It's rare that fairness and justice only include one sides version of a story.

In the Cuban missile crisis, the US did not bomb Havana into submission nor did it change the government although it certainly encouraged such an action. Bulmabriefs144 is effectively suggesting that if Mexico started forming close economic ties with China, the US would be justified in rolling in tanks and flattening Mexico City. That's absurd on its face, right? While the US would clearly like to keep Mexico in its sphere of interest, no one would consider a violent invasion to be an appropriate response if the Mexican government went a different way.

Putin is a war criminal, no two ways about it. Reasons why don't matter, he is killing civillians and flattening cities, bombing shelters and hospitals. There is talk of using biological weapons and worse. Personally I don't undertand why in the world we are all watching and not giving whatever air power they need, including a no fly zone, regardless of so call fear of war world three. Who don't think Putin is planing on escalating out of Ukraine, and mostly, are Ukrainians expendable like Palestinians have been all these years?

Bulmabrief is an attention seeking idiot. He believes in the flat Earth. I'm not joking, he really does believe that ****.

Let’s all agree that if China started building military bases in Mexico, **** would happen OVERNIGHT.

And THAT is what we’re talking about.

Because it would engage whoever claimed a No Fly in WWIII. It would begin a series of brinksmanship actions that would likely end in a nuclear exchange.

You gotta think ahead.

Actually, if you are talking military action, I don't think it would. No one would be happy, but no way the US rolls tanks into Mexico. There might be diplomatic or economic "****", but that would be the extent. We didn't start bombing Cuba in '62 and that was nuclear missiles 90 miles off the coast in a country that was much smaller in significance than either Mexico or Ukraine. But you are drawing a false analogy to Ukraine since NATO was not building military bases in Ukraine and had no plans to.

…if China began building military bases in Mexico??

Imagine what any president, D or R would do.

Really.

Probably economic pressure, some serious negotiations. No way would troops roll. If we didn't do it to Cuba, no way would we do it to one of the largest economies (15th) in the world with a population almost half the size of the US. And that's the point. We wouldn't do it to Mexico even if it became semi-hostile, Russia did it to Ukraine when it presented no threat at all but somehow that is alright because "buffer state".

This is all hypothetical nonsense what ifs and what next. The US has interfered in the affairs of Latin America, so talk about the actuality.

The US fomented coups in Chili and supported right wing dictators throughout the continents as well as marginalising left wing governments. I'm not defending any of that it was terrible.

It's not as bad now as it was back in the 70s but there's still a lot to be desired.

That's the reality, and for a long time Putin used the same tactics, with success in Belarus and failure in the Ukraine. Putin was critised, but not that much because it was no different from what America had been doing.

This is completely different, Putin has invaded a sovereign, independent nation that was no threat whatsoever.

NATO's charter is defensive, not offensive. It's only been used once and that was by the US after 9/11.

Bay.Of.Pigs.

Please be intellectually honest.

We were unable to roll tanks. We used ships.

Sure, the US tried to use some ex-Pats to change the government. That's a lot different than using bombs and missiles and we could have easily done so to Cuba. Invading with actual US troops would have been ridiculously easy and we did not. As Izzy pointed out, the US is clearly complicit in acting to destabilize countries. That is wrong - and not what is happening in Ukraine. What the US did in the past (which I hope it has grown out of but can never be sure) is similar to what the Russians were doing in the Donbas region of Ukraine. It is not the same as the war in Ukraine. The justification that Russia just needs to have a giant country between them and, well whoever they choose, and it is ok to kill tens of thousands and destroy cities to do it is ridiculous.

Exactly. It's a pretty pathetic excuse. There is absolutely no justification for what he's done and still trying to do. It galls me that he's still issuing ultimatums and negotiating demands. All the criminal bombing he has done is revenge for the Ukranian resistance fighters and anger at his army's poor showing. It's petty and vindictive. I hope he gets thrown out or assassinated and someone like Navalny gets in. We all need a change for the better.

I’m not sure how you or others think historical facts are being used to *justify* Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine.

It’s like you are unable to absorb historically accurate data and also contemplate current facts.

I’m not trying to explode your brains. Just trying to have an honest accurate discussion.

Please try.

What do you mean by this?

Historical facts are being spoken *accurately* to oppose your friends’ distorted recollections.

1. Do you (support) or (denounce) the actions of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukraine people?

2. Do you (support) or (denounce) the actions of Vladimir Putin?

We're talking about what, exactly?

This thread is about the assertion that the Ukrainian side of their invasion by Russia is the only one published.

Who built military bases where?