WW3 Please SAY NO!

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

It's hard to have a face-saving way out of this, but something must be done. The sad truth is, the U.S. and Ukraine should have agreed to Ukraine being a neutral state a long time ago. But Russian hysteria, "Putin bad" thinking, and self-defeating U.S. delusions of hegemony kept that from happening. If they had simply dealt with Russia and engaged in the world of realpolitik, the invasion never would have happened. As far as admiring Zelensky, all I have to say, is that he is not going to defeat the Russians, and the U.S. and NATO are not going to directly fight the Russians. The U.S. encouraged Zelensky to play a dangerous game and it blew up in their faces. The U.S. never had any intentions of backing Ukraine up militarily.

The longer Zelensky holds out, the more his people are going to die. He may be trying to negotiate, but anything short of a promise to remain a neutral state will fail. Putin is not going to back down now. With some countries contemplating sending planes and Russia being on nuclear alert as well as stating that sanctions are tantamount to an act of war, the situation is getting more and more dangerous. Zelensky is frankly being selfish and self-defeating by asking the U.S. to establish a no-fly zone and not reading the handwriting on the wall.

If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence. If you wouldn’t then that’s fine, if you would however in one breath be willing to fight for the United States right to govern itself democratically and in the last breath call Zelensky selfish for doing just that - then you you’re completely missing the point.

Our country was built on the blood of people who died for our sovereign independence. Expecting another nation to hide under the covers when their moment arises is cowardice.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence. If you wouldn’t then that’s fine, if you would however in one breath be willing to fight for the United States right to govern itself democratically and in the last breath call Zelensky selfish for doing just that - then you you’re completely missing the point.

Our country was built on the blood of people who died for our sovereign independence. Expecting another nation to hide under the covers when their moment arises is cowardice.

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

[jgannon]

I'll just add that negotiating a peace is not surrender or cowardice.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

124 word response and you didn’t even come close to answering the question. If America’s sovereign right to govern itself was challenged by an invading force would you fight to defend (or expect those capable) it or would you accept an outside power dictating your governance? Don’t slyly evade the question like a corrupt politician. Answer it.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

124 word response and you didn’t even come close to answering the question. If America’s sovereign right to govern itself was challenged by an invading force would you fight to defend (or expect those capable) it or would you accept an outside power dictating your governance? Don’t slyly evade the question like a corrupt politician. Answer it.

Bugger off. Russia doesn't have to remain an occupying force. Russia wants Ukraine to remain a neutral state.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Bugger off. Russia doesn't have to remain an occupying force. Russia wants Ukraine to remain a neutral state.

Answer the question then.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

I'm sure glad people don't think we are a "free" country with a recently stolen election. Also, I'm sure glad we don't have corruption in our country. Lastly, it's a blessing that we don't have neo-Nazis groups in this country, I don't know, holding rallies. Because if we did, people would think other countries would be justified in freeing us by military force.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I'm sure glad people don't think we are a "free" country with a recently stolen election. Also, I'm sure glad we don't have corruption in our country. Lastly, it's a blessing that we don't have neo-Nazis groups in this country, I don't know, holding rallies. Because if we did, people would think other countries would be justified in freeing us by military force.

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance. As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance. As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

I've asked others before, maybe you know: if Russia takes over Ukraine, how does this lessen the encirclement by NATO?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I've asked others before, maybe you know: if Russia takes over Ukraine, how does this lessen the encirclement by NATO?

Well if Puerto Rico and Cuba were aligned against us with weapons and missiles in those countries to potentially be used against us. Would we be wanting Haiti and the Dominican Republic to join on board?

It was a red line Putin drew a long time ago, back in 2007. He has been consistent on it. I do not support his invasion at all. But the U.S. and Ukraine were reckless and stupid.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Well if Puerto Rico and Cuba were aligned against us with weapons and missiles in those countries to potentially be used against us. Would we be wanting Haiti and the Dominican Republic to join on board?

