Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 25, 2022 at 2:39 am (This post was last modified: October 25, 2022 at 3:33 am by Deesse23.)
(October 24, 2022 at 6:47 pm)Leonardo17 Wrote: The Invasion of Crimea is like the Invasion of Alsace and Lorraine by the Prussians in 1873 because these two areas were “German”.
Its not the same. There are some fundamental differences!
1# It was 1870/1871
2# Alsace and Lorraine were part of "Germany", aka the Holy Roman Empire from 925 to the mid 1600s. Thats 700 years. In the Mid 1600s France (Loius IVX) gained those territories partly de jure (by marriage) and partly by war of aggression and annexion[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Years%27_War][/url].
#3 And most impotant: In 1870, "Germany " (non existent at that time) did not attack France, but France declared war on Prussia! Ok, Bismarck tricked Napoleon III into it, but politics is legal, war of aggression is not. A fact people like Bel all too comfortly ignore.
I am German btw.
Edit:
Thinking about this twice, there is maybe more similarity than i thought.
Napoleon was afraid of being encircled by the Habsburg monarchy, and thus attacked Prussia. Putin (allegedly) felt threatened by NATO (which is a lie, he wants to annex Ukraine in the first place, but ill grant this lie FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT).
Napoleon was afraid of Spain electing a Habsburg price as King. This would have meant, France to be encircled by the Habsbug dynasty (Spain and Prussia). Since the king of prussia wouldt promise PERPETUALLY for no Habsburg to ever take the spanish throne, Napoleon declared war on Prussia.
Was Napoleon goaded somehow by Bismarck to attack Prussia? Sure, the "Emser depesche" shows some clever "manipulation" of an official document. Still, Napoleon is responsible for Napoleons actions. Noone FORCED Napoleon to attack Prussia. It was Napoleons decision.
Likewise with Putin. If he is too stupid to be in charge of hs country, if he is too incompetent to "diplomacy" and has to resort to war, then he has no business of being the head of a nation with a nuclear weapons arsenal in the first place!
Thats why History will remember Bismarck as a great politician and Putin as a warmonger and war criminal.
October 25, 2022 at 5:50 am (This post was last modified: October 25, 2022 at 5:51 am by Belacqua.)
George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
October 25, 2022 at 6:02 am (This post was last modified: October 25, 2022 at 6:02 am by arewethereyet.)
(October 25, 2022 at 5:50 am)Belacqua Wrote:
George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Your method of defending your stance is obviously to try to outtalk everyone. You were leaving this discussion then ramped up.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
“If you are the smartest person in the room, then you are in the wrong room.” — Confucius
Yeah, how is the whole “NATO imperialism” concept even supposed to work? Like, NATO… doesn’t conquer countries and force them to join, so… how is that supposed to be imperialist? Countries aren’t joining NATO because NATO is blackmailing to bomb them. Countries are joining it to make sure that they’ll be better defended if, say, a neighboring ex-empire decided to suddenly announce that they’re not a real state and start bombing their cities.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Your method of defending your stance is obviously to try to outtalk everyone. You were leaving this discussion then ramped up.
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
Bel is so fortunate to be the only person in the world immune to propaganda.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
October 25, 2022 at 6:37 am (This post was last modified: October 25, 2022 at 6:38 am by pocaracas.
Edit Reason: Typo
)
(October 25, 2022 at 5:50 am)Belacqua Wrote: George Kennan, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned in 1998 that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake.”
Kissinger in 2014 warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that the West therefore needs a policy that is aimed at “reconciliation.” He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO”
John Mearsheimer, a leading geopolitical scholar in the US today, said in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome.”
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warned in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed.”
William Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, wrote in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia.”
Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war.”
Stephen Cohen, scholar of Russian studies, warned in 2014 that "if we move NATO forces toward Russia's borders [...] it's obviously gonna militarize the situation [and] Russia will not back off, this is existential.”
CIA director Bill Burns said in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
Malcolm Fraser, 22nd prime minister of Australia, warned in 2014 that "the move east [by NATO is] provocative, unwise and a very clear signal to Russia". He adds that this leads to a "difficult and extraordinarily dangerous problem.”
Paul Keating, former Australian PM, in 1997: expanding NATO is "an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system.
