₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Don't you worry. After dump pulls out of Iran without making any significant change in the Iranian regime, we'd be here talking about how NATO is refusing to join him in bombing N. Korea.

You just be patient and watch and learn.

No one will be talking that because it won't happen. EU will get more issues with the US pulls out. France and Sweden are the only Serious players

bayelsaowei:
And the US has turned to an aggressor.

Goalposts switched.

They did the same with N. Korea, talk and negotiate and gbam, N. K is testing nukes.

budaatum:
I am not you, ben. I do not watch Tucker.

Well you are beginning to sound like them.

budaatum:
Ben, let me be honest with you. I am not arguing with you, I am actually educating you even though I know you will continue to refuse to learn.

Biden was president when Russia invaded Ukraine, and Biden definitely saw Russia as a threat then.

Dump, on the other hand. Well....

Educate yourself first. A blind person cannot direct another person in a city.

Work on your Education first then come back

budaatum:
Sounds like those other presidents were America First, while dump is now stuck in Iran yelling Israel First.

I hope he's enjoying it.

What does this even mean?
Stop watching Tucker Carlson.

bayelsaowei:
Have you also forgotten how the EU bled and lost lives in the coalition war they fought alongside the US against Afghanistan and other intervention.

You talk like the EU has been a docile ally to the US.

Of course they did, that alliance should continue. The UK and most EU nations started stalling after Tony Blair. They are woke today. They only know how to talk problems away.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ahr7T0B9Iw

GracieX3:
Trump is the rat that other rats push to bell the cat.

How did black people and immigrants build the US. Americans built the US. That is my position.

budaatum:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that Europe does not agree that Iran is a threat to them.


You will need to provide evidence for "Iran is a threat to the US, NATO", please ben, because NATO, at least, do not agree with you that Iran has attacked them.



It's likely impossible for you to understand that Ukraine is in Europe's backyard, and a threat to Ukraine is a threat to Europe, and that's why Europe assist Ukraine but still refuse to go to war against Russia. If Ukraine were a NATO member, that assistance would be war against Russia, and USA can refuse to assist if they want, but there will be consequences.

NATO, or rather, European countries, since NATO does not apply here, on the other hand, were not consulted nor informed before dump went and attacked Iran, and NATO and Europe see dump's as the aggressor attacking Iran. Like US went looking for a fight, and is now calling on NATO to help. NATO was not created to go and seek enemies. It's purpose is defence against those who attack its members, so why would Europe get involved now and just because dump has put himself in a quagmire in Iran?

Did Europe that he did not consult send him?

The same way the US does not see Ukraine war with Russia as a threat but they still took part in it.

I don't understand why you are arguing.

The EU brands the IRGC as a terrorists group.
Educate yourself and stop spreading lies and disinformation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ahr7T0B9Iw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xSeWrml4PM

To add, previous presidents all said they are going to recognize as Jerusalem the capital of Isreal, it is in their playbook that's why they all talked about it. Trump came, looked at the playbook and said I have the balls to do this. And he did it.

bayelsaowei:
It was a doable option to acquire Greenland by using military force.

Trump is never going to do that. The attack of Iran is not a playbook of his own. It is possible that kamala would have done the same thing.

It is why she was saying she will go after Iran when she was the vice.

bayelsaowei:
And to add.

The same man has told the EU that he doesn’t need their help. That the US is all powerful.

So why the rant? He said he doesn’t need their air space… so why the complaints..

Yes, he does not. The conflict is biting now they are talking about doing something. Let's see how they go about it. They handicapped themselves in the energy sector, any small disruption, they feel the brunt.

Did they thank the US when the Houthis blocked the sea and the US opened it? How did they contribute in opening it? Free ride is all they know.

bayelsaowei:
you can call them mumu as you like.

Na you sabi. Go and force them to open their air space.

We are talking about the same maniac who wanted to attack Greenland…

He never wanted to attack Greenland. Even Zelensky told them they can't defend Greenland without the US. Zelensky thinks NATO is a joke, over-reliant. So let them break apart, that way they will do the needful, and when conflicts start to casala, we shall know who has whose back

bayelsaowei:
No wahala. But note. Once Trump and his rotten admin is gone, saner presidents would restore the warm and wholesome relationship they once had with the EU.

Not saner, mumuo president will come and play Mr nice guy while the EU do fake eye service for him or her as long as they pay the bills.

budaatum:
The reason is because an attack on Ukraine is a threat to Europe, and the idea of NATO is that a threat to one is a threat to all.

Iran was however not a threat, as in, they haven't attacked any member of NATO yet, and NATO policy is not "USA attacks, so NATO must attack too", as dump thinks it must be and is being told it isn't.

