You're Being Lied to About Ukraine & Russia —PART 2 — The Truth with Pedro Gonzalez

The Charlie Kirk Show ^ | March 18, 2022 | Charlie Kirk

[Katya]

oh yes... I don’t use it to denote communism, just the actions of govt sponsored propaganda, which is always to agitate one group against another, which is inline with Marx’s conflict theory in action.

[Thunder90]

Biden wants his Nobel Peace Prize, even at the expense of Zalenski and innocent Ukrainians. Especially if it keeps the corrupt ones in power, even if under Russian domination. Plus Russia is also a great place to launder money, just ask Hunter.

[dforest]

He is one crooked bumb that Hunter. Biden’s real pride and joy.

[aumrl]

Yeah, I grt it S eatle
S teve

You are un American SS ?

[caww]

I read them - does not change my opinions.

[Kevmo]

I understand. You are not among the persuadable and neither am I. Lurkers can decide for themselves.

[Kevmo]

When the ukes blow the frack out of a Ruke column with a suitcase nule, we will all be looking for people like you to hold accountable for pushing them into that nuclear corner by upholding betrayal as if it were a virtue.

[enumerated]

I’m not defending the Russian invasion of Ukraine…

…but let’s face it - the world map that we have today got the way it is largely by means of invasions.

Everyone is talking as if the nations of the world were each originally allocated their fair share of territory, and then peacefully respected each other’s boundaries ever since.

History shows the opposite is true - powerful nations invade weaker ones and expand until either they are spread too thin to maintain control, or they are satisfied (which is rare).

Then, once they are done invading, they turn on a dime and feign outrage at the mere thought of one nation invading another.

[Who is John Galt?]

When the ukes blow the frack out of a Ruke column with a suitcase nule, we will all be looking for people like you to hold accountable for pushing them into that nuclear corner by upholding betrayal as if it were a virtue.

Obviously, you're wanting the US to engage in military action against Russia, in defense of Ukraine. Given that Russia has nuclear weapons, there is an inherent risk that the United States will be attacked with nuclear weapons, if this country actually does what you want.

Why, precisely, would you want to risk our soldiers' lives, and your neighbors' lives, by going to war with Russia? As I asked in my Post #36:

1) "Is the United States obligated by treaty to come to Ukraine's defense?"

The answer is clearly "no" - the agreement you referenced is not a treaty, is not legally binding, and even if followed to the letter, would require only that the US refer infractions to the UN Security Council for action, not intervene directly with military force.

2) "Then maybe you can list some of the 'US vital interests' in Ukraine, that might justify our military intervention (with the associated risk of nuclear war). Is it a long list, or short?"

You're apparently willing to spend American lives in Ukraine (and potentially here in the US) - care to provide a list of "US vital interests" that make the casualties (and possible nuclear war) worthwhile?

3) "Or perhaps you think the US really is 'The World's Policeman' and that we have a moral obligation to get involved? If so, maybe you should run over to Wikipedia, and check out their list of active wars - Russia/Ukraine might have to wait, while Uncle Sam's 'woke' military slaps around 30 or 40 other countries, who were already in line..."

So, maybe you just want to get Americans killed, because you think this country is some kind of "global cop"; again, the memorandum you referenced suggests that's more the job of the United Nations...

[Kevmo]

Obviously, you’re wanting the US to engage in military action against Russia, in defense of Ukraine.
***Just have them send me and 10 weeks worth of weapons. In 10 weeks I will have the ukes suited in suitcase nukes and the Russians will gladly be leaving all their weapons and claims over the Ukes behind. Cheap thrills.

Given that Russia has nuclear weapons, there is an inherent risk that the United States will be attacked with nuclear weapons, if this country actually does what you want.
***Yes there is that risk. The greater risk is that Russia turns Ukraine into glass. Which means that all those extra suitcase nukes I will be sending their way will be triggered and we no longer will have the Rukes as an adversary any more.

