Basic_GnR_Fan

8 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

We seem to be on the same page, I mostly see you either echoing opinions I already have or saying something I agree with.

Then I remember you said blacks should have their DNA tested for laziness etc. What the fuck was that lol? Trolling?

Yes I do like to troll a bit. But I'm deadly serious in my point of view here and want this war to end.

48 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are we still talking about whether we agree with Ukraine's decision to fight back against the invaders or are you now talking about whether other countries should get involved? If it is the former, then obviously Russia is not using nuclear weapons in their efforts to take over Ukraine, and obviously that would be pointless of them to do. But if you are saying that other countries or pacts, like NATO, shouldn't get involved because of the danger of further escalation to nuclear warfare, then I entirely agree with you.

Yes, we're on the same page. Russia isn't going to use nukes if they are just fighting Ukraine. It's the latter situation I want to avoid.

46 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Ah, that's your point. "Fuck the Ukraine (or any other country, as long as it isn't mine). I'm good and that's how it should stay." Gotcha.

Yes, I'm not risking nuclear exchange over Ukrainian independence (meaning no NATO or EU for them) and the official loss of the Crimea and the Eastern Republics, which is the current Russian demands. Those Russian demands are only going to get worse for the Ukrainians. In my estimation, the more Russian blood Putin spills the more he's going to demand to justify all of this.

22 minutes ago, Politania said:

You forgot about a few things about IIWW - Poland fought in the underground after 1945, and  during the 6 years of the war Poland was bleeding out. Poland fought to the end. And Ukraine is doing the same because Putin will not stop in Ukraine. Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are next on the list. Western countries as after the Yalta conference, devoted Eastern Europe in the red hand. Currently, there is a very large disinformation campaign in the media in Lithuania and the russian agents are very active there, which is why the United Kingdom sent more troops there. Poland and Ukraine - we lost our freedom and lived under the hands of the Russia. If you live in Western Europe or the USA, you have no idea what it's like to lose your freedom (even restriction of rights - it is not the same as taking freedom by another state), So no one in Central and Eastern Europe can feel safe these days. We will fight to the end. Poles and Ukrainians will pay any price for freedom.

That there was resistance to the Soviets, yes. But they wanted western allied support in the fight against the Soviets and essentially WWIII to commence right away with all all out invasion of the Soviet Union. They were emphatically told no, and if they fought the Soviets they would be doing it alone. My understanding is that resistance pretty much petered out after that.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I doubt nuclear weapons will be used. Still, we have already gone over the reason to fight even if you are doomed to lose. My argument is that you shouldn't just accept being bullied around, you should fight back even if you might lose. You disagree. Fine. 

I don't care if it's a minimal chance, I'm not taking that chance over the Ukraine, sorry. Nuclear weapons being used affect the whole world, then it's no longer just a Ukraine/Russia issue.

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Stop moving the goalposts. No one has said anything about "fighting to the death". Naturally, if you fight there will be deaths, but it is not like Ukraine will be obliterated. At some point Ukraine will accept peace terms, but only after having caused massive damages to Russia, and then the guerilla warfare will begin. The fight won't be over. Because that's what you do, you fight against those who try to take things away from you, you don't just roll over.

Why did you only mention damages to Russia? You do realize if they keep fighting most of the death is going to be on Ukrainians themselves. That part needs to be stated and emphasized. So they'll have a negotiated surrender either way, except under my scenario there's a lot less Ukrainians dead.

27 minutes ago, Graeme said:

Even if we don't always live up to them, there is a reason we have principles. It's obviously easy to say when your arse isn't on the line, but my heart is completely with those who have decided not just to let themselves be beaten into submission. 

Principles go out the window when there's a big bad dude on the other side that can put a hurting on you. I'm going to keep hammering the end of WWII until I'm out of the breath. The principles the allies supposedly fought for went out the window when posed with the threat of fighting a very strong Soviet Union (who's leader didn't give a damn how many Soviet causalities there were, as long as he was victorious). The allies gave up all of Eastern Europe and parts of China without a fight.

8 minutes ago, Politania said:

Using the logic I'm seeing in this thread (of the people saying Ukraine should fight to the death against Russia), I'm simply applying that same logic to Poland in 1945. Shouldn't they also have fought to the death against the Soviet Union? I mean, the Soviet Union was just the big bully at that time. Not fighting them hurts all small countries right?

37 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes.

Probably would be suicide to fight him then

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Right. In real life you have those who hand over their lunch money and those who fight back.

Depends, does the bully at school have nuclear weapons and the third most powerful military in the world behind him?