It was a red line Putin drew a long time ago, back in 2007. He has been consistent on it. I do not support his invasion at all. But the U.S. and Ukraine were reckless and stupid.

This is not an equal analogy. How about this: Russia is North Carolina, the Ukraine is South Carolina. Georgia would be Poland. So NC invades SC because they are worried about it joining NATO and it doesn't want another NATO country on it's doorstep. Now it's territory includes SC, and, well, shit, now we're next door to a NATO country!!

The whole "We invaded Ukraine because we're worried about NATO" excuse doesn't fly, sorry. How sure are you this is the real reason for this invasion??

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance. As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

Makes no sense. Now, he has Ukraine as a non-NATO buffer. If he reunifies Ukraine, he has NATO (Poland, primarily) on his western border. Had Ukraine joined NATO, he'd have NATO on his western border.

Regardless, you don't just decide you're unhappy with the politics of a neighbor and then roll tanks in to destroy their lives and buildings.

By the way, NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a joint defensive pact only, not a joint offensive agreement. The only reason Putin would feel threatened by a defensive alliance would be that it poses an obstacle to his offensive war plans.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Makes no sense. Now, he has Ukraine as a non-NATO buffer. If he reunifies Ukraine, he has NATO (Poland, primarily) on his western border. Had Ukraine joined NATO, he'd have NATO on his western border.

Regardless, you don't just decide you're unhappy with the politics of a neighbor and then roll tanks in to destroy their lives and buildings.

By the way, NATO is a defensive alliance. It is a joint defensive pact only, not a joint offensive agreement. The only reason Putin would feel threatened by a defensive alliance would be that it poses an obstacle to his offensive war plans.

While NATO is a defensive alliance, the entire reason for it's existence and for the missile buildup for so many years during the Cold War was distrust. Both countries were aware of the balance of power regarding how many missiles each country had, as well as where they were deployed, which had a bearing on how quickly they could react to a potential nuclear attack.

If as you say, NATO is defensive, Russia may be asking why do they need to arm and deploy when we do not seek to attack them.

The U.S. also pulled out of treaties such as the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The U.S. pulled out of those, not Russia.

Lastly, missiles are deployed in Poland and being constructed in Romania. Russia doesn't see these as defensive actions, but provocative ones.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

While NATO is a defensive alliance, the entire reason for it's existence and for the missile buildup for so many years during the Cold War was distrust. Both countries were aware of the balance of power regarding how many missiles each country had, as well as where they were deployed, which had a bearing on how quickly they could react to a potential nuclear attack.

And Russia hasn't attacked a NATO country, and no NATO country has invaded Russia. NATO has helped keep the peace to everyones' benefit (besides Putin's expansionist desires that is.)

Originally Posted by jgannon

If as you say, NATO is defensive, Russia may be asking why do they need to arm and deploy when we do not seek to attack them.

To remain prepared, as a deterrent, obviously. Why does Russia's army conduct exercises, missile tests, etc. if they are not a threat? And what's with "If, as you say...?" Are you uncertain regarding NATO's defensive charter?

Originally Posted by jgannon

The U.S. also pulled out of treaties such as the ABM Treaty, the INF Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The U.S. pulled out of those, not Russia.

According to Wiki, the USSR has the most nuclear warheads in the world, 700 more than the USA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...more%20rows%20

When Russia has more weapons already, and when they either don't comply with treaties or make verification difficult if not impossible, what good are treaties?

Originally Posted by jgannon

Lastly, missiles are deployed in Poland and being constructed in Romania. Russia doesn't see these as defensive actions, but provocative ones.

Don't you think some of Russia's 1,456 deployed nuclear warheads are pointed towards Poland, Romania, and all other NATO countries?

You sure do have a one-sided view of things.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

How you doing AustinJoeMcCarthy?

Ha ha, I am doing fine. Oh if Joe only called people stooges back in the day, he wouldn't be as well known as he is now, would he?

