(September 5, 2022 at 3:29 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Hell, while I can’t find much information on the historical approval ratings of British PMs, I’d be legit shocked if anyone after V-E Day ever reached 90%, and I’m not even convinced Churchill even reached that level.

Churchill was turned out of office in July 1945, while he was at the Yalta summit.

(September 5, 2022 at 3:43 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I think we're just going to have to accept that our brains work in very different ways. You have a very all or nothing, witch hunt mindset, and I do not.

The true mark of a troll: he takes a discussion about a global issue and makes it about himself. We're talking about Ukraine, Einstein, not your unique outlook and how much you are smarter.

Say, have you written the President yet? No doubt he's panting for your stellar insight.

(September 5, 2022 at 9:18 am)Helios Wrote: Indeed Russia will never employ its nukes over Ukraine. It's a bluff. What we can rely on is no deal with Putin can be trusted till he's been given no other option and the only way we get that is if Ukraine wins. Which it must. There is no other scenario where Ukraine is safe.

The true fallout from this war -- no matter who wins it -- is that Russia's international credibility under Putin is thoroughly shot. No one will believe them any more so long as he is in power ... and probably long after.

(September 5, 2022 at 6:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 5, 2022 at 9:18 am)Helios Wrote: Indeed Russia will never employ its nukes over Ukraine. It's a bluff. What we can rely on is no deal with Putin can be trusted till he's been given no other option and the only way we get that is if Ukraine wins. Which it must. There is no other scenario where Ukraine is safe.

The true fallout from this war -- no matter who wins it -- is that Russia's international credibility under Putin is thoroughly shot. No one will believe them any more so long as he is in power ... and probably long after.

True this is going to impact Russia for possibly decades. It's such a tragic waste really. All brought on by tired old relics who can't get over their grandiose delusions of the past.

(September 5, 2022 at 6:08 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 5, 2022 at 2:14 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: I just responded to this in my post to Helios, but yes, Ukraine wanted a peace deal, so less death is better imo. You were responding to me talking about shooting down Russian planes rather than supporting them with weaponry, but in that case, us supporting them with weaponry is causing tens of thousands more deaths and we discouraged Ukraine from making a peace deal when they wanted to, and that's why I consider it to be immoral. It's pretty straight forward, I think.

The Ukrainians have chosen to fight for their freedoms. Your little backside in Montreal or Toronto or wherever ... what does that mean to them? They don't want Chamberlain's counsel which you have on offer, obviously. So this whole Chomsky/IA "this is an American stratagem foisted upon them" looks really weak.

(September 5, 2022 at 2:14 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Also, did everyone buy into George W. Bush's you're either with us or you're against us spiel? That's I think over 5 people now that have spat out George W Bush speak to me.

I haven't written or inferred any such thing, so quit being dishonest placing words into my mouth. Or, alternatively, you can link to the specific post where you think I wrote that.

Oh, that's right, you can't, because I've not done that.

I notice you still haven't explained why supporting Ukrainians in their fight for autonomy, freedom, and life is an immoral act. I trust you'll pull your head out and get to that sometime in the next few months?

Or maybe not. You don't strike me as terribly bright.

I thought you just posted a few pages ago that you don't believe in personal attacks, and then you carry out personal attacks in this post. Why the change of heart? It doesn't bother me, but just wondering.

I apologize for getting that wrong about the you're either with us or against us thing. I unintentionally misrepresented you there, and I always admit it and apologize when I see I have done something wrong. I admit I got lazy in remembering all of what you had actually posted, and I screwed up. I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Montreal or Toronto or wherever? Why do people keep bringing up my Canadianness in a negative way time after time? It doesn't bother me, and most Canadians have that Canadian nationalism in the same way and have no problem poking fun at the Yanks, but I get a very Trumpian "Go back to your country" feel when I see people framing me being Canadian as a negative or posting on a mostly American forum as a Cannuck. I have no clue what your intentions were nor am I claiming you intended it that way, but it just strikes me as a bit bizarre imo.

I already explained what you're asking me, and I don't know why you're pretending I didn't. Ukraine had a tentative peace deal on the table, and I think they should have given that a try, and I disagree with the UK PM telling the Ukrainians that the deal was unacceptable to the UK, seeing as I don't think the West should get to act as gods. To try to act as a god is an immoral act. To interfere in a peace deal is an immoral act. And I do not care in the least if me being ok with a Russia Ukraine war makes me immoral in people's eyes. That's cool. I'm also fine with school aged girls in Afghanistan not being able to go to school because of the Taliban, just like Biden was, and I don't lose a wink of sleep over my position on that. I'm fine with letting millions of people starve in North Korea. I never said I was a cuddly care bear who just wants to save everyone in the world. But us arming the Ukrainins, that act alone brings us into this morally, which is why I expressed my moral disagreement in that particular situation.

Remaining silent when you think an ally is about to make a mistake is also wrong. You're welcome to peddle your own brand of non-interventionism, but don't kid yourself into believing that's morally neutral. Non-interventionism has historically been a polite expression of "fuck you, I've got mine.". And that's doubly true of the typical populist politics you often shill for.

Any peace deal with Putin that doesn't involve a total defeat in Ukraine in a nutshell

Quote:Date: November 22, 2021

Speaker: Dmitry Peskov, Russian presidential spokesman

Quote: “Russia does not harbor any aggressive plans. It is completely wrong to say the opposite, and it is completely wrong to associate any movement of the Russian Armed Forces across the territory of our country with such plans. This is not true.”

Totally a government you can trust...


Yup totally sounds like someone who will respect Ukrainian sovereignty...... 

(September 5, 2022 at 6:47 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Remaining silent when you think an ally is about to make a mistake is also wrong.  You're welcome to peddle your own brand of non-interventionism, but don't kid yourself into believing that's morally neutral.  Non-interventionism has historically been a polite expression of "fuck you, I've got mine.". And that's doubly true of the typical populist politics you often shill for.

Ukraine is not in NATO. They are in Russia's sphere of influence, and that sucks, but thems the rules. I didn't say we should never intervene. We have treaties and NATO for a reason.

(September 5, 2022 at 6:47 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Remaining silent when you think an ally is about to make a mistake is also wrong.  You're welcome to peddle your own brand of non-interventionism, but don't kid yourself into believing that's morally neutral.  Non-interventionism has historically been a polite expression of "fuck you, I've got mine.". And that's doubly true of the typical populist politics you often shill for.

 Non-interventionism's only notable feature is its total failure as a foreign policy