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I agree that Ukraine will likely eventually succumb to a larger military and in that sense one might naively argue they should just put down their weapons rather than postpone the inevitable. I disagree. One should never roll over to tyranny, one should never just give up in the face of adversary. If not, whatever you have is not worth fighting for anyway. Fight the fight and afflict as much damages upon the invaders as possible, make their victory as expensive as possible so they never do something like that again. Do it for everyone else who isn't the mightiest. Fighting for what is yours has its own value. 

Nice speech, but that doesn't always happen in real life. And again, in that case Poland let us all down by not taking on the Soviet Union in 1945....

Reported Russian terms to stop the war

Quote

Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kremlin-says-russian-military-action-115703035.html

I think Ukraine should take this deal immediately. 

13 minutes ago, downzy said:

And this essentially explains why the country is so utterly fucked…

Whether you support or against “progressive politics,” the notion that its threat to the body politic is greater than a sitting President who made serious attempts to upend democratic norms and the rule of law to entrench his power is so utterly fucking absurd. Medicare for all and the green new deal is seen as a greater existential threat to the nation than a would be autocrat.  Republicans and people who would sustain their support for someone like Trump need a serious examination of their priorities.  Every time I think I’ve wrapped my mind around how insane everything is someone like Barr comes along and blows everything up again for me. 

The follow-up question should have been this: ok you don't like the progressive side of the Democratic agenda, but what actually is the Republican policy? They don't seem to be offering any actual positions on anything.

18 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Yeah, you'd rather them be under the thumb and oppression of Putin/Russia. That is not what they want. Understandably. That's what no country would want and shouldn't be forced to just accept. And that's why they are fighting. Who cares what some guy 80 years ago said? It is not right that one man thinks he can supress not only his own but also a foreign country. And good thing you're not in charge.

You misunderstand my point. It's not what I want. I would prefer this war this never occurred, but it's here so we have to deal with it.

My point also isn't that the Ukrainians aren't allowed to fight the Russians, they can do that if they like. My actual point is that it's also outside entities such as NATO or the US singularly to decide not to throw arms at Ukraine. Outside entities can choose their policies just as the Ukrainians are doing.

Edit: also, as far as who cares what happened 80 years ago, you should tell that to the people who always love to make comparisons to Hitler and 1938-39 whenever they want to get a war kicked off.

6 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

No. But kicking their asses will. Giving the Ukraine everything they need to kick their asses will.

If that is what you truly believe. My position is that it's the Ukrainians that are getting their ass kicked and their country ruined, that's why I'm proposing the US and NATO take a hard line stance and make it clear to Ukraine no help is coming. This has a historical precedence as it's exactly what Churchill told Poland in 1945 (that they'd be going alone if they wanted a hot war with the Soviet Union).

On 3/6/2022 at 7:09 AM, downzy said:

 

I think he's assuming Xi and Putin fall asleep during their military briefings like he did.

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

What is the question here? Is anyone claiming that foreign policies are entirely or mostly based on morality?  Of course not, but human nature and behaviour is complex and drivers are varied and includes ethical considerations, so it isn't entirely unlikely that morality can be a factor to some extent in some policies and relations. Take foreign aid as an example that definitely may have a moral component. Arguing that it is either always based on morality or never based on morality, is simplifying things too much, in my opinion.

Regardless, Ukraine has done nothing deserving its invasion by Russia. Ukraine is a sovereign state that is allowed to make whatever alliances and friends it may. Nothing excuses Russia's invasion and war. One might even argue that if you live next to a country that is so hostile and eager to start wars, Ukraine's orientation towards the West, for protection and prosperity, made a lot of sense but came too late.

Morality is greatly overrated in why states do what they do foreign policy wise, that's what is being stated here. Even foreign aid are essentially bribes to move a countries foreign policy closer to your own. Such as the US' aid to Egypt, that's essentially a bribe to them to not attack Israel!

I haven't seen anyone serious claim Putin is really in the moral right. The most that some will argue is that his actions are understandable from a great power geopolitical sense (sphere's of influence and all that).

But the question should be focused on what do we actually do now with this situation that is raging right now. What policies should be considered, and which should be chosen. We can yammer on all day about how morally wrong Putin is, but that isn't going to make Russian forces disappear from the Ukraine now is it.

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

I’m hoping that the latest reports about the Russian losses are true. It sounds a bit too good to be true but fingers crossed there’s some truth in it. 

It honestly sounds one level up from Qanon levels of believability. Qanon for more sophisticated people.

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I also don’t think that international relations should be amoral. But I do believe that international relations are amoral and, in many cases, immoral 

That is so nail on the head. The moral reasons given are mainly to sell foreign policy to the public. No one can tell me with a straight face that the US chose Saudi Arabia as an ally based on morality.

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

I don't know about the current report. I'm generally wary, because it's a war and there is a lot of propaganda from both sides. It also should be taken into account that the Ukrainian government - understandable on their part - wants to drag NATO into direct war, and this kind of stories may aim at putting pressure through the public opinion in the West. We'll know the truth only after it all ends.

