To the people who say the troubles was not a war

Russia DIDN'T fcuking annex Crimea. Crimea was part of Russia for 200 years. IT was given away to Ukraine AGAINST the wishes of it's people in the 1950's. It then returned to Russia, according to the wishers of the people via referendum in 2014. Let's get our facts right about that now.

So they were allowed to die of starvation because they couldn't "afford" the food that was being appropriated by the British in order to feed their overseas armies? The country was agrarian and as such was awash with corn, wheat, barley. The amount of which made the modern day EU grain mountains look like mole-hills. This food was shipped out of the country and the starving millions be damned.

You talk about Northern Ireland and the Falklands and how if enough time passes then legitimacy is attained and then you go off bullsh1tting about Crimea and Taiwan. Crimea has been a Russian region for 100 years longer than the Brits have been occupying The Falklands. Taiwan has been a Chinese province for 1000's.

You then talk about how the Brits went easy on the Irish. One word for you, mate...............CROMWELL.

Why would the IRA kill him?

That he was in a car with an ASU member proves what exactly? Guilt by association or guilt because you want it to be so? Pretty shaky ground to be on going anywhere near an investigation, courtroom or prosecution. I was in a bar in New Jersey. A real dive outside Trenton years ago and had a few drinks with 2 girls I worked with. I played pool with a few guys. Later turned out those guys were members of a white supremacist group. Does that confirm MY membership?

Really? Are you trying to say the rules and ethics suddenly changed after the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated? Then all of a sudden deliberate targeting of civilians became a no-no?

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you'll give some mealy-mouthed, American get-out clause, cliche for the deliberate targeting of civilians at the hands of American military.

Aren't your precious rules that a military operation should not be embarked upon if there is a possibility that civilians might be victims? I think I read that somewhere. Yet bombing North Korean civilian centres to the point that not a single building higher than 1 storey was left standing. 20% of the population wiped out. All an accident right? Collateral damage. The bombing of Hanoi? The complete razing to the ground of massive swathes of Vietnam and Cambodia. That was all done with the full knowledge that not a single civilian would be inconvenienced let alone wounded or killed? The destruction of Mosul and Fallujah...shelled to rubble as 30,000 screaming people perished. The Haditha Massacre where the perpetrators were spirited back Stateside.

If all these were an unfortunate mistake and something the US would never stand for then why has nobody admitted culpability or been prosecuted? An apache gunship aircrew mowed down a group including Reuters reporters and then laughed at their day's work. Not finished they turned they gatling cannons on those who came to help the wounded. And you know who is rotting in jail for this episode of gallantry? Not the murderous gunship crew but Manning and Assange who made public the footage of this savagery.

Outside of deliberately targeting civilians, is it not also a war crime or something to attack a retreating army. Cue Iraq's retreat from Kuwait in 1991. They thought their surrender and subsequent retreat was covered by the "laws" of ground warfare. Think again. The retreating convoys included as many civilians as retreating military personnel. The US blocked the retreat with mines, bombed the rearguard and vanguard and then embarked upon a massacre. Extra air traffic controllers had to be drafted in to deal with the warplanes and their pilots eager to get in on the zero-risk carnage.

You bitch about SS panzer commander Joachim Piper murdering US GI's who have surrendered in Malmady in France and give a free pass to the above sickening barbarism.

You're in your 50's and still don't have the brains to know that the turn of phrase is COULDN'T care less.

What's the difference between fully supporting and just supporting?

Russian Forces had their Black Sea Fleet and a Naval Base in Crimea for decades before it was given away to Ukraine by Khruschev in the 1950's. Since the Ukraine, and Russia, at this time were part of the USSR, there was grumbling but little changed. When the USSR broke apart in 1991 the FIRST thing the Crimeans requested was a return to Russia since they would now be a Russian enclave in a newly established Ukrainian state.

As for your gibberish about whether staying as part of Ukraine for a few decades ought to have been part of the choice? Why? You already mentioned in previous posts that the Brits "gave back" 26 counties. In order to give something "back" you have to take it in the first place.

Russia took back Crimea to the delight of the local population and not a shot was fired.

You really ought to visit. I was there in 2018 and never saw any graffiti along the lines of "Russians Out! Peace In" as you are trying to blag.

Crimea is Russian and has been for centuries and the Crimean people agree and want it that way. You don't like it because you think that Vlad the Impaler is Dracula with a hammer and sickle on his back about to gobble up the world and eat babies.

And you've been told that.

If Crimea was invaded against the will of the Crimean people then why is there no resistance to Russian occupation? If the referendum was so skewed then why did Gallup and MORI endorse it as one of the fairest in their experience? If the Crimean people wanted to remain part of an independent Ukraine then why have they clamoured for 25 years to return to Russian sovereignty?

Maybe YOU ought to do some reading.