Originally Posted by jgannon

Russia invaded Ukraine because of encirclement by NATO and the threat of the addition of Ukraine to that alliance.

See Ted's (gawaintheknight) response above.

Originally Posted by jgannon

As far as neo-nazis go, in Ukraine they have committed atrocities in the east.

You mean like this:

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2...ines-war-camps

"‘Some stay, some die’: The horror of Ukraine’s war camps"

Now, I don't mean to be flippant or play the "both sides" game, because atrocities are not something to be casually dismissed. But it's just another one of Putin's excuses to invade. Again, see Ted's post.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

Gee Mike, careful there. Using logic, reason, history, and supposed intelligence doesn't always work with everyone. LOL

The real problem is we're all humans, and it doesn't matter if you're red, white, black, yellow, brown, or green with purple polka dots, there are going to be a--holes among each and every group. Always have been and always will be. We can all imagine and believe we are so intelligent, sophisticated, and developed that we can rise above our often petty, self-absorbed, insecure and instinctual natures and be something other than our true selves. But that will never happen because the human animal (and yes, we are mammals) are really no different than any other creature on this planet, except for the extremely lucky situation where our brains and intelligence have developed to an un-before known level. That still doesn't change the fact that human nature and instincts will always be part of us, no matter what we say, do, or think, and we truly are no better or different from the other creatures on this planet.

As such, there is likely no country or society on this planet that does not have some level of corruption or evil in it and controlling it to some extent, and that includes the US, which has it's more than fair share of abominable acts and treatment of others in our relatively short history, to yet live down. The vast majority of common, everyday people (regardless of race or society) really wish no one else harm, or are criminally racist, and just want to live their lives as peacefully and happily as possible. But then human nature gets in the way again, and you will always have some people that for whatever reasons will never be satisfied, and always want more. Doesn't matter what it is, they'll just want more of it, and will stop at nothing to get it. These are the kinds of people that often rise to positions or levels of power, control, and authority because due to our "human nature" again, others will adopt their beliefs and thinking and follow them, because as a group, humans tend to not think for themselves so much. They'll most always think of themselves, just not for themselves.

Sadly, most all of the leaders of our world today have deficiencies and issues that helped to create and cause virtually all of the grief and problems we are suffering for as the human race, on a daily basis. And here's the big point, even if we were somehow able to suddenly remove every single politician, ruler, military leader, business leader, and so forth, behind and responsible for how the world is being run today, it really wouldn't matter. Likely within a year, six months, or even less time, an entirely new group of horrible humans will step in to take over and allow their greed, corruption, fears, biases, insecurities, megalomanias, and whatever else they have and may be harboring to end up running the world as badly as the current group has been doing, if not even making it worse.

And as for studying history so we don't repeat it, there are some monumental problems with that logic. First off being that we are human and have instincts, hormones, and emotions that rise above any knowledge and learning we may otherwise think gets us to ignore such human traits. But it ain't ever happening. People do things every single day that are bad for them or that they know they shouldn't do, yet no matter how smart they are, they still do them. Plus, however intelligent we humans think we are, we truly are still just dumb, and in the end really no better or more deserving of being on this planet than any other creature in the world. And as for history itself, don't forget the old adage that history is written by the victors. Just think if Washington had lost the Revolutionary War instead. Chances are he would have been shot/hanged as a traitor, and would likely be no more than a footnote in history today. Or what if Hitler had somehow prevailed in WWII? Who knows what the world would look like, and how people would think today. I know this all sounds pretty depressing and bleak for mankind, but look back at experiments of John Calhoun with mice and the development of his Behavioral Sink Theory. And then ask yourself if we are really any better or different than the mice. And all this arguing, insults, and going back and forth about all this stuff in this thread just helps to further prove true most of the points I'm making.

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!! For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!! For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

Problem is.... it's not stupidity at all, if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac.

