Russia and Ukraine

[arewethereyet]

I'm unaware of a bringing-the-thread-into-the-mud-rule. We do have a rule against flaming, but that's doesn't seem to be what happened here.

Before you accuse someone of rule breaking, please check the rules first.

Boru

Have I broken the rules by accusing an administrator of breaking a rule? Is that a rule in itself? I read the forum rules, but it's been a while.

This is what happened. I posted my opinion on Russia Ukraine, and I did not address AWTY or write anything negative about her. Her response was to come in off topic, not mentioning Russia or Ukraine at all, and accusing me of getting a pass from an asylum, which would entail that I'm perhaps deranged and dangerous to society, thus why I've been locked up in the asylum. Pretty big accusation there by her. Not that I care, and I'm cool with any insult as long as I'm not being accused or the big r word. But why do you care enough to respond to me after I've simply defended myself in a civil manner after being called deranged and dangerous to the public by living in an asylum? What is it to you? Do you think females can not defend themselves? Is AWTY not capable of her own catty comeback, without you coming in to save the day, Boru? She's a big girl and she has a brain of her own and she does just fine arguing for herself, so I don't think she needs a white knight. I have enough respect for her to know that she can argue her own points well enough on her own, at least a decent amount of the time.

I just assumed you wouldn't want threads to be dragged down into the gutter and that discussing Russia Ukraine would be of more interest to people than more pages of discussing me being a piss ant. But if taking a thread off topic is not a rule, I stand corrected. Could have sworn I saw that when reading the rules. If you want me to stop calling out AWTY for breaking rules, then please just give me a warning, and I'll know that I'm not allowed to do it any longer.

And I see that we've taken the thread off topic yet again, which means that the thread is going to be filled with more of this rather than actual Russia Ukraine discussion. Fantastic. See what I mean?

When you brought up Kaepernick kneeling and what you think are my thoughts about black men, what exactly did that have to do with the thread topic?  

Careful who and how you blame people for being off topic when you can't stay on it yourself.

A thread about Russian and Ukraine and you throw in race.  Why would someone think you are racist?  Hmmm?

When I break a rule, I assure you I will be called out for it.  And it won't be by you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Crazy Zelenskyy, just blowing up apartments in moscow over here.

So, just as a hypothetical, if Zelensky says he wants to genocide all of the Jews in the world, you're cool with it because it's just a hypothetical in his mind that he doesn't have the power to carry out? Is that the argument you've just made? It's cool that he wants to drag us into WWIII, because he might not currently have the full capacity to do so, and because he's not blowing up Russian apartments, all is well? Don't think that's quite how things work in the real world.

That does sound like him, doesn't it. Just genocidally dragging us along closer and closer to ww3.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And you answered your own question at the bottom of your post. The person who's country is under attack is probably going to be more ok with doing things that may risk WWIII, and justifiably so perhaps, because their country is under attack and they are more desperate. I'm not blaming Zelensky personally as a human being for being panicked, because such is human nature, and he's throwing out some really bad ideas right now about what he might do with bombs in Russia, as internal spy document leaks show, so my problem is more so in the West propping him up, when Zelensky may not be thinking as a completely rational actor right now. Zelensky wouldn't be the threat that he was without us Westerners propping him up, so I'm giving us (the West) the biggest slap on the wrist here with my rhetoric, and Zelensky gets slightly less blame, because he's just using the toys that he's been given.

It's actually pretty rational to strike at the source of one's problems rather than trying to find more thumbs to plug holes in a dike. Were I in his shoes, I too would want to strike at logistics chains that stretch back across the Russian borders several hundred miles. It's sound strategy to starve an opposing army of resources. A hungry army short of fuel and ammo doesn't fight very well.

I don't think it's "panic" at all. I think he's asking for the tools needed to accomplish the mission of evicting the Russians from Ukrainian soil. Yes, that means civilian Russian casualties, but given the circumstances of his own people, he can't afford to be wringing his hands in his nightly speeches. When you buy the boat, you get the leaks too, as the Russians are learning ... once again.

Put shortly, I think you're really glossing over the military necessities, and most likely, the military advice, he's facing. Why fight tanks at the front if you can keep them from arriving at all? When your house is flooding from leaky plumbing, the first thing you do is cut off the water. Only then do you fix each and every leak. It's not different in operational art.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Have I broken the rules by accusing an administrator of breaking a rule? Is that a rule in itself? I read the forum rules, but it's been a while.