Former US defense secretary Bob Gates in his 2015 memoirs: "Moving so quickly [to expand NATO] was a mistake. [...] Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching [and] an especially monumental provocation.”
Sir Roderic Lyne, former British ambassador to Russia, warned a year ago that "[pushing] Ukraine into NATO [...] is stupid on every level." He adds "if you want to start a war with Russia, that's the best way of doing it.”
George Beebe, formerly the CIA's top Russia analyst, in January this year linked Russia's actions in Ukraine directly to NATO expansion, explaining that Russia "feels threatened" and "inaction on [the Kremlin’s] part is risky.”
Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute's senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies, wrote in a 1994 book that NATO expansion “would constitute a needless provocation of Russia.” Today he adds "we are now paying the price for the US’s arrogance.”
Ukrainian presidential advisor Oleksiy Arestovych said in 2015 that if Ukraine continues down the path of joining NATO "it will prompt Russia to launch a large scale military operation [...] before we join NATO", "with a probability of 99.9%", likely "in 2021-2022”.
Bill Bradley, former U.S. Senator and candidate for the Democratic nomination for President wrote: "We kicked [Russia] when they were down, we expanded NATO. [...] It was a blunder of monumental proportions [and] a self-fulfilling prophecy."
None of that explains the WHY!!
Why does Russia feel threatened??
Why is Ukraine so much more important to that threat than countries already in NATO which DO border Russia, Latvia and Estonia?? Should I include Poland and Lithuania and their border with Kaliningrad?
It makes no F***ing sense!
And what ahppens afterwards?
What happens if Ukraine (with the help of the West) manages to repel the Russians? Then Ukraine definitely joins NATO and Russia is forced to face the "threat" in a diminished state. Which renders this invasion, under the perspective of Russia as the threatened country, to be suicide!
Again, it makes no F***ing sense!
So no. I don't believe that is even a reason for this invasion.
Unless the Russia High Command believed that their military really could take over Ukraine... which is now clearly not so.
So why persist? "Sunk cost" wins over "Save strength for the future"?
I can't believe a coutry's leader, especially one the size of Russia, would be so stupid in the XXI century.
That is why I think there must be another reason for this invasion.
October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am (This post was last modified: October 25, 2022 at 7:51 am by Belacqua.)
(October 25, 2022 at 6:37 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why does Russia feel threatened??
I expect if you look at Libya or Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan, and what the US has done there recently, the possibility of America attempting regime change in your country would seem undesirable. Generally the US wants other countries to have rulers which take orders from the US, so that the IMF and other American-controlled institutions can control their economies. They privatize the nation's resources and make sure the profits never go to the people of the country.
Losing control of your own country and having it become a puppet of people who don't really care about anything other than resource extraction wouldn't be most people's first choice.
Think of Allende 1973, for example.
Russia has a large amount of valuable energy. If they are able to freely sell it when and where they wish they have more power than the US wants them to have. It reduces America's control of western Europe and encourages new alliances with BRICS countries in which the US has far less sway.
It doesn't seem surprising to me that most Russians would like to preserve their national sovereignty in fact as well as in name. Putin is popular at home, but even people who aren't crazy about him are probably even less excited about becoming a de facto colony of the US.
Or there was Whitlam in 1975 who found out that winning an election isn't protection against the CIA kicking you out of a job. Or Hatoyama in 2010, who discovered that attempting to enact the will of the people in Okinawa can get you out on your ear right away if Hillary Clinton tells you to stop.
Quote:Unless the Russia High Command believed that their military really could take over Ukraine... which is now clearly not so.
I understand that the armchair generals have a very clear view of the future. I am skeptical. Much of what I read seems based on propaganda-fueled fantasy and wishful thinking. History teaches that underestimating Russia seldom works out well.
There is of course the possibility that the US would nuke them in order to prevent a takeover of Ukraine. If this happened Russia would lose, but so would everyone else.
Quote:That is why I think there must be another reason for this invasion.
October 25, 2022 at 8:45 am (This post was last modified: October 25, 2022 at 8:47 am by pocaracas.)
(October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(October 25, 2022 at 6:37 am)pocaracas Wrote: Why does Russia feel threatened??
I expect if you look at Libya or Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan, and what the US has done there recently, the possibility of America attempting regime change in your country would seem undesirable.