World War 2 doesn't happen if you could remove about 4 people before it all began: Tojo, Adolf, Joe, and Benny. Your average German and Brit would've rather played a friendly game of cards over a pint or two than try to kill each other, and the average Italian wanted nothing to do with that war in the first place. They weren't bad combatants - they just weren't killers (and I've been to Italy and believe me, they love Americans and everyone else generally.)

Japanese and American people had respect for each other before the war (baseball was becoming a huge part of Japanese life in the years before the war, and still is the basis of a strong cultural bond between that country and ours.)

Generally, populations don't hate each other and wouldn't choose war; it is governments. In the case of Russia, their government tends to consist of one man - the one brutal enough to eliminate his rivals.

So when Putin gives the order to bomb hospitals and kill women and children, it isn't a matter of stupidity. The problem is, he simply doesn't care.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Problem is.... it's not stupidity at all, if you're a psychopathic megalomaniac.

World War 2 doesn't happen if you could remove about 4 people before it all began: Tojo, Adolf, Joe, and Benny. Your average German and Brit would've rather played a friendly game of cards over a pint or two than try to kill each other, and the average Italian wanted nothing to do with that war in the first place. They weren't bad combatants - they just weren't killers (and I've been to Italy and believe me, they love Americans and everyone else generally.)

Japanese and American people had respect for each other before the war (baseball was becoming a huge part of Japanese life in the years before the war, and still is the basis of a strong cultural bond between that country and ours.)

Generally, populations don't hate each other and wouldn't choose war; it is governments. In the case of Russia, their government tends to consist of one man - the one brutal enough to eliminate his rivals.

So when Putin gives the order to bomb hospitals and kill women and children, it isn't a matter of stupidity. The problem is, he simply doesn't care.

Absolutely agree with a lot of what you're saying Mark, but the bottom line is people were stupid for originally putting such psychopathic megalomaniacs into positions of power to do the crap they do in the first place. And even if they may not have started out being psychopathic megalomaniacs, once they started exhibiting the telltale signs, people were still too stupid to remove them from power, and still dumb enough to believe and follow them. So yes, it ultimately is our own overall stupidity that allows this to happen.

As I had said before, humans almost always think of themselves, but rarely for themselves. So when one crackpot comes along and says and does things a lot of people think will benefit them in some way, they generally go along to adopt similar beliefs and follow them, blindly in a lot of cases. And once they do make such a connection, another common human trait often kicks in, the one where we don't like to admit to others, and ourselves, that we were wrong about something or someone. So even if the person they were following starts to do things their followers may not think are that great, as long as those followers themselves aren't directly getting negatively hurt or impacted, they're likely to just dismiss, or even outright ignore, whatever not so great things the person they're following has done or is doing.

In the end, it all comes down to overall human stupidity for the majority of us allowing a select few to be able to tell us what to do, and then not doing something about it when we finally realize some of those select few leaders shouldn't be leading anymore. The only real differences between people like Trump, Putin, Biden, and the likes of Charles Manson, is the number of people they were able to sway and otherwise coerce into believing and following them. They've all had people following them go out and hurt and kill others for them and in their names. Except some are viewed as world leaders, whereas others are considered as crazy cult founders and insane criminals. Guess it just depends on how many people you can get to drink your own personal flavor of Kool-Aid as to which option such people end up falling under.

To me, the one thing that does make sense is the Golden Rule, it is an extreme pity that it seems to not be truly followed by many people on this planet. It would certainly be a lot better place if everyone did.

[AustinMike]

Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote. Do I think we can solve all our problems by learning from history? Of course not. Firstly, take a thousand people and a single historical event and you will probably get nearly a thousand interpretations of how that event should be reflected in actions today. Secondly, societal norms and morals change through time. What was once accepted, may no longer be accepted today.

But, does that mean we shouldn't try to use historical events to provide some background to how we approach things today? Of course not.

Originally Posted by BobC

What needs to immediately stop is the stupidity of senseless killing, and infliction of pain and suffering, ON ALL SIDES!!!!!!!!!

