Community >> View Thread
1 2 3  >> All
Author
Unstable Molecule


Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,113


I'm in shock that in the 21st century there is a land war in Europe. I thought those days would never come again. This will signal the start of another cold war, with Russia and China on one side, and everyone else on the other. Considering their economic power, if China truly takes up Russia's cause, it could be very bleak for the West. This war will be fought with economies and sanctions, not bullets and trenches.

Putin's tactics remind me of the start of WWII, and that's not a cheerful fact either. His takeover of the Crimea has echoes of the Sudetenland, and the current invasion of Ukraine is like Germany's takeover of Czechoslovakia. It's a very different world now, and having the US and it's allies challenge Russia in a land war is unlikely, thanks to "mutually assured destruction." My heart goes out to the people of Ukraine, who will suffer and die for Putin's agenda. Expect another mass refuge crisis, too.

And all of this comes at a time when nearly every major nation in the western alliance is deeply divided by culture wars, some of which are raging right here on this message board. It's a fact that Russian and Chinese hackers are manipulating social media to drive people to the hard left or hard right, so our nations will likely not have united support to oppose Russian aggression.

The former US President just called Putin's tactics brilliant and wonderful, and he's likely to be the next POTUS again. It's no secret he's in Putin's pocket, which is likely the ace in the hole that Putin is counting on. When Trump is back, a policy of appeasement will follow, and it will be Neville Chamberlain all over again.

Where I grew up, there was a huge Ukrainian population (whose ancestors fled from Stalin's famine and ended up in Canada). They are a warm, wonderful people from a beautiful culture. It makes me sick to think of what they are going through this morning, and what they will go through in the years to come.




"It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices." – Albus Dumbledore
Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


I salute our new benevolent overlords great success in their glorious mission to conquer our Western wanton decadence!

cheers,
--- the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
Lucifer


Member Since: Sun May 24, 2020


You shouldn't be surprised or shocked about this.

If your not careful, History always repeats itself.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 97.0 on Windows 10
steve


Member Since: Tue Jan 06, 2015


It's a hopeless understatement to say this is a terrible thing. I fear for the next generation in this world


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.80 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


It’s all thanks to democrats and Vindman (who ironically is the primary cause of his people dying): No Vindman, no war.

Putin saw weakness and an opportunity, and pounced. Now, China is watching and could do the same to Taiwan. Under Trump, none of this would have happened.

Republicans are the party that confronts bullies, democrats just threaten to take toys away and not play anymore.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.3
Karl


Member Since: Tue Feb 08, 2022


Biden is the first president of the 21st century to stand up to Putin's expansionism in any real way

Bush... A Republican... did not do much when Georgia was invaded.

Obama put in some sanctions after Crimea, but not much.

If Trump was really interested in keeping Ukraine safe, he would not have put a condition on arming them. The US has armed plenty of countries against enemies... often far more questionable Zelenskyy...and asked for nothing in return. That is how Reagan got us a a 9/11.

It is not even like Trump was asking for something that would make sure Ukraine would remain a loyal allies, he was asking for something for himself. So, arming them against the invasion Putin talked about as far back as 2008, was conditional for information to help him.

He froze US aid, how is that helping Ukraine?

Making it conditional in any way that is not ensuring that it does not bite America in the ass shows he did not care that much.

Trump also tried to reduce funding on NATO, an organization literally created to prevent Russian form invading Europe. Quite possibly the only thing that will keep Poland from being invaded, is Ukraine falls.

Regardless of missing the foreign policy point that we fund so much of NATO to keep them dependent on the US, it shows at best a lack of understanding of the mechanics of suppressing Russian influence. Best case. Worst is that he did not care.

Conservatives are even questioning our opposition to Putin. Tucker Carlson went on television and asked why people were even upset at Putin.

Josh Hawley is on record as saying he does not want US involvement. Admittedly, he represents a minority, but one that seems to exist primarily on the right.

Trump himself said that Putin should be allowed to keep Crimea on the campaign trail.

