Almost like crying about Steam "exclusives", creating an actual exclusivity PC war, and handing out free games to prop up a shitty marketplace and launcher wasn't such a good financial decision...

China: Your submarine is stupid and you look awful in that light.

Yup, that about sums up the worth of any comments from a Hexbear. Lol

Removed by mod

I'm writing, not speaking, but yes, I read what I write as it is being written.

"Bombed the country to ashes". What a hot take, considering it was the largest operation of guided munitions in history. Next you'll trot out the disproven 500,000 civilians killed figure. The country is in shambles now because they never achieved a unified government in the decade since the death of Gaddafi. The only thing NATO truly reduced to ashes was the Gaddafi compound.

So the UAE put guys on the ground but you're claiming that is a NATO issue? Weird. Also no, that didn't go against the resolution. It specifically states occupation forces, which special forces are not.

The 1970 resolution also contains no mention of what you claim in regards to intervention. I would suggest you reread both so you can familiarize yourself with the facts you are attempting to distort.

So was it a NATO war or a civil war? You can't say the rebels wouldn't have won without NATO assistance and also insinuate NATO started it. Perhaps you should worry less about my "western propaganda" and hop off whatever BRICS-sponsored train you're riding. I'm begging you.

No, the war in Libya was a militia operation to overthrow the government. The only thing NATO did was enforce the UN resolution to close their naval and airspace, and run sorties against Gaddafi.

You know Qatar and Tunisia also played roles in the civil war? Last I checked, they were not NATO members. The Arab League and African Union also played parts in the conflict, with the former supporting NATO involvement to enforce the UN resolution.

Implying NATO started things or led the charge is ahistorical.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Give it a couple weeks and lets see if that video call changes each meeting.

They'll have to dig through the ol' pittance drawer for that kind of cash.

That's why we've already seen breakthroughs in reactors that use nuclear waste for fuel.

Oh, you're not willing to fully commit to my opinion? Enlightened centrists...

Option 1

Not at all. I just prefer journalistic integrity from my news sources. If you'd like to project your own opinions, because my reasoning doesn't sit well with you, perhaps you should reflect on your own issues. They endangered Russians that trusted them with information about what was happening there after the invasion. People who were not pro-war.

Just read an article from a credible source back when Russia first invaded. No paranoia here. Didn't care about them before, still don't. They have always been a biased source.

The NY Times gave up their sources in Russia to the Russian government. No reason to assume this isn't a pro-Russian story masquerading as news.

I saw this show on Broadway and would not classify it as family friendly or aimed at kids. 90s cartoons were more subtle in their cussing and sexual comments. Fantastic show I would recommend again and again.

That does not justify what they did though. She may rock the dress, but take your horny selves home. Classic GOP hypocrisy.

Hahahaha, pro-Russian group calling people puppets? That's a good one. Good luck on gaining a single seat in government next election.

Fossil fuels cause massive environmental damage. Let's cause some more!

I don't know why I bother clicking these links. It's always one of the same three videos. Lol