World War 3 escalates

[Stravinsk]

World War 3 has escalated. Historians (*cough* the winners *cough*) will write a bunch of garbage to teach future generations whatever they wish the presiding narrative to be that will best serve the New World Order enslavement system.

NATO Alliance Timeline: x.com

RUSSIA: NATO WILL PAY FOR KILLING INNOCENT RUSSIANS ON THE BEACH: x.com

Military Mandatory Selective Service Requirement for USA men now all eligible men age 18-26 - Military Draft Explained: 7 Things You Need To Know - Operation Military Kids

Putin Warns: “Any attempt to bring back Crimea by military means, will bring European countries into direct conflict with Russia” x.com

 

[Lanman87]

Just remember, all those countries that have joined NATO in the past 30 years have asked to do so. The reason they have asked to join NATO is the fear of Russia trying to bring them back under Russian control. They do not want to be under Russian control. Based on what has happened in Ukraine (as well as Russia threats to other countries), those fears seem justified.

Should Europe allow Russia to have a hostile takeover any country they desire to take over or annex?

 

[Lees]

Just remember, all those countries that have joined NATO in the past 30 years have asked to do so. The reason they have asked to join NATO is the fear of Russia trying to bring them back under Russian control. They do not want to be under Russian control. Based on what has happened in Ukraine (as well as Russia threats to other countries), those fears seem justified.

Should Europe allow Russia to have a hostile takeover any country they desire to take over or annex?

What countries have joined NATO in the past 30 years that were not part of the Soviet Union?

When you say 'Russia trying to bring them back under Russian control', that says they were once part of Russia.

So I ask you, when the Southern States seceded from the U.S., they were saying they didn't want to be part of the U.S. They didn't want to be under U.S. control.

Based on that, should the U.S. be allowed to take over any State it wants?

Do you support the South's effort as you support the countries that broke away from Russia?

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

So I ask you, when the Southern States seceded from the U.S., they were saying they didn't want to be part of the U.S. They didn't want to be under U.S. control.

The difference is all of those former Soviet States are already independent countries. If the USA had peacefully broke up in 1850 and the South had become and independent country, then 30 years later the USA invaded the Southern States to try and bring the back into the USA, then you bet, I would have supported the Southern States in the right to remain an independent country.

If Russia wanted the former Soviet countries to be part of Russia then they should have never let them go in the first place. When the Soviet Union collapsed Russia agreed to independence for Ukraine and the other former Soviet states. Once they let them go, then those countries have the right to choose their own alliances. They have the right to reject Russia and align with Western Europe, which is what most of them have done.

The point is, nobody forced the former Warsaw Pact/Soviet Countries to align with the West. As free and independent countries they are free to do what they think is in their best interest.

 

[Lees]

The difference is all of those former Soviet States are already independent countries. If the USA had peacefully broke up in 1850 and the South had become and independent country, then 30 years later the USA invaded the Southern States to try and bring the back into the USA, then you bet, I would have supported the Southern States in the right to remain an independent country.

If Russia wanted the former Soviet countries to be part of Russia then they should have never let them go in the first place. When the Soviet Union collapsed Russia agreed to independence for Ukraine and the other former Soviet states. Once they let them go, then those countries have the right to choose their own alliances. They have the right to reject Russia and align with Western Europe, which is what most of them have done.

The point is, nobody forced the former Warsaw Pact/Soviet Countries to align with the West. As free and independent countries they are free to do what they think is in their best interest.

The former States were independent States. Texas had been an independent country.

Why 1850? What would you call 'peacefully breaking up'? Didn't the South try to 'peacefully break up'?

Are you saying the States were not free to do what they thought was in their best interest?

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

The former States were independent States.

Your comparing Apples and Oranges. The States were part of the USA, not independent countries.

Are you saying the States were not free to do what they thought was in their best interest?

No, because by becoming part of the United States they had agreed to do what is the best interest of the United States. They were to follow the constitution and laws of the USA. By succeeding from the Union they were breaking the oath/agreement to be loyal to the constitution and laws of the United States. And it was the South that fired the first shots of the civil war at Fort Sumter.

Texas had been an independent country but ceased to be an independent country when it joined the United States. Therefore, Texas was obligated to follow the laws and courts of the United States.