In August 2017, when Putin expelled US diplomats he said he was greatful

IN the summer of 2018, he refused to make a statement criticizing Russia for taking over Georgia.

Trump praised Hungarian Strongman, and Putin Ally Orban many, many,many times. Praising Orban in ANY capacity is not standing up to bullies. Other member s of the GOP have done that as well, and Tucker Carlson even had shows there. That alone proves your theory wrong.

He wanted Russia back in the G7. There is arguably a diplomatic reason, but it is defiantly not standing up to bullies. At best it is bribing them.

Trump was not fully in the tank with Putin as some claim, going against them on oil prices comes to mind. However, he was hardly someone who stood up to bullies o a regular basis.

I am not willing to say Trump would lay down for Russia, or stand up. There is no firm pattern to fully support either.

I Agree with you. Putin sees weakness, but it is not Biden. Biden went after him for the hacking. He was willing to screw over long time ally France to sell Nuclear subs for Australia's defense against China.

He sees the weakness that is the rot at the center of America these days. He knows we are so divided, we will never unite against him fully.

He knows that no matter what party is in power, the other will go against almost anything... at least in some capacity. Enough to at least muck it up.

He knows many Americans will do anything to be comfortable. He knows Americans have short memories. He knows they don't want to function as much as they want to win...over their countrymen.

He knows Americans pick sides, and don't think critically about what their side says. He knows the one true fact of Americans, no matter the generation, the age, the race, the gender, the political party, they all think they are smarter than everybody else... and that makes our nation very easy to manipulate and divide.

It has nothing to do with Biden. He knows the society is broken.












Posted with Mozilla Firefox 97.0 on Windows 10
Grey Gargoyle


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



Posted with Google Chrome 50.0.2661.89 on Linux
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


Let's just disband NATO since it literally has no reason to exist after the fall of the Soviet Union.


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


I do not agree. That is Russia and China's view too but one of Putin's goals appears to be to reform the soviet union. NATO being there or not does not change that or excuse behavior.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


Everybody here should state what they think Biden should do.

Me - He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations and coordinated to position the coalition’s forces in Ukraine. He, and the coalition, should make clear that the fighting will only occur if attacked, and will end when Russia ceases the invasion. The coalition has no intention of overthrowing the Russian government, only to stop their invasion.

That is what any decent president and leader should do and is so obvious to me. Biden, and the European nations, are sniveling cowards.

Where do you all stand? Fighting like I said, or sanctions?


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.3
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Putin is pretty dangerous honestly. It seems his goal is to remake the USSR in many respects and that has been his goal for ages along with destabilizing the Western world through supporting fringe elements and supporting them with things as simple as stocking what is already there.

I would say I am shocked but I do not think Putin is as clever as I thought he was as this is a very overt move that is probably going to cost Russia quite a bit in the long run, at least so long as the rest of the world applies the pressure.

I think to me the only thing I can think that would have been better was harsh sanctions before Russia was invading by the world at large to better prevent it, but I doubt everybody would be onboard with that what if scenario.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Everybody here should state what they think Biden should do.



    Quote:
    Me - He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations and coordinated to position the coalition’s forces in Ukraine. He, and the coalition, should make clear that the fighting will only occur if attacked, and will end when Russia ceases the invasion. The coalition has no intention of overthrowing the Russian government, only to stop their invasion.


Depending on the stability of Putin this could lead to threat of a nuclear war. He does not seem totally stable at the moment or honestly ever.


    Quote:
    That is what any decent president and leader should do and is so obvious to me. Biden, and the European nations, are sniveling cowards.


Just because it is obvious to you does not mean it is something that should be done or assuming that those that do not agree with you are cowards.


    Quote:
    Where do you all stand? Fighting like I said, or sanctions?


I would have supported as soon as the forces started building for the US and the nearest allies to start implementing sanctions. And then raise them as Russia increased actions.

I acknowledge that it would be harder to do that because it is easier to be reactionary to threats but sanctions seem appropriate to me, but I think I would have preferred to see the world scale them up as Russia was waiting to build up to it, so by the time it was happening they were already in economic trouble.