Do note that no NATO member has attacked Russia in response to Russia's attack on Ukraine. That's because Ukraine is not a NATO member. If Russia attack a NATO member, all other NATO members are obliged to go to war against Russia.

But of course, you ben, will now spend the rest of the day arguing against this very well known fact. You'll forgive me if I limit my response to the minimum.

A nuclear Iran is a threat to the US, NATO and Israel. If its a threat to EU why is it americas problem? Yet they want america to do the heavy lifting while they can't do the minimum against Iran.

Iran has been attacking the US and and NATO for decades. Russia did not attack NATO either. They are helping Ukraine, they cannot attack Russia, they don't have to attack Iran too, which is why I am asking why are they denying the US their airspace then? They all agree Iran must not have nukes.

bayelsaowei:
Let the US pull out..

The relaxing truth is that Trump isn’t the owner of the US. When he is gone with his stinking cabinet, subsequent presidents would restore and improve allyship with NATO.


He should getat..

Naa they improved the free ride of NATO, they improved the reliance of NATO which is why the UK does not have a functioning navy.

They should restore it by allowing European countries who destroy their own ability to do anything so they can rely on the US use them, trump is not allowing it.

Even Israel is moving away from the US because of the growing antisemitism in today's world. Israel knows how the world is and they want to adapt, both the US and Israel benefit from their alliance more. Tech and intelligence. The EU does not win in anything.

basilico:
He actually thought Ukraine would be easy .
He still dreams of the USSR .
Putin also blows hot and cold.
He tried to join NATO, he was rebuffed. Had they worked out a framework or cooperation I doubt he would have resorted to territorial expansion.
But do not forget NATO and EU went on a spree , enticing neighbouring countries to join them. 14 countries formerly under Russia control joined NATO, 11 of them joined EU.
Effectively forming a defensive western flank . Ukraine topography and proximity to Moscow 400 km would be crucial if NATO was to invade Russia.

This war is not just addressing Iran, it is addressing China as well.

LordReed:
You are the person with the problem.

The UN is not the US.

Security Council is the UN. This is why I said you don't understand anything. You should be sleeping.

basilico:
The EU is laughable. They severely limited fossil fuel exploitation, shut down nuclear and coal plants all in the name of saving mother earth. Then the precipitated the Ukraine war by enticing Zelensky to join NATO and the EU.
The blocked purchase of Russian energy to weaken Putin. They still buy some oil from Russia shipped to Chinese and indian importers at a discount. More expensively.

With the Iranian blocking the straits they have no reliable source .
I believe the EU liberals support the spirit of the War in Iran ,but they have a sizeable Muslim voting block they imported whom they fear to lose.

Trump has told them , we'll smash up Iran ,we don't need the oil ,it will be upto EU to protect the strait which will be their main energy source.
Don't forget America controls Venezuela oil , he can chose whom to sell to.

NATO chief is headed to the WH this week as a matter of urgency

Joining NATO or the EU is not the sole reason Putin is invading Ukraine. I used to think that was the case till I watched Putin give his reasons. He wants to errect the soviet union.

He was thinking Ukraine would be easy, and after Ukraine, he would have gone to another country.

LordReed:
LoLz. You have no clue because you are a lemming.

Look up 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances.

I have, the US did not pledge to defend Ukraine, they said they won't attack ukraine or use nukes against them. Russia and the UK also pledge they won't attack Ukraine. So the assignment for you is to quote where the US claims they will defend Ukraine in a war.

This goes to show how you have comprehension problem.

bayelsaowei:
The difference is Ukraine isn’t the aggressor in the war against Russia. It doesn’t matter if Ukraine is part of NATO or not.

In the case of the US-Isreal invasion on Iran, they are both the aggressors. Anybody beg them to go start war?

If Trump wants to abandon Ukraine then let him go ahead and do it. The EU will support Ukraine. One maniac cannot be holding the whole world to ransom. He should buzz off..

Ukraine is not the aggressor still does not matter, they needed America, so when America needs them they turn their backs.

The UK can't even manage their ships because they know in times of need the US will send theirs.

You hear countries like Spain saying they are blocking airspace. Why do such a thing?

They have shown their hands and the US should pull out of NATO. It is useless

LordReed the bot deleted your post. And post was nonsense and have no clue of what you are asking me to read.

Why does the EU and NATO countries want the US to help contain Russia while they simultaneously reject helping US contain Iran?

It is not their War they said. Ukraine is not Americas' war too

bayelsaowei:
Ukraine is not also the aggressor.

Well, the EU nations now provide support to Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor and must be resisted.

