Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[smjjames]

*ominously encroaches at Owlbread*


lol, just being silly.

[mainiac]

Encroaching is such a great word for a propogandist.  Few words can be used to describe both peaceful coexistance and outright belligerence.  Let's you accuse someone of something then preemptively walk back your words.

[Sergarr]

Well, he didn't talk about 'worsening' relationships, but of 'less peaceful' relationships - and if you say something like that and in the same breath remind everyone how effective your nukes are, you kinda sound like you want to start a war in the near future. Closing two eyes I could look at this simply as a lack of understatement, but I don't think Russian diplomats are quite that bad at their job...

"Worsening" and "Less peaceful" are kind of synonymous words in Russian language. As are "Bettering" (does this word even exist?) and "More peaceful". Russians judge the quality of relationships by how far from "war with Russia" they are.

[Comrade P.]

You guys just can't stop talking about Russia, don't you?
Seriously, you have internet, which allows you to soothe the tenses your governments force on you by speaking directly to people half over the globe to see they are no less and no more human than you are, and all you do is ensue the conflict? From both sides? Why do you do that?

[scriver]

Because Russia just threatened to glass my little brother, and that makes me angry.

[Comrade P.]

Because Russia just threatened to glass my little brother, and that makes me angry.

Whaaa...
Nevermind, I'm outta here.

[martinuzz]

Out of curiosity, when was the last time a Western ambassador or head of state wrote an op-ed saying "We have nukes, and they can get you" in a Russian newspaper?

Dunno.. Cuba crisis maybe? I think not even back then.

[Antsan]

Because Russia just threatened to glass my little brother, and that makes me angry.

To quote you:

It's your standard nationalist bullshit.

"Russia" didn't do anything and I think that in this case it is very important to make that distinction, which is just what Comrade P. was pointing out.

[Sheb]

Well, I'm fairly certain the Russian ambassador count as representative of Russia?

[Sergarr]

Because Russia just threatened to glass my little brother, and that makes me angry.

That's what you get for allowing your little brother into a serious military alliance. Or did you thought that Denmark joining NATO would come with only positives and no negatives?

[Sheb]

You're acting as if it was right and proper to threaten people with nuclear weapons just because they're in an alliance...

[Sergarr]

You're acting as if it was right and proper to threaten people with nuclear weapons just because they're in an alliance...

Well, no shit? They're a part of NATO, and they support the other parts of NATO by supplying ships for anti-missile purposes (anti-ballistic missiles, if I'm not mistaken, which makes it even worse). I'm 100% sure that makes them a valid target in case of NATO-Russia war.

[Antsan]

Well, I'm fairly certain the Russian ambassador count as representative of Russia?

He is a representative of the Russian government, not a representative of Russia. Calling it "Russia" gives an impression of unity that is the starting point for destructive nationalism.

You're acting as if it was right and proper to threaten people with nuclear weapons just because they're in an alliance...

Well, no shit? They're a part of NATO, and they support the other parts of NATO by supplying ships for anti-missile purposes (anti-ballistic missiles, if I'm not mistaken, which makes it even worse). I'm 100% sure that makes them a valid target in case of NATO-Russia war.

Nothing is a valid target for nuclear missiles. Using them is pure madness, no matter for what reason you use them.

[ChairmanPoo]

Who's next?

[Sergarr]

Well, I'm fairly certain the Russian ambassador count as representative of Russia?

He is a representative of the Russian government, not a representative of Russia. Calling it "Russia" gives an impression of unity that is the starting point for destructive nationalism.

You're acting as if it was right and proper to threaten people with nuclear weapons just because they're in an alliance...

Well, no shit? They're a part of NATO, and they support the other parts of NATO by supplying ships for anti-missile purposes (anti-ballistic missiles, if I'm not mistaken, which makes it even worse). I'm 100% sure that makes them a valid target in case of NATO-Russia war.

Nothing is a valid target for nuclear missiles. Using them is pure madness, no matter for what reason you use them.

The threat of their usage is the only thing that saved my country from being nuclear-bombed into oblivion by USA w/ its allies in the name of destroying communism in 50s-60s.

It's still valid in this role today, as it's still the only thing preventing my country from being the next target for "no-fly zone" NATO operation. So their usage (or threat of usage) is not pure madness, but in fact is the most rational course of actions to keep peace!