Why 1850? What would you call 'peacefully breaking up'? Didn't the South try to 'peacefully break up'?

Peacefully breaking up would have been if the an agreement was made where the Union would have let the Southern States become an independent country, which did not happen. But that is what did happen with the former Soviet States. Again, your comparing Apples and Oranges.

This is not about the American Civil War and is nothing like it. It is about one country seeking to control and annex the territory of another country by force.

 

[Lees]

@Lanman87 concerning your post #6.

I think it's a just comparison.

Each state had it's own governing body and laws before becoming part of the United States. And no State ever surrendered it's sovereignty as a State. The 10th amendment is clear that the powers given to the Federal govt. were 'delegated'. That which is 'delegated' can be taken back at any time.

There was nothing illegal about secession. And the Northern States were already disloyal to the Constitution in their treatment of the Southern States. The secession of the Southern States was done peacefully. Read Jefferson Davis's Farewell Address. The South peacefully seceded. The first shot at Sumter didn't start the war. The breach of promise not to move any troops from Moultrie by the North started the war. And then trying to supply the troops after they moved there started the war.

Texas or any other State is obligated to follow the Constitution, yes. But no Confederate State broke the Constitution.

I'm still curious about the date 1850 you mentioned. No. The South left peaceably. Just because the North refused doesn't mean we left non-peaceably. We just picked up our toys and went home. And the North came down, not to free any slaves, but to force the South back into the Union.

Yes, one country is seeking to control another, which left it, by force. Just like the North did to the Confederate States when they left. And to this very day, we are the 'United States' only by the bayonet.

It is a just comparison.

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

Each state had it's own governing body and laws before becoming part of the United States.

Pretty much every state was a territory of the United States before becoming a State and was inhabited by settlers of the USA before becoming a state.

I just picked 1850 because that was part of the time frame when everything was starting heat up between the North and South. I could have said 1855 or 1860. The actual date isn't important as the point I was trying to make.

Which is that what is happening in Russia and Ukraine is like if the South had successfully succeeded from the Union by agreement from both parties, then 30 years later the Union invaded the South claiming Virginia is part of the Union.

It is pretty simple, in the 90's, when the Soviet Union broke up, Russia agreed that the Former Soviet countries could be independent countries. But now Russia wants them back.

 

[Lees]

Pretty much every state was a territory of the United States before becoming a State and was inhabited by settlers of the USA before becoming a state.

I just picked 1850 because that was part of the time frame when everything was starting heat up between the North and South. I could have said 1855 or 1860. The actual date isn't important as the point I was trying to make.

Which is that what is happening in Russia and Ukraine is like if the South had successfully succeeded from the Union by agreement from both parties, then 30 years later the Union invaded the South claiming Virginia is part of the Union.

It is pretty simple, in the 90's, when the Soviet Union broke up, Russia agreed that the Former Soviet countries could be independent countries. But now Russia wants them back.

The original 13 were 13 colonies. But they all had their own governing bodies and laws and geographical boundaries. After 1776, the new areas would become territories. Which would then become states. Point being they too had their own governing bodies, and laws, and geographical boundaries. In other words, they were their own country.

And my point was that the South did secede peacefully. Which each State had the right to do.

No. Just because the South lost the military victory doesn't remove the guilt of the North in forcing the Southern States back into the Union. You say 30 years later? What a laugh. The South did kick the North out during the Reconstruction years and got the victory. And the North ever since has to fight to get back what it lost. Don't you pay attention to the news? They destroy our flags and monuments today because they lost the war during Reconstruction.

Yes, it is pretty simple. The South seceded peacefully. The North would not have it. The North forced the South back into the Union illegally. But that is no problem when you are the military victor. You just change the Constitution making you good and the South evil. Which they, those fine yankees, did.

Yes Russia wants their former states back, just like the U.S. wanted it's former states back. And both are willing to go to war to obtain their goal. The comparison is just.

You see? Probably not. The U.S. always supports other breakaway states from a larger country. But don't ever try and break away from the U.S. No, no, no. Even though this U.S. nation is built on breaking away from England. But don't tell anyone that. It makes us look like hypocrites.

