Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021
In Reply To
Late Great Donald Blake 

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,511
Subj: Re: Yeah, I wasn't speaking hypothetically or normatively.
Posted: Thu Mar 17, 2022 at 12:17:42 am EDT (Viewed 157 times)
Reply Subj: Yeah, I wasn't speaking hypothetically or normatively.
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2022 at 10:31:52 pm EDT (Viewed 154 times)

    LGDB:  I stand corrected! lol  I was wrong for sure.  I definitely DID misunderstand what you meant.  I didn't realize what you were referring to in my original post; I think mostly because it didn't register that what you meant by "if [they] are unwilling to fight for their country,'' you meant because they want their country to be Russia.  

    As far as apologies... I think I'd be behind you in that line lol

That's okay - it's not like I expected you to apologize after falsely accusing me of an egregious point of view, admitting you were wrong, and then not being big enough. 

    LGDB:  No not a taboo, I just thought what you said was weirdly phrased, "a chance I'd be willing to take."  My thought was, neither of us is taking any chances.  As I said, regardless...

You're taking a chance by not doing anything, too! Instead of getting caught up with phrases, focus on the substance of what I'm saying.

    LGDB:  Yeah I heard you, but I still don't understand where you get this much confidence about the Russian leadership.  Like where did you develop this sense of things?  It seems like a pretty dangerous outcome to stake on whether you can picture it or not.   And Russian soldiers certainly seem willing to slaughter Ukrainians on Putin's order.  And again, I think that you're skipping a lot in terms of the process of escalation.   I don't think anyone is worried that Putin would of nothing give an order to some sub commander to launch nukes at the West.  A more realistic scenario is if we get into a sort of escalatory feedback loop where the levels of aggression are, like that of a pendulum, ramped up in such a way that neither side could stop.  For one because of internal political reasons, but also because as the aggression increases mutually, either side literally does become an increasingly greater threat to the other.

And you seem to think that the West giving Ukraine unlimited resources is an aggressive action that could force nuclear war. I think your position is ridiculous, silly, and overly fearful.

    LGDB: Like I said, I agree IF there's not escalatory actions like I described earlier, such as a no fly zone; or if they feel like our sanctions will cripple them so much it represents an existential threat at a society level; or if they interpret a certain level of munitions as an act of war; or someone accidentally hitting the wrong sensitive target or them hitting some kind of embassy  unintentionally; or what have you.  Or some sort of false report of use of illegal biological weapons or something that encourages us to take a more direct and active role in the theater.   And the relevance of this was relevant because if there's no significant military intervention by NATO then Ukraine has virtually no chance of repelling the invasion.

These, to me, are all chicken fears. This attitude sounds more appropriate for someone who should join KFC.

    LGDB:  I really don't want to ban you, so you should consider cooling off.  Also I don't know what you're talking about with respect to what very same thing Jocko suggested.  Care to elaborate?

I don't care if you ban me. The last time, I was able to post at will. Unless you guys want to delete me all the time, okay, but really - I'm here because I want to be here, not because you let me. But, it does grow tiring debating people like you, so I may just voluntarily leave. I actually do have better and more interesting things to do.

To answer your question, though, you said that nobody is saying what I'm saying, and then I pointed you to Jocko who suggested that we give Ukraine unlimited resources; and that Ukraine would win, under that circumstance, by attrition. I'm saying that I'm saying what Jocko is saying. That's what I meant.

    LGDB:  Dude lol  I meant no one in a position of power, or anyone purporting to speak on behalf of or describe any one in a position of power.  Jocko is making a normative claim.  I'm making a descriptive one.  Context clues.

Jocko is making a normative claim, you're making a descriptive one, and context clues? What? My English is pretty good, and I can certify that that made no sense.

    LGDB:  Again, watch your language.  Last warning.  Don't let your ego be the reason you can't post anymore.

You made false accusations against me. And even after you admitted you were wrong, you didn't apologize. And you expect me to be kosher?

I don't care if I can't post here anymore.

    And secondly, we're speaking past one another.  I was never talking hypothetically or normatively here.  If you and I were going to argue about what we OUGHT to do, I think we'd have to begin far closer to the beginning.  I'm talking about what is realistically going to happen.   And I didn't correct you about your opinion that if we supported Ukraine to the degree being indicated we could or couldn't defeat Russia militarily.  Again, none of this speaks to the danger of nuclear war, but my point is that this isn't going to happen regardless of what we think ought to happen.  What is going to happen given our actual circumstances is that we're going to give Ukraine some military aid, and that will be necessarily insufficient to the task of repelling the Russian invaders. 

I should be clear that it's not too late to implement what I said could have already been done. Ukraine can still win, if we act and do what Jock Willink is saying. To pretend like it's all sunk and now no-win is that chicken attitude again. 

    Suffice to say the amount of support we'd have to offer the Ukrainians in order to make an adequate impact would likely be seen as escalatory and lead to a direct military confrontation with the Russians.  Even take nukes off the table, most of the American people don't want a hot war with Russia, which (among other things) probably explains why Biden's White House won't be offering sufficient support to turn the tide in Ukraine.   Again, I'm only talking about what the realistic outcomes are, not whether I think Biden or some other president SHOULD do something or other.

Before you "ban" me, I'd like to know something. Why did you join the military? Was it out of patriotism, love for country, or did you have nothing else going on (i.e. no money for college) and you needed a career starting point? This concern of yours, that supplying Ukraine is some escalatory action that would lead to a direct U.S./Russia war (possibly nuclear), is what I'd expect from a terrified democrat who never lifted a single dumbbell in their life. I know you're a democrat, but given that you served, I'd have expected just a LITTLE more manlike attitude. I'm sure you're tough, to some degree, but your attitude - it honestly reminds me of Lochlan from Braveheart who always wanted to negotiate. I swear that you would have been on his side, in the movie.

    LGDB:  Yeah you're mistaking what I said with where you thought I was coming from.   What I said was:   "Literally no one is suggesting that the arms or supplies that the West WILL BE providing will begin to approach Russia's capabilities."  I wasn't talking about some Ukrainian hypothetical wishlist or the total munitions you or me or Jocko or anybody else would prefer.  I was talking about what we'll ACTUALLY be sending.

Under Biden, I'm sure that what we'll actually be sending won't be enough. Under a real leader, though, it would have been/could still be.

Posted with Google Chrome 99.0.4844.51 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software