I do take some exceptions with the part of your post that I quote above. I am tired of the bothsidesism that seems to permeate throughout any topical discourse today. In the current conflict, the one presently under discussion, there is only ONE side that is causing senseless killing and infliction of pain and suffering. Wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by BobC

For supposedly being the most intelligent life form on this planet, or at least thinking we are, we are pretty f---ing stupid!!!!!!

Could not agree with you more.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote. Do I think we can solve all our problems by learning from history? Of course not. Firstly, take a thousand people and a single historical event and you will probably get nearly a thousand interpretations of how that event should be reflected in actions today. Secondly, societal norms and morals change through time. What was once accepted, may no longer be accepted today.

But, does that mean we shouldn't try to use historical events to provide some background to how we approach things today? Of course not.



I do take some exceptions with the part of your post that I quote above. I am tired of the bothsidesism that seems to permeate throughout any topical discourse today. In the current conflict, the one presently under discussion, there is only ONE side that is causing senseless killing and infliction of pain and suffering. Wouldn't you agree?



Could not agree with you more.

Hey Mike, The one thing you disagreed with me on is actually not supposed to just be about the current situation. My apologies if it didn't come across that way. That statement was made in regard to all the situations that have ever occurred in the history of mankind, what is going on right now, and what has yet to occur in the future, in which innocent people on all different sides of these issues always seem to end up being the ones paying the highest price. I'm not for both sides, I'm really more for no sides, unless you are counting ALL the common, ordinary, everyday people from ALL races and societies as one unified side. That is the side I am for, not the ones created and put out there by the various leaders in different countries/societies/religions around the world. I always think of the old Black Sabbath song, War Pigs, and tend to view most politicians and military leaders, and some religious leaders, in that light. If these people are supposed to be our leaders and speaking out and fighting for us (Or is it really more for them?), why do they always do it from the rear? If we made all these a--hole politicians, religious, and military leaders who keep getting us into all these conflicts actually have to go out and face one another in fights, instead of sending out young people that still have their whole lives ahead of them to kill and be killed on their behalf, I wonder how much more often they'd come up with peaceful, rational solutions to problems, as opposed to actually ever risking their own lives.

And granted, that won't work in deterring all political/military/religious leaders from still getting us into all kinds of conflicts because let's face it, some of them will always still be psychopathic megalomaniacs. But maybe we can at least start culling the herd of them if they want to kill each other off fighting among themselves. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

[sbfinley]

While some garbage want to justify this terrible invasion and it’s horrible cost to human lives and well being because Russia was threatened by NATO expansion: here are actual heroes threatened.

Today in the Ukrainian city of Melitopol, protestors in the city squared were threatened and told they would be shot if they exited the square. So they went for a stroll, and protested throughout the city. This is how real patriots face adversity, not fakriots justifying the slaughter and destruction of a neighbor state that wants to self govern.


https://www.mv.org.ua/news/264230-v_...qg3MMmd6sh4k7A

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hey Mike, The one thing you disagreed with me on is actually not supposed to just be about the current situation. My apologies if it didn't come across that way. That statement was made in regard to all the situations that have ever occurred in the history of mankind, what is going on right now, and what has yet to occur in the future, in which innocent people on all different sides of these issues always seem to end up being the ones paying the highest price. I'm not for both sides, I'm really more for no sides, unless you are counting ALL the common, ordinary, everyday people from ALL races and societies as one unified side. That is the side I am for, not the ones created and put out there by the various leaders in different countries/societies/religions around the world. I always think of the old Black Sabbath song, War Pigs, and tend to view most politicians and military leaders, and some religious leaders, in that light. If these people are supposed to be our leaders and speaking out and fighting for us (Or is it really more for them?), why do they always do it from the rear? If we made all these a--hole politicians, religious, and military leaders who keep getting us into all these conflicts actually have to go out and face one another in fights, instead of sending out young people that still have their whole lives ahead of them to kill and be killed on their behalf, I wonder how much more often they'd come up with peaceful, rational solutions to problems, as opposed to actually ever risking their own lives.