In the Iran case, Trump and his boy friend Netanyahu are the aggressors.

My Point is, Ukraine is not the United States war, it is not happening in the backyard of the United States, yet they want the US to carry the burden more than them. Help me. Explain this point to LordReed, the guy does not grasp anything.

The war is in the backyard of the EU., Ukraine is not in NATO so why is NATO defending Ukraine?

You said Russia was the aggressor, yes, Ukraine is also not a NATO member. As for the United States, they are doing so while the entire NATO community is discussing. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. They must cut down their ballistic program.

Iran has been aggressive long before Trump became the president.

budaatum:
I totally agree! And with much civility.

When education isn't the foundation of our society, problems increase, especially with so many ethnic groups involved.

Conflicts can easily arise too. There are many layers to this issue.

budaatum:
It's not like you are likely to turn blue or I go red all of a sudden, but we can be ideologically different and still agree to disagree with civility.

It takes brain power, I admit. The question is, do you and I have such powers, or wish to cultivate it?

Mere ideological difference is not conflict.

Conflict is disagreement + antagonism, especially where there is intent to harm, suppress, or act against the other party.

So, disagreement is normal, like you said, we can agree to disagree and still remain civil.

DeepSight:
+
Have a look here and go ahead and defend again.

Charlie Kirk reposted this tweet: https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1958744916818796844

Guys watch this and tell me if deepsight is not crazy.
So Charlie Kirk is racist for posting this?

pic.twitter.com/2NZr4O47cH

— Nightmare Vision (@GodCloseMyEyes) August 21, 2025

I posted something similar how in our language in the various tribes of Africa, we don't have the word or concept for maintenance.

This one was explained by a black man who has lived in Nigeria, other African countries, and is currently in the US.

DeepSight:
+
Remember what I said about many statements being corroborative. If those were the only things he said, people wouldnt shout racism. But he made MANY different statements, including reposting and supporting a raycist tweet that claimed Africans cannot plan ahead, and lack words for the future.

As you learn the context of what he said you see none of it are racist. So you want to say he said this small thing here, there and so and so. Let's just conclude he is a racist because they are uncomfortable but legitimate topic or discussion to be heard.

This one you are saying is new and I think you might be misjudging him

DeepSight:
+
I have shown that his argument was wrong and if you read the post I made to basilico you will also see that there were underlying sentiments with the way he spoke of MLK.

The Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with what he complains of: look at my post to basilico you will see that I cited the sections of the Act which specifically prohibit the things he complained about. So he didnt have a clue what he was arguing and its obvious he never read the Act.

And to add one more thing. Just as with Trump, when a person has made many raycist statements, its corroborative. You can excuse a few and rationalize them, but when there are many, it speaks to a bent.

Yeah, you can say it is wrong but don't say he is racist for that or what he was saying is racist

DeepSight:
+
Thank you for clarifying but pls see my detailed response to basilico on Kirk's statement on the Civil Rights Act.

Yeah, but Charlie Kirk issue about the civil rights act was against government overreach not black people.

You have called him a racist for that without understanding the argument he is making.

budaatum:
We can learn ben. You and I can learn to see each other as human beings and treat each other with regard and respect despite our differences.

Care to try from now on?

We can, some of us like me are aware but unfortunately, humans will always see themselves as different. I am being called a House neeg for saying I see white people as people not white. That is proving my point. I always complain about the US vs them mentality on this thread.

So you know what I mean. I am not saying brothers don't fight and all those things. But when two people who have never seen each other before, interacted before are fighting because of their identity, you know what I mean. This is why I said your siblings argument does not make sense.

DeepSight:
+
You only answered for apartheid. Talk. E get why.

Is it your view that black people were better off in the states before the Civil Rights Movement?

You will hear me say black people were doing better in that era in terms of looking after their own, family values, two parent households etc. Aside from that they were in a struggle too.

2. Is it your view that the Civil Rights Act (and Voting Rights Act) were mistakes?

The reason Charlie said it was a mistake has nothing to do with the rights of black people. What he was saying is the civil rights act's goal of ending Jim Crow was legitimate and noble,

His argument is that; it overreach by giving government permanent authority over private businesses and employment. and that this spawned bureaucratic tools like the EEOC and disparate impact doctrine that drifted into reverse discrimination and speech suppression.

His position is that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause was always the proper constitutional vehicle making the statute unnecessary and ultimately harmful to limited government and individual liberty. So his argument has nothing against black people.

3. Is it your view that black people are better off on account of slavery?

How can black people be better off on slavery?

DeepSight:
+
I am asking you, talk.

I have talked and notice how you ignored it 😂