WW3 Please SAY NO!

[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.

[Shoeless Moe]

Churchill and the Brits would be speaking German right now if the US didn't get involved.

Don't kid yourself.

All Dunkirk was, was a successful retreat.

D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, etc were led by the US. That and the Russians encircling the Germans at Stalingrad, and stopping their advance on to Moscow, those events turned the tide.

Chruchill had BIG TIME help in the US & USSR.

Zelensky may have made the error in thinking he was getting help. Any he is currently getting is very minimal.

And did Putin ever say all this: we'll have this done by Day 1, this done by Day 3?

Provide that link. Not the media saying what his plan was. Could even be false propaganda for all we know. Could be true, that's why I'd like to see a link. They say he wanted it wrapped up in a week so he looks bad. Gives hope to the Ukrainians. Now what if they said he said he wanted it wrapped up in a month or 2. So then is he ahead of schedule?

Not sure how everyone knows what his plans were when I'm not even sure Putin knows. Yes, I'm sure he thought it would be easier. But what will he do in response: turn up the carnage. Not sure that's a much better alternative.

[Shoeless Moe]

....and let's not forget Churchill was voted out of office in 1945.

Apparently not the hero to all.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Churchill and the Brits would be speaking German right now if the US didn't get involved.

Don't kid yourself.

Where did I ever say anything like that? Unless you're confusing me with someone else in this thread?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

All Dunkirk was, was a successful retreat.

Not to mention the Russians encircling the Germans at Stalingrad, and stopping their advance on to Moscow, that turned the tide as well.

The only city the Russians have besieged so far is Mariupol, which is near the border with Russia and in the part of Ukraine that was very friendly to the Russians.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

And did Putin ever say all this: we'll have this done by Day 1, this done by Day 3?

Provide that link. Not the media saying what his plan was. Not sure how they know when I'm not even sure Putin knows. Yes, I'm sure he thought it would be easier. But what will he do in response: turn up the carnage. Not sure that's a much better alternative.

From Marco Rubio, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Yes, they could be wrong, but so far what he's been posting has been accurate.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by egri

From Marco Rubio, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Yes, they could be wrong, but so far what he's been posting has been accurate.

Senate Intelligence, now that's funny.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Churchill and the Brits would be speaking German right now if the US didn't get involved.

Hitler lost the war the minute he invaded the USSR June 22,1941. The Germans could never match the manpower or production from the unbombable Urals and further east. Stalin had no problem sacrificing millions of people in order to keep himself and communism in power. Eight out of every ten German soldiers killed in WW2 were on the Eastern Front. More German soldiers were killed in and around Stalingrad in one battle than were killed by the US the entire war.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Hitler lost the war the minute he invaded the USSR June 22,1941. The Germans could never match the manpower or production from the unbombable Urals and further east. Stalin had no problem sacrificing millions of people in order to keep himself and communism in power. Eight out of every ten German soldiers killed in WW2 were on the Eastern Front. More German soldiers were killed in and around Stalingrad in one battle than were killed by the US the entire war.

I believe I basically said that. Stalingrad was the turning point. But if the US are not involved on the East, that's more of Hitler's army fighting the Soviet Union on the West. Not sure if that changes anything, but possibly it would have.

I pose this question to you:

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE