WW3 Please SAY NO!

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Why is Zelenskyy being dubbed a hero when all he has done is refuse to negotiate with Russia, then force 18-60 year old makes to stay and fight? He takes opportunistic photos that are nothing but propaganda, yet claims to be on the front lines.

This is spot on and something that really bothers me about the media and society all together. So quick to automatically declare someone is heroic because it just "feels right" so everyone just runs with it.

I was disgusted at a CNN headline today comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill... reminded me of some member of congress shouting at a member of Trump's cabinet, don't recall who or the particular matter, "Sir, do you not have any decency!" only to see all the cretins cheer on the cringeworthy imitation. It seems our culture relies on what might as well be thespians spewing cheesy lines and rhetoric for inspiration. I'm a conservative (I guess?), but this is pervasive across Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and anyone who can't acknowledge that their preferred news source isn't just as biased is living in a fantasy world. It's all the same tomfoolery and I'm as ashamed of someone I probably agree with as much as the prima donnas I oppose for falling for the ruse.

I think we're already living in some type of satirical dystopia... Seems as though the likely outcome of this conflict will either take the humous part of that out of that equation or, hopefully, back to some version of a sane world.

BTW, I hope Zelenskyy does prove to be heroic but to me that's a very serious word to throw around... akin to labeling someone a HOF caliber player.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

This is spot on and something that really bothers me about the media and society all together. So quick to automatically declare someone is heroic because it just "feels right" so everyone just runs with it.

Maybe - and bear with me because this might sound crazy - it “feels right” for people who love their country for all it faults, no matter where that may be, to label someone heroic when that person heads the democratically elected government of a nation being invaded by someone bent on destroying that right of self governance and (here’s where it gets crazy) then in the face of all odds and with free western governments offering him heli-ubers left and right stays with his people as they fight the invading force.

[sbfinley]

I’m beginning to think I’m sheepish from praising Zelensky for not running away from and capitulating to the invaded force shelling small civilian towns and taking among its victims two toddlers today. I should probably get woke and hold off my judgement until I found out if he ate the same Olive Garden as a Burisma executive.


https://twitter.com/myroslavapetsa/s...FU1jTUoltpnoSQ

[Shoeless Moe]

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

That probably would have eliminated A LOT of civilian deaths, not to mention the flattening of cities.

The U.S. should be the last ones criticizing civilian deaths after we dropped 2 A-Bombs on ENTIRE cities, and killed 100's of thousands of civilians.

That being said let's stay on the present day, where everyone is a little more civilized.

But I don't know the exact numbers but possibly 100 civilians dead so far.
Those A-Bombs killed well over 200,000. Let's not go nuts here. That's quite difference.

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

NATO has yet to provide Fifers and Drummers to Ukraine. Conversely the Russian musical instruments are stuck at the back of 40 mile convoy.

I love ya Moe personally, but I can’t believe we’re laying any amount of blame higher than zero on Zelensky for not adhering to Napoleonic era military tactics. If Zelensky and his people believe concessions are acceptable I have no problem with whatever they accept. (For reference the most recent Russia list of concessions demanded included re-writing the Ukrainian constitution.)

It’s their country, it’s their sovereign right to govern themselves. It’s their homes, land, and businesses. They had so many people voluntarily sign up (not conscripted) for the Territorial Defense force they couldn’t arm them all.

When the invaders accepted a ceasefire in Mariupol to allow civilians to leave they only allowed movement on one specific route. Before the ceasefire they bombed the route making it impassable. A second ceasefire had to be agreed upon because no-one was able to leave. Russia demanded the second evacuation had to stick a different specific route. The Red Cross checked the route and discovered land mines and butterfly mines (banned by the Geneva convention) on the route. They are now trying to reach a third agreement.

I will not blame them for fighting for the God given sovereign right to govern themselves.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

I hope something like that happens, but I can't imagine it at this point. I think even if both were willing to make concessions it would be laying the groundwork for an even bigger conflict in the future. Think about how NATO would view Russia at that point and would they just lift all sanctions at that point. I just think that would alleviate the problem in the short run but lead to WW3.

I think the only way to avert WW3 is for a Ukraine victory without direct NATO involvement. Maybe, just maybe, if things really turned south against Putin and he realized there was no way to victory and he would agree to some type of a deal and Ukraine would give up some territory with a lot of concessions from Russia. I just can't see that happening though. I'm really not sure how this turns out but I fear it's only a matter of time before a lot more countries get pulled into this.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

Yeah, sure. A bunch of guys standing against 20 miles of tanks. That would be smart.

If an inner city gang invaded my home with intent to kill me, I would take cover. I wouldn't walk into my front yard to "fight fair."

[egri]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

That probably would have eliminated A LOT of civilian deaths, not to mention the flattening of cities.

The U.S. should be the last ones criticizing civilian deaths after we dropped 2 A-Bombs on ENTIRE cities, and killed 100's of thousands of civilians.

That being said let's stay on the present day, where everyone is a little more civilized.

But I don't know the exact numbers but possibly 100 civilians dead so far.
Those A-Bombs killed well over 200,000. Let's not go nuts here. That's quite difference.

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

Serious question, should George Washington have surrendered after his defeat in New York, or Winston Churchill have surrendered after Dunkirk? Both would have saved a lot of civilian deaths, but left their respective countries much worse off.