And if they did invade bring every hammer you could down and cut them off.

The downside with the nuclear sort of option, economically speaking, is it would hurt all the other countries to varying degrees too but would force Putin to see what he was against at each step of the way.

The downside with the approach now is that if Russia takes over economic hardship will not remove a puppet government.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Visitor


Member Since: Sun Jul 30, 2017
Posts: 2,936



    Quote:
    Depending on the stability of Putin this could lead to threat of a nuclear war. He does not seem totally stable at the moment or honestly ever.


He's another mentally instable Trump who, not surprisingly, is cheerleading Putin's murderous actions with open arm pom-poms.


    Quote:
    The downside with the approach now is that if Russia takes over economic hardship will not remove a puppet government.


I don't understand why Ukraine (When Russia was building forces on their borders) didn't simply say--

Ok Putin, you want to threaten us? We are hereby effectively signing into the NATO alliance. Now come and get us.

Putin would then know an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them.




Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


I expected this kind of response from a democrat. Fearful that Putin will go nuclear, even though the condition I presented was that the coalition wouldn’t invade Russia or attempt to overthrow their government. Your fear is highly irrational, and frankly, is downright shameful as you’d prefer to sit on your hands while a peaceful ally’s citizens are dying.The president of Ukraine is urging its CITIZENS to fight. How cowardly to suggest anything but helping them fight. And if Trump was against fighting, I’d call him a coward, too.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.3
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


The only way I can see Putin going nuclear is if he’s insane (which I don’t think he is) AND if his sovereignty is threatened.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.3
Prefer to Remain Private


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    - He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations


That already exists, it is called NATO, and they have been increasing troop presence on Eastern European members for a while now. They have also sent warships and planes to that area.

They are clearly willing to engage in combat if a member nation's border is violated by the Russian military.

That invalidates this sentence of yours:

"Biden, and the European nations, are sniveling cowards."



However, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, they turned down membership in 2010.

In late 2020, Zelensky did say he had a a goal of joining NATO, but as of yet

IN January of this year, the Biden State Department also okayed Ukraine's neighbors to arm them with US manufactured weapons such as anti-armor missiles.

That is on top of the Biden administrating sending $200 million dollars worth of weapons, including missiles, on its own.

These very public actions are not the act of someone sniveling, you just have an assumption and are working backwards to meet it.

It is worth noting that Russia formally asked the US to stop arming Ukraine, and they refused. Interrupt that however you see fit.




    Quote:
    The coalition has no intention of overthrowing the Russian government, only to stop their invasion.


Because there is no way Putin could convince his people those are lies, and use it to drum up patriotic fervor, right?

If they are only in Ukraine, even mentioning over throwing Russia, even to say you are not, is a bad idea.


    Quote:
    Everybody here should state what they think Biden should do.


I would not be opposed to sending troops into Ukraine. Low levels at first, with potential increase. Too many at once does not say "we want to keep you out," it says "we want a war."

It is not like you can't park troops across the border in Poland, and wait.

It also needs to be remembered that over the past 60 years, we have a pretty bad track record of using our military directly. Three wars that stretched over a decade, and one of them causing a power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS, and genocide.

That is not even to say anything of the poor backing of Regan in the 80s that trained Bin Laden, and helped out Hussein as he fought Iran.

That all has to be weighed against any military, and the fact that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush II, Obama, Trump and Biden, all caused major failures, and long term problems for the US.

It does not mean you can't send in troops. It sure as Hell doe not mean that you can't send aid and arm them. It does mean you have to be smart about the actions.

I don't think Putin is crazy enough to go nuclear, as some do. However, I do think he is sociopath enough to throw away countless Russian lives to antagonize the US, and keep them tied up for years. I think if he sees it as a legit war against The WEST in any form, he will go conscription.

However, your whole question of "fighting or sanctions" is ridiculous.

Logic of saying fight, while claiming you want to prevent conflict aside, there is no reason you can't do both.

Why could you not have troops on, and cut off monetary supply? Aside from the obvious, aside from the obvious fueling anti-American sentiment.

Which brings up a more important point, that made me think harder on the Ukraine. There a protests in Russia. The Russian people were threatened with arrest on TV for protesting the actions, and still came out in notable numbers.

It is one of the first signs of real numbers in the country trying to break from Putin. Whatever happens, this needs to be encouraged, and grown. Whether that is our own form of cyber warfare getting images of Russia's actions or other forms, it is a good idea.

to summarize:
-Fine with using troops, as long as it is done intelligently.
-Fine with potential increase, when warranted.
-Arming Ukraine is important.
-Sanctions can be used in concert to cause double pain
-Growing the resistance core against Putin needs to be looked in, for long term gains. Especially since his final term ends in two years, and that resistance could stop him from monkeying around with things to stay in power.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 97.0 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


First of all in terms of imperialism if you're entertaining some fiction where the US is somehow a good actor and Russia and China are worse actors, I have a lot of world history to introduce you to. So any moral calculus you're operating with built on the notion that whatever the Russians or the Chinese want is inherently bad is incoherent. Especially if you hold the US to the same standards.

Second we can't control Putin's actions. We can react to them to various effects, but primarily we have influence over our own actions. There is no excuse for the existence of NATO. As the global hegemon we would have had the same power to put the same sanctions in place. What benefit does it possibly serve except to aggravate tensions unnecessarily. I mean the idea that we have this multinational alliance against a single nation, despite the Soviet Union being disband is bound to make the Russians a bit paranoid, don't you think?

And let me go ahead and disabuse you of any US State Department myths: Putin isn't trying to recreate the Soviet Union. That's are no plans of world domination, so far as we know. Clearly he has a nationalist streak and is specifically interested in a unified relationship with those nations who he believes are part of some greater Russkiy Mir, but you'll notice he's not annexing Belarus.
Recreating the Soviet Union? Russia has a smaller GDP than Spain for God's sake. But it does make sense that they'd prefer not to have a US vassal state directly to their West, one where we've encouraged NO guarantees that Ukraine will never join NATO. Putin has literally articulated this as a red line since 2007. So what possible good does NATO serve--much less not denying Ukrainian membership into NATO--outside of servicing the needs of the military industrial complex?


And NONE of the above in anyway excuses Putin's actions. It's fundamentally wrong to invade other nations unilaterally (you know, like our MO), and against international law to unilaterally decide the borders of neighboring states. But diplomacy actually means recognizing the legitimate grievances of the the enemy, not just summarily denying them because they're the bad guy.

cheers,
--- the late great Donald Blake




Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021



    Quote:
    That already exists, it is called NATO, and they have been increasing troop presence on Eastern European members for a while now. They have also sent warships and planes to that area.

    They are clearly willing to engage in combat if a member nation's border is violated by the Russian military.

    That invalidates this sentence of yours:

    "Biden, and the European nations, are sniveling cowards."


I said: "He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations AND COORDINATED TO POSITION THE COALITION'S FORCES ****IN UKRAINE****."

All caps and asterisks added for emphasis.

Why did you truncate that important piece of my argument: that without, does not equal my argument anymore?


    Quote:
    These very public actions are not the act of someone sniveling, you just have an assumption and are working backwards to meet it.


They are the actions of a yellow bellow coward who is afraid to fight a much weaker and bully nation. Sending $200 million dollars worth of weapons, including missiles, takes zero balls.


    Quote:
    Because there is no way Putin could convince his people those are lies, and use it to drum up patriotic fervor, right?

    If they are only in Ukraine, even mentioning over throwing Russia, even to say you are not, is a bad idea.


It's a bad idea to inform Putin that you're only there to fight alongside Ukraine, but have no intention to overthrow his government or invade Russia? Really? That's a bad idea?

Break it down for everyone. Why is that bad?