And one note I would like to add about Texas being a country before and you then said it gave up it's right to that when it joined the Union. The fact that Texas was a country is not lost just because it joined the Union. In all public places where the Texas flag is flown along with the U.S. flag, the Texas flag is to never be flown below the U.S. flag. They are to be flown at the same height. The only State that can do that. Because we were recognized as our own country. And to all those who don't fly it accordingly, are doing it illegally. But hey...what do they care?

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

And my point was that the South did secede peacefully. Which each State had the right to do.

The big difference is the north never agreed to let the south go. Russia did agree to let their former states go.

 

[Lees]

The big difference is the north never agreed to let the south go. Russia did agree to let their former states go.

Your failure to address what I have said shows the shallowness of your argument.

Exactly right. But the Norths approval was not part of the equation. No State needed another States approval to secede.

That doesn't matter. The fact is the South left peacefully. No reason for the North to go to war against the South.

The former Soviet Union agreed, not because of a peaceable or a peaceful agreement. But because the war was overwhelmingly against them. The South did not have that luxury.

Again, the comparison is right. The Soviet Union wants it's former states back and is willing to go to war to force them back. Just like the Northern States in the War Between The States, was willing to go to war to get, what it considered 'it's states' back. But in reality they were sovereign states. Something the yankee north likes to forget.

Yet America 'demonizes' Russia for doing exactly what America did.

As I said, America is always for other countries breaking away. But don't ever try and break away from America. Hypocrisy of the first order.

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

That doesn't matter. The fact is the South left peacefully. No reason for the North to go to war against the South.

But in reality they were sovereign states. Something the yankee north likes to forget.

No they weren't, they were part of the United States. The States aren't separate countries. They are part of the whole. Just as counties are part of the whole of a state. When a territory became a state it was because the people wanted it to happen. As part of the process they agreed to follow the constitution and laws of the United States and they were to have the same rights and privileges of any other state. There was no mechanism for them to leave the Union, except by an act of Congress that would have been signed by the President.

Being that no such act of Congress occurred, the States seceding from the Union was an illegal act.

Yet America 'demonizes' Russia for doing exactly what America did.

Now I'm confused. If you think it was wrong for the USA to fight to keep the southern states part of the union then why don't you think it is wrong for Russia to fight to reacquire the Soviet States? It looks to me that if you are sympathetic to the southern cause then you would be sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause.

I'm sure that in 1862 the confederacy would have welcomed weapons and funding from Europe and Mexico and Canada, recognition of independence, and political support. Which is exactly what Europe the USA and other countries are providing for Ukraine right now.

 

[Lees]

No they weren't, they were part of the United States. The States aren't separate countries. They are part of the whole. Just as counties are part of the whole of a state. When a territory became a state it was because the people wanted it to happen. As part of the process they agreed to follow the constitution and laws of the United States and they were to have the same rights and privileges of any other state. There was no mechanism for them to leave the Union, except by an act of Congress that would have been signed by the President.

Being that no such act of Congress occurred, the States seceding from the Union was an illegal act.



Now I'm confused. If you think it was wrong for the USA to fight to keep the southern states part of the union then why don't you think it is wrong for Russia to fight to reacquire the Soviet States? It looks to me that if you are sympathetic to the southern cause then you would be sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause.

I'm sure that in 1862 the confederacy would have welcomed weapons and funding from Europe and Mexico and Canada, recognition of independence, and political support. Which is exactly what Europe the USA and other countries are providing for Ukraine right now.

Again, which you ignored, the South left peacefully. There was no reason for the North to attack the South other then they refused to let them go. They refused their right of self-government. Did you read Jeff Davis's Farewell Address?

Being part of the United States doesn't mean a State loses it's identity and sovereignty as a State. When States were first formed and created into the union of States, our first Constitution was the 'Articles of Confederation" in 1777.

Here is Article I: "The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'.

Here is Article II: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

No mechanism needed to be in place for any state to leave the union. They retained their right as an independent State. They 'delegated' some powers to the Federal govt. That only meant they were theirs to take back if they so desired. Later in 1787 the same is seen in Article 10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yes, I know you are. I am arguing against the hypocrisy of the United States in wanting it's right to self government in breaking away from England. But then refusing the Southern States their right to self government and forcing them by war back into the union. But now, supports all other countries in their effort to break away or maintain their independence from a greater country. This I laid out in post #(3).

