Putin's strategy of attacking Ukraine's power grid will not win him the war. Putin's strategy of simply throwing Troops into the meat grinder will not win him the war. Putin's indiscriminate strikes will not win him the war.

Ukraine blowing up Airfields that will be used to launch bombers that will destroy Ukrainian cities is not an escalation nor is NATO attacking Russia if NATO missiles are used. And no Russia will not use Nukes. It's never going to happen.


Russia's indiscriminate bombing is an escalation and calls for a swift and punishing response.

(December 18, 2022 at 1:58 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Did you read my link? Boris Johnson, publicly against any peace deals with Russia. Former US officials confirm peace deal was in place and ready to move forward. Bori Johnson then has a meeting with Zelenskyy, and the peace deal immediately falls apart following the meeting. Put 2 and 2 together, my friend. 

Which one of those twos is "there was never any peace deal russia would honor"...?

Putin lied about his intent to invade before he invaded. In doing so he abrogated the Minsk agreement. What reason is there to trust him enough to negotiate a peaceful end to this?

Zelinskyy is right, they should not negotiate with this guy.

(December 18, 2022 at 6:33 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 18, 2022 at 2:22 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Well, I'd like to hear yours and his take on Cosby.

Cosby's case was vacated on a technicality in how the evidence was collected. There's plenty of evidence that Cosby committed date rape for decades.

You're new to this thinking stuff, aren't you?

Anyway, enough with your diversionary tactics.

Cosby admitted in earlier years to giving people drugs, sure, but people falsely confess all the time. Still not total proof that he did it. I wasn't asking if Cosby's case that went to court could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the courts. I was asking whether we had enough without concrete proof, to say with a 99 % certainty that the man still did something, and I believe that we do, although of course he shouldn't be in prison. The same with Jarred Kushner. He's up to no good, but he's never going to prison. Epstein supposedly committed suicide but there's 20 different pieces of circumstantial evidence that say this is highly unlikely all there is to the story. Chris Hitchens quote about evidence was more of something he just used when it came to religion. He was basically saying prove that I should even take your Holy book seriously at all. Where is the evidence? That's fine and all, but that argument around religion doesn't exactly translate 1 to 1 or apply to something like Cosby, or Epstein, or Boris Johnson's meeting with Zelenskyy.

(December 18, 2022 at 6:38 pm)Helios Wrote:

(December 18, 2022 at 6:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: In that case, why aren't you crying about Russia escalating the situation by using these bombers? I mean, that wasn't even self-defense.


Because if it is an escalation, and it isn't because these planes weren't armed with nukes, then it's one Russia brought upon itself by choosing to attack civilians. But you don't seem to mind that.


By that logic, the German attack on France was a Czech invasion, because the Germans also used Czech tanks.


What heat? Your points are so vapid that the kitchen is frosty. What I don't like doing is wasting my time on idiots. Show me you're not an idiot, and you'll perhaps earn credence. So far it's a big swing-and-a-miss. Convince me that discussing this with you is not a waste of time.

Also if supplying a country with weapons means the country supplying the weapons are the ones attacking. Does that mean Iran,North Korea, and China are all attacking Ukraine? Or is Russia attacking another country every time they sell weapons to another country and that country goes to war? Or is it only NATO this rule applies to I wonder?

Yes. Iran, North Korea, and China are all attacking Ukraine.

Quote:Cosby admitted in earlier years to giving people drugs, sure, but people falsely confess all the time. Still not total proof that he did it. I wasn't asking if Cosby's case that went to court could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the courts. I was asking whether we had enough without concrete proof, to say with a 99 % certainty that the man still did something, and I believe that we do, although of course he shouldn't be in prison. The same with Jarred Kushner. He's up to no good, but he's never going to prison. Epstein supposedly committed suicide but there's 20 different pieces of circumstantial evidence that say this is highly unlikely all there is to the story. Chris Hitchens quote about evidence was more of something he just used when it came to religion. He was basically saying prove that I should even take your Holy book seriously at all. Where is the evidence? That's fine and all, but that argument around religion doesn't exactly translate 1 to 1 or apply to something like Cosby, or Epstein, or Boris Johnson's meeting with Zelenskyy.

There is a lot of evidence Cosby is guilty there is fuck all that  Boris Johnson's killed a workable peace deal. So this comment is a heap of false comparisons.

(December 18, 2022 at 6:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(December 18, 2022 at 6:38 pm)Helios Wrote: Also if supplying a country with weapons means the country supplying the weapons are the ones attacking. Does that mean Iran,North Korea, and China are all attacking Ukraine? Or is Russia attacking another country every time they sell weapons to another country and that country goes to war? Or is it only NATO this rule applies to I wonder?

Supplying weapons to a country at war is itself legally an act of war. That much is true.

But equivocating that fact with every individual use of those weapons as acts perpetrated by the supplier(s) is silly.

And you're dead right, IA's entirely quiet about the Iranian supply of attack drones ... probably because that doesn't get mentioned in Kremlin talking points.

If the US and NATO are supplying weapons, that means they are allowed to draw red lines about what Ukraine can and can not do with those weapons. If Ukraine then fails to listen to those red lines and pisses off NATO to the point where they cut off funding, you might have a point. But, the funding is still pouring in. Guess NATO wasn't too bothered by what Ukraine did, and continuing to pour in money is an endorsement of those actions, full stop.

Quote:Yes. Iran, North Korea, and China are all attacking Ukraine.

No, they freaking are not  any more than NATO is attacking Russia...

Quote:If the US and NATO are supplying weapons, that means they are allowed to draw red lines about what Ukraine can and can not do with those weapons.

They are under no obligation to do so. Nor does the lack of doing so mean NATO is attacking.....

Quote:If Ukraine then fails to listen to those red lines and pisses off NATO to the point where they cut off funding, you might have a point.

They are under no obligation to do so. Nor does the lack of doing so mean NATO is attacking..... 

Quote:But, the funding is still pouring in. Guess NATO wasn't too bothered by what Ukraine did, and continuing to pour in money is an endorsement of those actions, full stop.

Nope, you can support Ukraine by providing weapons but endorse every action done with those weapons. This is a false dilemma full stop.


This isn't a NATO attack nor does NATO to cut off support to not endorse every action done with NATO weapons. It's simple as that...