    Quote:
    However, your whole question of "fighting or sanctions" is ridiculous.

    I would not be opposed to sending troops into Ukraine. Low levels at first, with potential increase. Too many at once does not say "we want to keep you out," it says "we want a war."

    It is not like you can't park troops across the border in Poland, and wait.


I'd be fine with that. We wouldn't have had to position everyone in Ukraine - we could have sent forces to a close enough neighbor like Poland, as you suggest. But I hardly see how a clear ramp up in forces so close to Russia would be viewed much differently when it's obvious that said forces were purposely transported and positioned to join and help Ukraine. Do you disagree? Do you think Putin would go: "Hmmm, all these forces are being positioned in Poland but not in Ukraine, so no telegraphed intentions; nothing to see here"?


    Quote:
    It also needs to be remembered that over the past 60 years, we have a pretty bad track record of using our military directly. Three wars that stretched over a decade, and one of them causing a power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS, and genocide.

    That is not even to say anything of the poor backing of Regan in the 80s that trained Bin Laden, and helped out Hussein as he fought Iran.


In my opinion, it doesn't need to be remembered for the current situation because this isn't an offensive strike, invasion, nation building effort, or attempt to thwart a coup - all of which seem why previous failures occurred from Central America to Africa, the Middle East, and Vietnam. Do you disagree?

To me, this is simply to preserve the existing government in Ukraine which is fully functional, peaceful, democratic; but is being destroyed by a bully country that wants their resources like locusts.


    Quote:
    That all has to be weighed against any military, and the fact that Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush II, Obama, Trump and Biden, all caused major failures, and long term problems for the US.


Not for this occasion it doesn't - not to me, at least. Ukraine isn't some country in South America, the Middle East, or Africa. They are part of the free world, stable, and trying to become a developed country.


    Quote:
    It does not mean you can't send in troops. It sure as Hell doe not mean that you can't send aid and arm them. It does mean you have to be smart about the actions.

    I don't think Putin is crazy enough to go nuclear, as some do. However, I do think he is sociopath enough to throw away countless Russian lives to antagonize the US, and keep them tied up for years. I think if he sees it as a legit war against The WEST in any form, he will go conscription.

    However, your whole question of "fighting or sanctions" is ridiculous.

    Logic of saying fight, while claiming you want to prevent conflict aside, there is no reason you can't do both.


Okay, to clarify, I'd agree that fighting + sanctions is a good way to proceed. When I said fighting OR sanctions, it was more of how I felt that Biden's administration is viewing options.


    Quote:
    Why could you not have troops on, and cut off monetary supply? Aside from the obvious, aside from the obvious fueling anti-American sentiment.


Good point, I'd agree.


    Quote:
    Which brings up a more important point, that made me think harder on the Ukraine. There a protests in Russia. The Russian people were threatened with arrest on TV for protesting the actions, and still came out in notable numbers.

    It is one of the first signs of real numbers in the country trying to break from Putin. Whatever happens, this needs to be encouraged, and grown. Whether that is our own form of cyber warfare getting images of Russia's actions or other forms, it is a good idea.


Good points.


    Quote:
    to summarize:
    -Fine with using troops, as long as it is done intelligently.
    -Fine with potential increase, when warranted.
    -Arming Ukraine is important.
    -Sanctions can be used in concert to cause double pain
    -Growing the resistance core against Putin needs to be looked in, for long term gains. Especially since his final term ends in two years, and that resistance could stop him from monkeying around with things to stay in power.


All good points. It seems we're not so different after all. But, our shared viewpoint is different from Biden's.


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563




Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


The war hero chimes in with the classic "Are you gonna do the fighting; because if not, shut up" line, as if it somehow invalidates a nationwide decision to do what's right.


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


I'm saying people that advocate for war who aren't willing to fight it should be taken with a serious grain of salt. It's "a classic" for a reason. Those people don't know what war IS. It's all imaginary. Just stuff they see in movies and tv. They literally don't know what they're advocating, and if they have any power whatsoever they end up getting a lot of people killed for some uncritical notions of what's right.