And you objected immediately that it wasn't the same thing. But it is. Hypocrisy. But who cares about that?

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

And you objected immediately that it wasn't the same thing. But it is. Hypocrisy. But who cares about that?

You are re-fighting against something that was settled a long time ago.

Hypocrisy aside.

Do you think Ukraine has the right to resist against Russia and that Europe and the USA has the right to support Ukraine?

 

[Lees]

You are re-fighting against something that was settled a long time ago.

Hypocrisy aside.

Do you think Ukraine has the right to resist against Russia and that Europe and the USA has the right to support Ukraine?

Settled? While they still tear down our monuments and flags and constantly throw slavery in our face to obtain their political goals? So tell me if it is settled, why do they keep bringing it up? Why is it that when I show the truth of that war, people like yourself, resort to 'that was settled' or 'let it go, it's over'? Answer: Because just like back then when the victors didn't want the truth known, so too now they don't want the truth known. Much easier to say 'it's settled'. Settled by the bayonet. Settled by war. Not peacefully and by agreement. We are united only by war, by the conqueror.

You mean 'hypocrisy' ignored.

Strange you use the word 'right' to describe the U.S. and Europe's support for Ukraine. Every country has a right, responsibility, to defend itself. Europe and the U.S involvement is not a question of 'right'. Many factors must be weighed in that determination.

Did Russia have a 'right' to put missiles in Cuba back in the 1960's?

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

Not peacefully and by agreement. We are united only by war, by the conqueror.

Yes, the South lost. As someone who was born and raised and lives in Alabama, I would say that your opinion on the matter is very much in the minority. Most of us southerners think of ourselves as Americans, not citizens of the confederacy under occupation from the tyrannical Union.

Of course there are few folks flying the confederate flag, trying to preserve the southern "culture" and "heritage".

When I was in elementary school there were KKK rallies on our courthouse square, there was a KKK training ground in our county, and there was a sign on the county line that something along the lines of "N@@@er, leave before the sun goes down".

As beautiful as our southern culture is, that part of our culture needs to die.

The reason I think you comparing the civil war to what is going on in Ukraine and Russian (and potentially other countries that Russia has it's sites set on) is that Ukraine has been an independent country, by agreement with Russia, for over 30 years. Ukraine is recognized by the world as an independent country, has formed alliances with other countries, and been part of the international community for three decades now. Non of those thing were true of the confederacy. If they were then you would have a valid point.

Russia decided that they want the Ukraine back in order to expand the Russian "Empire". Ukraine decided that they don't want to be "back" and the world, for the most part, has agreed with Ukraine. It is no longer an "internal squabble" in the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact (like when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia back in the 60s) . This is more analogous with Germany invading Poland in order to expand the German empire than it is the North going to war with the South in the American Civil War.

In that sense, I believe Russia attacking the Ukraine could have very well been the starting point of WWIII, just as Germany invading Poland was the start of WWII.

Time will tell.

 

[Lees]

Yes, the South lost. As someone who was born and raised and lives in Alabama, I would say that your opinion on the matter is very much in the minority. Most of us southerners think of ourselves as Americans, not citizens of the confederacy under occupation from the tyrannical Union.

Of course there are few folks flying the confederate flag, trying to preserve the southern "culture" and "heritage".

When I was in elementary school there were KKK rallies on our courthouse square, there was a KKK training ground in our county, and there was a sign on the county line that something along the lines of "N@@@er, leave before the sun goes down".

As beautiful as our southern culture is, that part of our culture needs to die.

The reason I think you comparing the civil war to what is going on in Ukraine and Russian (and potentially other countries that Russia has it's sites set on) is that Ukraine has been an independent country, by agreement with Russia, for over 30 years. Ukraine is recognized by the world as an independent country, has formed alliances with other countries, and been part of the international community for three decades now. Non of those thing were true of the confederacy. If they were then you would have a valid point.