 

And I don't blame them for it. It would be criminal for them to not spin the facts in their favor to get a favorable outcome. That's what all effective politicians and leaders do. It's on everyone else to not take the bait and separate the wheat from the chafe as they say.

5 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

LOL I also had a big fight against sleep for the first hour or so. There is no better place/way to sleep than in the dark cinema. But judging by what I saw, I think this was the best portrayal of Batman since '92. Batman is finally a detective again. Not some random superhero, who just coincidently looks like a bat. I still think Pattinson is grossly miscast as Bruce Wayne, but luckily he's Batman most of the time and as that he's quite alright. Not sure what tehy did with the Riddler, because that sure as hell wasn't the riddler, but the story, while not quite perfect, moved along and the movie, despite it's length, didn't drag.

Amen on the detective bit. I actually made a joke on this forum like a year ago that I was totally ready for a Batman detective story with minimal fighting. More of a Sherlock Holmes with a suit. Ok this wasn't totally that, but the pace is much slower than typical superhero schlock and there were no quips or cheap one-liners, naturally I loved all of this. People have said this has a 70's film vibe, which is a good thing because 70's film is amazing. The Gotham atmosphere that Reeves created in this is so captivating. It's on par with Burton's Gotham aesthetic/vibe, which I hold in very high regard.

9 hours ago, grouse said:

And by doing so, you are condoning what is going on there. That is not the side of the fence I'd want to be on.  

I actually want this war to stop and I'm grown up enough to realize Putin isn't magically going to disappear. The Ukrainians will lose this war, and NATO and the US don't want to get into a shooting war with Russia (with China lurking on the sidelines). I'd rather have the Ukrainians lose now and negotiate some type of peace rather than get obliterated completely. You guys who want to give arms to Ukraine are just delaying the inevitable and giving Ukraine false hope (and there will be more dead Ukrainians in the process of that). That's my take.

3 hours ago, -Jaro- said:

Don't really understand posts questioning helping and cheerung Ukraine. Their people woukd rather die fighting than living as Russians slaves. And yes, slaves would they be. Just like they did in years before WW2 - read about The Holodomor. And just like they were in years after WW2...

And while they want to fight, only correct way for the rest of us is to help them every way we can ( and fear of Putins wrath allow us)...

While Ukraine people have attitude like this:

 

No way Russia could rule them even if they defeat their army. Ukraine is large country, has 40 mil people, you cannot occupy it and hold by force, especialy if you are Russia whose economy is almost zero under sanctions, and already have to control few potential hotbeds of rebellion accros 2 continents, support puppet goverment in only "friendly" country - current Belarus gvnt would collapse within days without Putins help.

Here's my thing, they can choose to fight, that's their right. But it's also my right to refuse them arms to encourage them to keep doing so. If they know no support is coming from the outside that gives them more incentive to negotiate a deal now rather than later.

A Holomodor part 2 isn't coming. Let's just put that to the side. I'm not saying Putin is a good guy, but he's not Stalin, Kaganovich, or Beria level bad.

4 hours ago, downzy said:

Where are you seeing that?

I’ve been reading the opposite…

 

Yeah I figured Putin would go harder in his rhetoric, so this isn't surprising.. Even if his ultimate goal is the Eastern Republics and an independent (buffer state) Ukraine. He is asking for more as leverage (ie, deal with me now and take the deal as I'm offering, or I take the whole country).

This is essentially my position (Clint Ehrlich's).

Actually it's funny, the other guy who is looking for hope of Russia losing and brings up the Russian-Finnish war of 1940. I read recently that Mannerheim actually said the Finns were about 2 weeks come completely breaking and the Russians winning when the truce was called. The Russians only stopped the invasion because they had spies in the allied camp and they were very close to intervening to help Finland.

4 minutes ago, downzy said:

We shouldn’t be under any illusions that Ukraine is going to prevail, but it is striking we’re nine days in and Ukraine can still take to the skies…

 

How do we know that second claim is true? I have my doubts. If they have air superiority shouldn't they be able to destroy those Russian convoys?

25 minutes ago, Sweersa said:

Heard a report this morning about some Ukrainian women being brutally assaulted and raped by Russians. Most in that report died in the hospital.  Not uncommon at all during a war, but still awful, of course.

Reminds me of what I heard Russians doing to the German women and children after World War II, though I'm sure it happened on both sides, as it always does.

War is hell, no doubt. May God be with those who can't defend themselves.

Yeah the rapes by the red army are probably worst I know of. Mass rapes of millions of German women, women from  8 to 80. I wouldn't underplay their propaganda minister, Ilya Ehrenburg, that really whipped those guys up into a frenzy. They even raped Polish and Jewish women because they were just raping whatever they could their hands on.