"The only way to defend what's right is to have a thousands of scared 19 years olds die in some country I only just learned to identify on a map to preserve a perverse sense of national identity I harbor for some reason."



LGDB




Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


So that would exclude you from any decisions; and only ~19 year olds in the military (and I presume those with boots on the ground) should get to vote and decide on all war involvement.

Thank you for your input. Now, I would like to get back to rational decision making if you don't mind.


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


No it means that since you're not personally risking anything, you shouldn't be so cavalier about the waging of war. And in terms of what rationally has to happen, I think anyone can weigh in. My point was you brought up the idea of cowardice, and since you're not going to be gracing the battlefield with your presence, from my position, I'd say you're not any less cowardly. How is saying we should send a bunch of people to kill and die on your behalf some how more brave?

And I'm not preventing you from getting back to anything.

cheers,
--- the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021



    Quote:
    No it means that since you're not personally risking anything, you shouldn't be so cavalier about the waging of war.


In this circumstance, a war has already started and so this is not the same as 2003 where we pre-planned for months before preemptively attacking Iraq. The sense of urgency is quite different, wouldn't you say?

Also, the line dividing right and wrong is a lot less blurry in this case - do you disagree?


    Quote:
    And in terms of what rationally has to happen, I think anyone can weigh in. My point was you brought up the idea of cowardice, and since you're not going to be gracing the battlefield with your presence, from my position, I'd say you're not any less cowardly. How is saying we should send a bunch of people to kill and die on your behalf some how more brave?


Cowardice is more than just fear of physical harm and battle confrontations. I've seen "tough" guys who were absolutely petrified of public speaking and refuse to participate for fear of being judged. In the movie a Few Good Men, Demi Moore chastised Tom Cruise as a coward because he wouldn't put Colonel Jessup on the stand. Being a coward is more than just fear of physical harm - it's also fear of career damage, being judged, standing/eating alone, and being outside of the pack. Biden is definitely fearful of all these things, and a real man isn't. He can't handle the political risk and so always chooses the safest route like a real p***y.


    Quote:
    And I'm not preventing you from getting back to anything.


Okay, if that's how arguments are reduced, then fine. Nobody is preventing 19 year olds from choosing a different career.




Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Visitor


Member Since: Sun Jul 30, 2017
Posts: 2,936


Stating there will be military consequences if they join NATO.

If I got that message from him, that's precisely what I would do (join NATO) with a colorful metaphor neatly wrapped in a bowtie.

Curious to know (since I know I'm probably not the most diplomatic guy in this forum), what would be your response?


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


and many many times before. Ultimately I agree with Anderrson that that it goes without saying Sweden and Finland get to decide their own internal security policy and alliances.

Finland at least has basically dismissed this out of hand as a repitition of the current albeit tenuous status quo.

From what I can tell this isn't a meaningful change from the current diplomatic circumstances: Russia wants assurances that NATO won't continue to expand eastward and NATO remains coy about its expansion as an open policy. Seems like encouraging states like Ukraine and Finland to maintain a neutral buffer states officially in exchange for guarantees that they will be unmolested by Russian aggression seems to me like a reasonable détente that costs neither side anything. Better than World War 3.


cheers,
--- the late great Donald Blake


P.S. to be clear at this point I think there are very few good clean choices for us to make. So in this late hour, after the guns are already drawn, it's a kind of no win scenario. The real diplomatic work we failed to engage with over the last decade and a half might have prevented this situation.


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


In this circumstance, a war has already started and so this is not the same as 2003 where we pre-planned for months before preemptively attacking Iraq. The sense of urgency is quite different, wouldn't you say?

Also, the line dividing right and wrong is a lot less blurry in this case - do you disagree?


LGDB: how is their that kind of urgency. If we were going to circumvent the invasion that they morevor less predicted was going to happen, we already would have done that. They've already decided on aggressive sanctions, which will probably be awful for the Russian people, though I imagine Putin and his cadre of fellow oligarch will have spent the better part of the last 15 years making their actual assets sanction proof. I can't imagine they would have followed through here if they thought it would mean some kind of immediate impoverishment. Regardless, I think Putin is right about one thing, the West doesn't care enough about Ukraine or any principle enough to risk another world war.