And granted, that won't work in deterring all political/military/religious leaders from still getting us into all kinds of conflicts because let's face it, some of them will always still be psychopathic megalomaniacs. But maybe we can at least start culling the herd of them if they want to kill each other off fighting among themselves. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you intended.

As for Black Sabbath, they're one of my favorite bands (I especially love Vol. 4, but Paranoid is also a great album). Another great song on this topic is Dylan's "Masters of War" on his Freewheelin' album.

100% agree with the rest.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Putin is not Hitler and is not seeking to invade other countries. He told me last night.

That's what Hitler said.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Anyway, since I have you on the line, I looked a little bit more into what we were talking about regarding the so-called promise that was made to Gorbachev. And I have an article, which I'll share below, where Gorbachev says that the promise was made in regard to Germany only, but he goes on to say that the expansion of NATO broke the spirit of the agreement.

Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.

For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:

"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."

Originally Posted by jgannon

I also have an article by an author, who is Republican, who I respect very much named Eric Margolis, who is an expert on military history and history in general. I'll share that because he makes other claims. You say you looked at the documents that were released and could not find any evidence of promises broken. Margolis seems to differ.

https://www.rbth.com/international/2...lls_40673.html

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2...ave-it-writing

Margolis also gives George H.W., and Baker, credit for not expanding NATO.

Margolis claims:

"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."

Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?

In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.

Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust?

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

That's what Hitler said.



Oh, so do you now agree that Irv, Dore, and you are wrong to say that the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand to the east? That that is just a lie perpetrated by Putin and his stooges.

For anyone who doesn't want to click on the link, this is in the article and quotes Gorbachev:

"M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it."



Margolis claims:

"Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

"All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

"The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies."

Who do you believe more, Gorbachev or Margolis? Only one of them can be right. Do you believe the person who was actually a part of the negotiations or someone who claims you can read the shameless lies online without citing a single source for his claim?

In regards to documents, go back to my post where I provided a link to a site that seems to side with claim about the US lie AND provides links to documents (which Margolis DOES NOT do). Links to 30 documents are provided to support the claim. As I said, I looked at several documents (ones I thought most likely to contain proof of the promise) to find the smoking gun and did not find it. And no, I'm not going to look through all 30 documents to prove a negative (if I find nothing you'll claim that I missed it or it's in another document or something). You claim a promise to Russia was made, it is up to you to prove it. Look through those documents and find that proof. And no, citing an author you admire who happens to claim the same thing is not proof.

Think about it. Gorbachev was there. Reread what he said. Margolis was not there. Margolis says to read the documents. Which he DOES NOT provide. Who you gonna trust?

Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.

Regarding the Hitler and Putin comparison, just because Hitler continued to invade other countries, doesn't mean that is Putin's objective. I think if you read what he has said on the matter, you should agree. That doesn't make him a "beneficent" invader.

For the record, and this goes to everyone here - I am against the invasion. All I have tried to do is discuss why Putin might have made the move. I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.

Another aspect to this reminds me of what Harry Truman used to say, which is that after you defeat an enemy, you have to build them back up again, so as not to create a reason for revenge or retaliation. The U.S. won the Cold War. It completely had the upper hand while Russia went through a decade of internal chaos and weakness. The U.S. during this time proceeded to unnecessarily humiliate Russia and take advantage of their weakness by expanding NATO. Putin came along and was determined to reinstill Russian pride. He watched as NATO continued to expand and the U.S. pulled out of the ABM treaty. As early as 2007, he declared Ukranian membership in NATO unacceptable. Then U.S. was involved with the Ukranian coup in 2014. Then we unilaterally pulled out of the INF Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty. Seven years of civil war in Ukraine and the agreement between the U.S. and Ukraine last November, it would seem finally pushed Putin over the line.