Russia decided that they want the Ukraine back in order to expand the Russian "Empire". Ukraine decided that they don't want to be "back" and the world, for the most part, has agreed with Ukraine. It is no longer an "internal squabble" in the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact (like when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia back in the 60s) . This is more analogous with Germany invading Poland in order to expand the German empire than it is the North going to war with the South in the American Civil War.

In that sense, I believe Russia attacking the Ukraine could have very well been the starting point of WWIII, just as Germany invading Poland was the start of WWII.

Time will tell.

Yes, the South lost the military war. But the South never surrendered. And the South won the war during Reconstruction, which was just the War continued. The only person who could surrender the South was Jeff Davis. So, show me the surrender papers signed by Jeff Davis. What a revelation you must have. I can't wait to see it.

Oh gee. You are a Southerner living in Alabama. So what? It just proves your treason against your own people, if they really are your own people. Lots of yankees living in the South now. They hate us but they love to come here. And they bring with them their perversion of history....just like you have described. So sorry, I don't believe your roots are Southern.

You can think whatever you want. Big deal. You fail to answer when I showed your historical error. Your error is exposed and you wave it off as, 'that was settled years ago' . Typical yankee response. I have already shown you that the States were sovereign. The Constitution declared it.

Why don't you answer my questions? I have answered yours? I find this typical also.

So, I ask again, did Russia have a right to put missiles in Cuba in the 1960's.

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

Oh gee. You are a Southerner living in Alabama. So what? It just proves your treason against your own people, if they really are your own people. Lots of yankees living in the South. And they bring with them their perversion of history....just like you have described. So sorry, I don't believe your roots are Southern.

LOL, treason against my own people. That may be the most laughable statement I've ever read on these forums.

Look, the South lost, suffered the consequences, overcame reconstruction, and is now the best place to live in the country.

We have a racist past. We need to acknowledge it and do better.

I haven't made a historical error. I lived in the culture my entire life. I've seen overt racism and heard the whispers about who is and isn't part of the Klan.

As far as Russia and Cuba, what difference does it make? Russia tried to threaten the USA and the USA called their bluff (while also quietly removing missiles from Turkey).

Do you support Russia's efforts to take over Ukraine?

 

[Lees]

LOL, treason against my own people. That may be the most laughable statement I've ever read on these forums.

Look, the South lost, suffered the consequences, overcame reconstruction, and is now the best place to live in the country.

We have a racist past. We need to acknowledge it and do better.

I haven't made a historical error. I lived in the culture my entire life. I've seen overt racism and heard the whispers about who is and isn't part of the Klan.

As far as Russia and Cuba, what difference does it make? Russia tried to threaten the USA and the USA called their bluff (while also quietly removing missiles from Turkey).

Do you support Russia's efforts to take over Ukraine?

Why is it laughable? I think it's appropriate.

As I said, the South lost the military victory. But not the War. Again, I ask you, where are the surrender papers signed by Jeff Davis?

I don't believe your 'we'. You're just a typical yankee moved to the South promoting your perverted ways. Just what do we Southernors need to acknowledge according to you? What racist past?

Yes, you made a historical error. No State lost it's sovereignty when it joined the United States. As I showed you. I don't care where you have lived in your entire life. You are not Southern. Yankee blood is in your veins.

Concerning Russia and Cuba, your answer makes a difference. You're the one that brought up the 'rights'. So please answer, did Russia have a right to put missiles in Cuba? And since you brought it up, did America have a right to put missiles in Turkey?

I don't support Russia or Ukraine. If Russia wants to take Ukraine back that is up to them. It's something the U.S. needs to stay out of.

Lees

 

[Lanman87]

I don't believe your 'we'. You're just a typical yankee moved to the South promoting your perverted ways. Just what do we Southernors need to acknowledge according to you? What racist past?

Wow, your really living in denial. I was here in the 70s and saw it for myself. I didn't move here I was born here.

I guess you don't know who Bull Conner is or George Wallace fighting to deny entry to black people at University of Alabama. Or the Klan rallies or the "sundown towns" (which my town was one of). Or the church bombing...

Segregation was a racist ideology. George Wallace was wrong and ended up "repenting" and getting black support in the 80's.

Wallace said that he was a racist and segregation was racist and wrong. Do you think he was promoting perverted ways?