Why, precisely, would you want to risk our soldiers’ lives,
***We ALREADY ARE. By betraying the Ukes when they HAD nukes and leaving them on their own, we have betrayed them towards that nuke option in their existential war. That scenario doesn’t risk soldier’s lives as much as American civilian lives, tens of millions of them. And yet there are so many putinistas around here who cannot see how he is risking nuclear war by his own actions.

and your neighbors’ lives, by going to war with Russia? As I asked in my Post #36:
1) “Is the United States obligated by treaty to come to Ukraine’s defense?”
***It is the Budapest Agreement. Dismiss it all ya want, but there are yuge consequences of dismissal of an “agreement that’s not a ratified treaty but we took their nukes anyways” agreement, which is that the agreement is null and void and they can pursue that nuke option. I think they can generate a solution faster than the A-Bomb kid did, but that’s just me.

The answer is clearly “no” - the agreement you referenced is not a treaty,
***Semantics. Tell that to the tens of millions of lives you directly threaten by doing nothing to honor an agreement that left them high & dry.

is not legally binding, and even if followed to the letter, would require only that the US refer infractions to the UN Security Council for action, not intervene directly with military force.
***Hey, using that approach, Pootypoot justified an ACTUAL INVASION by just not calling it an invasion, so we can do the same. Right? What’s sauce for the pootypoot goose is sauce for the pantywaist appeaser gander.

2) “Then maybe you can list some of the ‘US vital interests’ in Ukraine,
***We had a vital interest in not jeopardizing hundreds of millions of lives with those nukes, so we signed that agreement. The Ukes HONORED that agreement; the Rukes VIOLATED that agreement and invaded twice; and Pukes like you are busy trying that there pantywaist appeasement semantics approach to abrogate our end of that agreement.

that might justify our military intervention (with the associated risk of nuclear war).
***We have ALREADY risked nuclear war by our own betrayal.

Is it a long list, or short?”
***I would suspect it’s pretty short but it contains a long long long list of potential tens of millions of nuke casualties that guys like you are pushing the Ukes into such a corner.

You’re apparently willing to spend American lives in Ukraine
***That is what YOU are doing. You’re risking tens of millions of not-just-American lives because you wanna throw the Ukes under the bus in an agreement we signed and took their nukes as a result. You sold the car, got the money but you aint delivering the car. So when the owner of the car gets his mafioso buddy to break your legs, who do ya have to blame other than yourself?

(and potentially here in the US) - care to provide a list of “US vital interests” that make the casualties (and possible nuclear war) worthwhile?
***I am asking exactly the same of you. Consider that the Ukes have Nuke knowledge, nuke material, 15 nuke power plants, nuke experience, and now the motivation to build nukes & blow the frack out of your putinista$$kissing Rukes.

3) “Or perhaps you think the US really is ‘The World’s Policeman’ and that we have a moral obligation to get involved?
***We SIGNED UP for that moral obligation when we signed that treaty. We RISK tens of millions of lives when we betray the Ukes over nukes.

If so, maybe you should run over to Wikipedia, and check out their list of active wars - Russia/Ukraine might have to wait,
***Red herring. We’re talking about the Ukes and the Rukes. Feel free to include any other country in the discussion which has been sold down the river by the US after honoring a nuclear dismantling agreement in exchange for our protection.

while Uncle Sam’s ‘woke’ military slaps around 30 or 40 other countries, who were already in line...”
***The Ukes got to the head of the line by getting us to sign the Budapest Agreement and honoring it by relinquishing their nukes. There are no other countries like this, so knock off the bullshiite pretense.

So, maybe you just want to get Americans killed,
***Maybe you just wanna get hundreds of millions of Americans/Russians/Ukrainians/Europeans killed.

because you think this country is some kind of “global cop”;
***I do not agree with this global cop bullshiite. The Ukes should never have trusted us and shoulda kept those nukes. They would not be invaded [twice] right now, they would have that aggressive neutrality they’ve always wanted. Nukes provide a global copism solution all their own.

again, the memorandum you referenced suggests that’s more the job of the United Nations...
***When the nuke plume happens over a Ruke city, we’ll get back to you on this bullshiite of calling it a suggestion.

[Who is John Galt?]

I will let your post speak for itself (to anyone with the patience to read through it ;>)...