In my opinion, he lost any high ground or argument he had regarding Ukraine once he invaded it. Jingoistic protestations and lack of understanding about geopolitics by most of the crew here notwithstanding, the U.S. definitely incompetently contributed to the invastion.

Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.

Gentlemen - a good day to you all. Let's hope there is a sane ending to what is going on in Ukraine. The quicker the better.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jgannon

I do think that it was a failure of U.S. policy to recognize how serious Putin was about the matter. All of this could have been averted.

What kind of appeasement would you have suggested?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.

Shemp, you may acknowledge what Gorbachev said about a NATO promise, but do you believe him? Based on the rest of your reply, the answer is, "No." If you did, you wouldn't have linked to Margolis' article where he pretty much only talks about the Russians being LIED to.

As for the highlighted portion, if there is something in there about this "spirit," find it. How many times do I have to tell you that you are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that your claim is valid. Do you really expect me to accept your claim because there MIGHT be something in the documents to support you? REALLY??

Lastly, in regards to this "spirit" that was "violated," how exactly would that be documented? If NATO expansion was never brought up by any country on either side, as Gorbachev says, what "spirit" are you talking about?

Shemp, I really don't get it. For some reason, you're still fishing for that angle so you can say Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of US lies or phantom "spirits" about NATO expansion.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.

Get used to it Shemp. There are those who say, "Love it or leave it." I don't know how many times I've heard that. There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence. If you wouldn’t then that’s fine, if you would however in one breath be willing to fight for the United States right to govern itself democratically and in the last breath call Zelensky selfish for doing just that - then you you’re completely missing the point.

Our country was built on the blood of people who died for our sovereign independence. Expecting another nation to hide under the covers when their moment arises is cowardice.

America is under siege - from within and abroad. That's a huge part of this discussion is recognizing the real enemy.

What if you weren't willing to die but you were banned from leaving by this so called "hero"? Is that a noble cause or corrupt politics? Prove Zelenskyy is fighting for Ukraine's sovereignty and not to protect a hidden agenda. Again, he's been posting propaganda left and right. Why falsify the number of Russian deaths within the first couple of days? Why allow people to say you're on the front lines when you're not? Question Zelenskyy. He could very well be full of integrity in this situation, but we don't know. And the fact that every single news outlet is reporting him as a hero - instantly - is extremely off to me.

I love this country (America) more than most. But I am sick and tired of it being destroyed, because this is the greatest damn country in the world. We lead by example - peace through strength. Ironically enough, the last president that exemplified that didn't see Russia grow its territory, nor did we have a single war started for 4 years. So when things don't add up, I'm going to ask questions. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You want to truly care about innocent people - Ukrainians and elsewhere? Figure out why the US is meddling in so many damn countries. Figure out why our president's son has a spot on a Ukrainian gas company's board, along with CIA, etc. Figure out why NATO still exists and is growing. Figure out why we have alliances with countries that are more pro-Russian than pro-America (Germany, Italy to name a couple). Figure out why we've stoked the flames with economic sanctions instead of taking military action against a country that is supposedly getting their asses handed to them by a bunch of under-manned, under-armed, and under-trained Ukrainians - or ask yourself if that's really happening based on those simple facts I laid out. Figure out why there are supposedly thousands of Russians dying, yet the vast majority of videos coming out are Russian attacks on Ukraine. Figure out why Russia had been staging their military for months prior to this conflict, and nobody did a damn thing about it. FIGURE OUT WHY GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S LITTLE BLACK BOOK HASN'T BEEN EXPOSED YET!

Saving lives starts with ridding the American government of as much corruption as we can - in both parties. I hate McConnell just as much as I hate Biden. I hate Ted Cruz just as much as I hate Obama. None of them give a damn about you and me - the average American citizen - so why shouldn't we be looking at every possible way to expose them?

Ask. The. Damn. Questions.