Putin is a liar and a thug, and his domestic critics are either dead or in jail. Any peace will only last as long as it takes him to replace his losses, then he will be on the march again. Besides, the Russians are getting taken to the woodshed. Their advance has stalled out, their generals are getting picked off like fish in a barrel, and with the muddy season about to start, they won't be going anywhere any time soon.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by egri

Serious question, should George Washington have surrendered after his defeat in New York, or Winston Churchill have surrendered after Dunkirk? Both would have saved a lot of civilian deaths, but left their respective countries much worse off.

Putin is a liar and a thug, and his domestic critics are either dead or in jail. Any peace will only last as long as it takes him to replace his losses, then he will be on the march again. Besides, the Russians are getting taken to the woodshed. Their advance has stalled out, their generals are getting picked off like fish in a barrel, and with the muddy season about to start, they won't be going anywhere any time soon.

Churchill had some help coming. Not sure Zelensky does.

Washington, he had the homefield advantage, them Brits had a long boat ride across the pond, and it was a fairly even strength battle wasn't it, I don't recall numbers for each side.

This is like my little league team taking on the Yankees. Granted they are looking more like the Orioles, but still. As for taken to the Woodshed, not sure we are watching the same skirmish. Maybe they have put up more resistance then Putty expected, but I do not see the tide turning. As of now looks like they are just delaying the inevitable.

[sbfinley]

The operation to evacuate forces at Dunkirk happened in May 1940 when American isolationism was still polling at about 70%. When thousands of British civilian sailors crossed the channel into a war zone to save their boys there absolutely was not someone coming to help. They were alone on an Island, the last bastion against fascist leadership in Europe. They weathered and they won.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Churchill had some help coming. Not sure Zelensky does.

In addition to what Steve mentioned, the US ambassador to the UK at the time was a Nazi sympathizer. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Washington, he had the homefield advantage, them Brits had a long boat ride across the pond, and it was a fairly even strength battle wasn't it, I don't recall numbers for each side.

Washington never directly commanded more than 17,000 troops at any one time, and most of them were poorly trained militiamen. The British army, which at the time was the largest, best-trained and well-equipped force in the world, had 48,000 men in North America, plus another 30,000 German mercenaries, 13,000 Indians and 25,000 loyalists.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

This is like my little league team taking on the Yankees. Granted they are looking more like the Orioles, but still. As for taken to the Woodshed, not sure we are watching the same skirmish. Maybe they have put up more resistance then Putty expected, but I do not see the tide turning. As of now looks like they are just delaying the inevitable.

The Russians still have not destroyed the Ukrainian Air Force (their objective on day 1), taken Kyiv (day 3), and are nowhere near ready to install a puppet government (end of the first week). They were expecting to have this done and dusted by now, and instead are spinning their wheels and taking heavy casualties. Meanwhile, Ukraine is receiving a steady flow of equipment and volunteers from abroad, while the Russian economy is in free fall, they are staring at a default on their debt, and the Ruble-USD exchange rate is now 144-1.

Look at Putin's body language here. He doesn't look or sound like someone who is winning; he looks like his parents caught him misbehaving and now he's trying to explain why he shouldn't get sent to bed without any supper.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Maybe - and bear with me because this might sound crazy - it “feels right” for people who love their country for all it faults, no matter where that may be, to label someone heroic when that person heads the democratically elected government of a nation being invaded by someone bent on destroying that right of self governance and (here’s where it gets crazy) then in the face of all odds and with free western governments offering him heli-ubers left and right stays with his people as they fight the invading force.

I think we just view the word heroic differently. Pretty much an easy binary choice he had to make. He made the right one and should be applauded for that. Not saying that I'd like to change places with him, and I'm not egotistical enough to think I'd somehow wind up in his position, but I feel fairly confident that I and everyone else on this board would've done the same. Brave? Yes. Heroic? Not quite yet.

He's basically in a George W. Bush post 9/11 situation right now. Opinions may differ but the overwhelming majority probably wouldn't declare Bush as being heroic now. Not comparing people but just the situation.

Regardless, I'm obviously wanting to see Russia pull out before things get any worse and he definitely deserves praise for doing the right thing.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

I think we just view the word heroic differently. Pretty much an easy binary choice he had to make. He made the right one and should be applauded for that.

I disagree it was easy. Easy would be accepting a NATO chopper to Berlin and leading a government in exile. Easy would be leaving and watching the people who freely elected you be absorbed by a nation detaining a survivor of the siege of Leningrad for standing outside the Kremlin and calling for peace. There is nothing about his choice that was “easy.” That’s just my opinion though.

[Exhibitman]

"Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"
--John Lennon

Pray to whatever gods you believe in and for the sake of all our children that this is not the start of WWIII.

Peace and Love, brothers and sisters. Out.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

"Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"
--John Lennon

Pray to whatever gods you believe in and for the sake of all our children that this is not the start of WWIII.

Peace and Love, brothers and sisters. Out.

Enough of that Lennon Communist manifesto!!!

Pick a better song, like say Twisted Sister "We're Not Gonna Take It" for the Ukraine. And maybe "Rapid Fire" by Judas Priest for the Russians.

Funny story, well not really a story, but at the grocery store yesterday, and this guy maybe 50-60's and I are perusing the salad dressings, and he points to the Russian dressing and says "don't get that one". Cracked me up.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Funny story, well not really a story, but at the grocery store yesterday, and this guy maybe 50-60's and I are perusing the salad dressings, and he points to the Russian dressing and says "don't get that one". Cracked me up.

Well, I'll tell you, if I went to Vegas I wouldn't play Russian roulette.