Cowardice is more than just fear of physical harm and battle confrontations. I've seen "tough" guys who were absolutely petrified of public speaking and refuse to participate for fear of being judged. In the movie a Few Good Men, Demi Moore chastised Tom Cruise as a coward because he wouldn't put Colonel Jessup on the stand. Being a coward is more than just fear of physical harm - it's also fear of career damage, being judged, standing/eating alone, and being outside of the pack. Biden is definitely fearful of all these things, and a real man isn't. He can't handle the political risk and so always chooses the safest route like a real p***y.


LGDB: Oh yes, storming the beaches of Normandy and giving a TED talk. Same bravery ball park.

As far as if Biden's a coward? Yeah probably. Or at least I have no idea. What I'm saying is that the opposite of Biden in this case, Trump, the conservatives, people beating the war drum are every bit the coward. There's risking your life, and then there's expecting other people will do that for you.






Okay, if that's how arguments are reduced, then fine. Nobody is preventing 19 year olds from choosing a different career.


LGDB: So are you saying that since 19 year olds could have chosen not to enlist then it's okay to cavalierly send them to die?



Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.101 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021



    Quote:

    LGDB: how is their that kind of urgency.


Because as I said, war has already started and Ukraine citizens are picking up arms to fight. This could get very ugly for them. Painting me as some war thirsty phony berserker who just wants to send American 19 year olds to die is shameful.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-citizens-fight-military-weapons-simplified-process-2022-2


    Quote:
    If we were going to circumvent the invasion that they morevor less predicted was going to happen, we already would have done that.


I do believe I said in a few posts above that Biden should have coordinated with our allies to stock troops in Ukraine.

Me: "He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations and coordinated to position the coalition’s forces in Ukraine."

So, I'm saying that we have should done that already.


    Quote:
    They've already decided on aggressive sanctions, which will probably be awful for the Russian people, though I imagine Putin and his cadre of fellow oligarch will have spent the better part of the last 15 years making their actual assets sanction proof. I can't imagine they would have followed through here if they thought it would mean some kind of immediate impoverishment. Regardless, I think Putin is right about one thing, the West doesn't care enough about Ukraine or any principle enough to risk another world war.


Right - it's his people who will suffer, not him; he gets to remain in his palace and continue his dictatorship. So, sanctions are aggressive actions on the Russian people, not on him and his cushy lifestyle.


    Quote:
    LGDB: Oh yes, storming the beaches of Normandy and giving a TED talk. Same bravery ball park.


Nobody was saying that so you should stop arguing with your wall.


    Quote:
    As far as if Biden's a coward? Yeah probably. Or at least I have no idea. What I'm saying is that the opposite of Biden in this case, Trump, the conservatives, people beating the war drum are every bit the coward. There's risking your life, and then there's expecting other people will do that for you.


You sound like a fireman who once got a little burned and then whines that he never wants to go back unless he feels like it. And that other firemen shouldn't have to run into burning homes and risk their lives to save people because although most people expect that, most people wouldn't want to do that.

Am I missing something, chief?


    Quote:
    LGDB: So are you saying that since 19 year olds could have chosen not to enlist then it's okay to cavalierly send them to die?


There's nothing cavalier with helping an ally - under current attack - fight. You make it sound like I want the US to pick and instigate a fight - I'm not. It's to help defend another country against a bully.


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


Because as I said, war has already started and Ukraine citizens are picking up arms to fight. This could get very ugly for them. Painting me as some war thirsty phony berserker who just wants to send American 19 year olds to die is shameful.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-citizens-fight-military-weapons-simplified-process-2022-2


LGDB: What's your point? Are you proposing we send the US armed forces into to stop this from happening? You know, I'm sure if you want you could buy a plane ticket to Ukraine and help liberate them.