Hollywood is corruption's biggest ally. "I can't believe what I'm seeing, this is just like a movie. I never thought this would ever happen." Make reality fiction.

Sheep only say, "BAAAAAAA." Don't be a sheep.

Oh, and then do all of this questioning while paying $4+ - minimum - per gallon of gas because the person in charge right now, telling us that Putin/Russia are the enemy, cut our energy independence - only to buy 200k+ barrels of oil per day from Russia. Then ask who the real enemy is.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

America is under siege - from within and abroad. That's a huge part of this discussion is recognizing the real enemy.

What if you weren't willing to die but you were banned from leaving by this so called "hero"? Is that a noble cause or corrupt politics? Prove Zelenskyy is fighting for Ukraine's sovereignty and not to protect a hidden agenda. Again, he's been posting propaganda left and right. Why falsify the number of Russian deaths within the first couple of days? Why allow people to say you're on the front lines when you're not? Question Zelenskyy. He could very well be full of integrity in this situation, but we don't know. And the fact that every single news outlet is reporting him as a hero - instantly - is extremely off to me.

I love this country (America) more than most. But I am sick and tired of it being destroyed, because this is the greatest damn country in the world. We lead by example - peace through strength. Ironically enough, the last president that exemplified that didn't see Russia grow its territory, nor did we have a single war started for 4 years. So when things don't add up, I'm going to ask questions. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You want to truly care about innocent people - Ukrainians and elsewhere? Figure out why the US is meddling in so many damn countries. Figure out why our president's son has a spot on a Ukrainian gas company's board, along with CIA, etc. Figure out why NATO still exists and is growing. Figure out why we have alliances with countries that are more pro-Russian than pro-America (Germany, Italy to name a couple). Figure out why we've stoked the flames with economic sanctions instead of taking military action against a country that is supposedly getting their asses handed to them by a bunch of under-manned, under-armed, and under-trained Ukrainians - or ask yourself if that's really happening based on those simple facts I laid out. Figure out why there are supposedly thousands of Russians dying, yet the vast majority of videos coming out are Russian attacks on Ukraine. Figure out why Russia had been staging their military for months prior to this conflict, and nobody did a damn thing about it. FIGURE OUT WHY GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S LITTLE BLACK BOOK HASN'T BEEN EXPOSED YET!

Saving lives starts with ridding the American government of as much corruption as we can - in both parties. I hate McConnell just as much as I hate Biden. I hate Ted Cruz just as much as I hate Obama. None of them give a damn about you and me - the average American citizen - so why shouldn't we be looking at every possible way to expose them?

Ask. The. Damn. Questions.

Hollywood is corruption's biggest ally. "I can't believe what I'm seeing, this is just like a movie. I never thought this would ever happen." Make reality fiction.

Sheep only say, "BAAAAAAA." Don't be a sheep.

Oh, and then do all of this questioning while paying $4+ - minimum - per gallon of gas because the person in charge right now, telling us that Putin/Russia are the enemy, cut our energy independence - only to buy 200k+ barrels of oil per day from Russia. Then ask who the real enemy is.

Even more words. Not even gonna count them. Still didn’t answer it.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Even more words. Not even gonna count them. Still didn’t answer it.

Here you go. Here's a link to go fight in Ukraine.

https://fightforua.org/

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Here you go. Here's a link to go fight in Ukraine.

https://fightforua.org/

Still didn’t. I’m waiting. Or go away.

[sbfinley]

Lot’s of (I’m guessing) proud American’s can’t take the energy to say they’d fight for their nation’s sovereignty with their fingers on a message board got the gall to call out a nation and a leader willing to fight and die for their own. Pretty sure that’s not what we were founded on.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Still didn’t. I’m waiting. Or go away.

Whoa...


Well, you can keep waiting for all I care, lol.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Whoa...


Well, you can keep waiting for all I care, lol.

To be honest, that’s exactly the response I expected. Cheers and Happy Collecting.