Who thinks that the present regime is a good one? (that is, besides those in power in Russia)
(October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote: Generally the US wants other countries to have rulers which take orders from the US, so that the IMF and other American-controlled institutions can control their economies. They privatize the nation's resources and make sure the profits never go to the people of the country.
LOL! Just look at what an Oligarch is and how the term originated in Russia.
Russia's resources were state owned in the USSR times, then they were privatized - and what happens when you privatize a literal monopoly? Nothing good.
Sure, the very wealthy few that this generated would not be happy with a state-enforced breaking of all the monopolies they control.
Does this state need to be "controlled" by the US in order to provide better conditions to the Russian people? I don't think so, but ok, I can see how those powerful oligarchs would not want the present regime to change... however, attacking Ukraine (and the potential defeat) would have been a hugge gamble, if that was their fear.
(October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote: Losing control of your own country and having it become a puppet of people who don't really care about anything other than resource extraction wouldn't be most people's first choice.
Think of Allende 1973, for example.
Think of Belarus 2022, for example.
Think of what Russia seems to want to do in Ukraine, for example.
"We can't let you do to us what we want to do to others, so we do to others before you do to us"... is that a sensible foreign policy?
(October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote: Russia has a large amount of valuable energy. If they are able to freely sell it when and where they wish they have more power than the US wants them to have. It reduces America's control of western Europe and encourages new alliances with BRICS countries in which the US has far less sway.
Germany (and the EU) were trying to get Russia to be their own owners and negotiate with the World... hence betting quite a lot on Nordstream (remember that 50% of German energy came from Russia via that pipeline)...
And yet, it seems to me that Russia decided to show themselves to be unable to stay in their lane and carry out their foreign businesses peacefully.
If the US comes to control anything in Russia, it will be entirely the present Russian regime's fault.
Russia today has
- Depleted military
- Fleeing youth - brain drain
- A populace (at least in the big cities) that is tired of the state propaganda
All signs of diminished capabilities to withstand anything the rest of the world throws at them. Be it the US or China...
Russia should have consolidated its position as a world supplier of raw energy. Instead, it's having to sell it on the cheap.
Congratulations on playing the stupid part, Mr Putin!
And that is something that I find difficult to believe someone in power over 100 million people would do.
(October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote: It doesn't seem surprising to me that most Russians would like to preserve their national sovereignty in fact as well as in name. Putin is popular at home, but even people who aren't crazy about him are probably even less excited about becoming a de facto colony of the US.
Are you implying that the Europe is a de facto colony of the US?
Judging by the world health, happiness and satefy indexes, I'd say that the NATO countries are just fine as they are, when compared to the BRICs.
(October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote: Or there was Whitlam in 1975 who found out that winning an election isn't protection against the CIA kicking you out of a job. Or Hatoyama in 2010, who discovered that attempting to enact the will of the people in Okinawa can get you out on your ear right away if Hillary Clinton tells you to stop.
Quote:Unless the Russia High Command believed that their military really could take over Ukraine... which is now clearly not so.
I understand that the armchair generals have a very clear view of the future. I am skeptical. Much of what I read seems based on propaganda-fueled fantasy and wishful thinking. History teaches that underestimating Russia seldom works out well.
There is of course the possibility that the US would nuke them in order to prevent a takeover of Ukraine. If this happened Russia would lose, but so would everyone else.
I certainly hope that nukes are off the table.... if they are not, we are looking at world war. Is it worth it? Is the fear of a regime change worth world nuclear war? If it gets to that, there will certainly be a regime change.
History does not apply to the nuclear age. In that regard, Russia is just as capable as any other. No one wins.
(October 25, 2022 at 6:54 am)Belacqua Wrote:
Quote:That is why I think there must be another reason for this invasion.
What is this reason?
I don't know.
Considering what will likely happen when the invasion is lost, Fear of NATO being close by and Fear of a regime change are stupid reasons. that will lead faster to that which is feared.
Quote:Russia has a large amount of valuable energy. If they are able to freely sell it when and where they wish they have more power than the US wants them to have. It reduces America's control of western Europe and encourages new alliances with BRICS countries in which the US has far less sway.
Seeing as how Europe was the chief market for Russian energy and Russian energy was sanctioned, it seems like Putin’s decision to invade a European country was, you know, kinda stupid.
I’m no economist, but it seems like cutting off your own market is a pretty duff strategy.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