I do believe I said in a few posts above that Biden should have coordinated with our allies to stock troops in Ukraine.

Me: "He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations and coordinated to position the coalition’s forces in Ukraine."

So, I'm saying that we have should done that already.


LGDB: As in we should start a war with Russia? Or invite Ukraine into NATO?





Nobody was saying that so you should stop arguing with your wall.


LGDB: Okay cool, if you weren't saying that, I was arguing with what you were making it seem like you were arguing lol I agree that none of those kinds of "bravery" that you mentioned before are comparable to being in combat.


You sound like a fireman who once got a little burned and then whines that he never wants to go back unless he feels like it. And that other firemen shouldn't have to run into burning homes and risk their lives to save people because although most people expect that, most people wouldn't want to do that.

Am I missing something, chief?


LGDB: So are you saying that as a combat veteran, it's your interpretation that I'm whining too much? Is that what you're telling me right now?

I'm going to level with you. You're really pushing it right now. I've tried really hard to abide your disrespectful attitude. I've continued to warn you. And now we're having this conversation where you're sort of implying that though I saw combat, but now I'm being kind of a b**ch about it.

Here's what you're missing. You're missing who the hell you're talking to right now. Now I'm basically at my limit.



There's nothing cavalier with helping an ally - under current attack - fight. You make it sound like I want the US to pick and instigate a fight - I'm not. It's to help defend another country against a bully.



LGDB: Yeah, defending another country or instigating a fight are still going to end up with a lot of people dead. People other than you I imagine.



LGDB


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021



    Quote:

    LGDB: What's your point? Are you proposing we send the US armed forces into to stop this from happening? You know, I'm sure if you want you could buy a plane ticket to Ukraine and help liberate them.

Are you being purposely obtuse? I already made my point clear:

Me: "He should (actually, already should have) built a coalition of freedom fighting democratic nations and coordinated to position the coalition’s forces in Ukraine."

There's no need to make myself any clearer or repeat that a third time.

And, your little point about buying a plane ticket says more about you than anyone else: war seems to have made you afraid of war.


    Quote:

    LGDB: As in we should start a war with Russia? Or invite Ukraine into NATO?

I don't agree with your phrasing: "start a war with Russia". War has already started, instigated by Russia; we should come to the aid of Ukraine.


    Quote:
    LGDB: So are you saying that as a combat veteran, it's your interpretation that I'm whining too much? Is that what you're telling me right now?

I'm saying that you are flaunting your stripes and parading around like you have some special privilege to silence others with guilt - you don't. 


    Quote:
    I'm going to level with you. You're really pushing it right now. I've tried really hard to abide your disrespectful attitude. I've continued to warn you. And now we're having this conversation where you're sort of implying that though I saw combat, but now I'm being kind of a b**ch about it.


Ew, struck a nerve, did I? Well, then don't peacock and think you have some special privilege on the opinion of when and when not to fight - you don't. I'm making it clear to you that you don't hold this on me or anyone else, and I won't allow you to do that to me. You don't like that? Too bad.


    Quote:
    Here's what you're missing. You're missing who the hell you're talking to right now. Now I'm basically at my limit.


Then ban me. Do the p*ssy thing like I predicted, make my day. I'll laugh a good one. 


    Quote:
    LGDB: Yeah, defending another country or instigating a fight are still going to end up with a lot of people dead. People other than you I imagine.


Unless Putin or Ukraine loses their nerve and caves, there's going to be a lot of dead people anyway.

Also, did you know that cowardly Biden offered to evacuate Zelensky? That is basically endorsing Zelensky to abandon his people, throw in the towel, and concede Ukraine to Russia. That, my dear sir, is the epitome of COWARDICE.




Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


If anyone has any questions about this--though I doubt anyone will need much clarification--feel free to inquire or to DM me about it.


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


P.S. I'm sure FreeKyle will use this extra time he has to help liberate the people of Ukraine. lol


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.102 on Windows 10
1 2 3  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software