This is what happened. I posted my opinion on Russia Ukraine, and I did not address AWTY or write anything negative about her. Her response was to come in off topic, not mentioning Russia or Ukraine at all, and accusing me of getting a pass from an asylum, which would entail that I'm perhaps deranged and dangerous to society, thus why I've been locked up in the asylum. Pretty big accusation there by her. Not that I care, and I'm cool with any insult as long as I'm not being accused or the big r word. But why do you care enough to respond to me after I've simply defended myself in a civil manner after being called deranged and dangerous to the public by living in an asylum? What is it to you? Do you think females can not defend themselves? Is AWTY not capable of her own catty comeback, without you coming in to save the day, Boru? She's a big girl and she has a brain of her own and she does just fine arguing for herself, so I don't think she needs a white knight. I have enough respect for her to know that she can argue her own points well enough on her own, at least a decent amount of the time.

I just assumed you wouldn't want threads to be dragged down into the gutter and that discussing Russia Ukraine would be of more interest to people than more pages of discussing me being a piss ant. But if taking a thread off topic is not a rule, I stand corrected. Could have sworn I saw that when reading the rules. If you want me to stop calling out AWTY for breaking rules, then please just give me a warning, and I'll know that I'm not allowed to do it any longer.

And I see that we've taken the thread off topic yet again, which means that the thread is going to be filled with more of this rather than actual Russia Ukraine discussion. Fantastic. See what I mean?

When you brought up Kaepernick kneeling and what you think are my thoughts about black men, what exactly did that have to do with the thread topic?  

Careful who and how you blame people for being off topic when you can't stay on it yourself.

A thread about Russian and Ukraine and you throw in race.  Why would someone think you are racist?  Hmmm?

When I break a rule, I assure you I will be called out for it.  And it won't be by you.

You accused me of being a traitor to my country, which is one of the biggest accusations you can throw at a man. The same thing Kaepernick has been accused of for kneeling during the national anthem. It's the, if you don't like it, leave it argument, which is what you are employing here. You are throwing MAGA arguments at me, so it's entirely on topic that I brought that up. It's called a comparison. You have said dozens of times I should move to Russia or be taken in by Russia, because I don't support your dumb proxy war against Russia.

[arewethereyet]

You really are a sad little troll.

[Irreligious Atheist]

And you answered your own question at the bottom of your post. The person who's country is under attack is probably going to be more ok with doing things that may risk WWIII, and justifiably so perhaps, because their country is under attack and they are more desperate. I'm not blaming Zelensky personally as a human being for being panicked, because such is human nature, and he's throwing out some really bad ideas right now about what he might do with bombs in Russia, as internal spy document leaks show, so my problem is more so in the West propping him up, when Zelensky may not be thinking as a completely rational actor right now. Zelensky wouldn't be the threat that he was without us Westerners propping him up, so I'm giving us (the West) the biggest slap on the wrist here with my rhetoric, and Zelensky gets slightly less blame, because he's just using the toys that he's been given.

It's actually pretty rational to strike at the source of one's problems rather than trying to find more thumbs to plug holes in a dike. Were I in his shoes, I too would want to strike at logistics chains that stretch back across the Russian borders several hundred miles. It's sound strategy to starve an opposing army of resources. A hungry army short of fuel and ammo doesn't fight very well.

I don't  think it's "panic" at all. I think he's asking for the tools needed to accomplish the mission of evicting the Russians from Ukrainian soil. Yes, that means civilian Russian casualties, but given the circumstances of his own people, he can't afford to be wringing his hands in his nightly speeches. When you buy the boat, you get the leaks too, as the Russians are learning ... once again.

Put shortly, I think you're really glossing over the military necessities, and most likely, the military advice, he's facing. Why fight tanks at the front if you can keep them from arriving at all? When your house is flooding from leaky plumbing, the first thing you do is cut off the water. Only then do you fix each and every leak. It's not different in operational art.

The West has said that they don't want Zelensky striking Russian troops within Russia, and since the West is the ones providing the weapons, I think they get the say so and final word when it comes to what Zelenski is allowed to do with the weapons. Whether it's rational to strike someone attacking you, it's not as simple as that. North Korea would not be wise to strike South Korea due to sanctions by the West, and in kind, Ukraine should not be striking Russia. If Zelensky can not be shown to be a rational actor, his toys should be taken away so he is forced to negotiate an end to the war.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, right on brand. Zelenskyy is always showing himself to be an irrational actor, throwing his toys around, when he should be forced to some table somewhere to negotiate how much of his country they'll be conceding.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The West has said that they don't want Zelensky striking Russian troops within Russia, and since the West is the ones providing the weapons, I think they get the say so and final word when it comes to what Zelenski is allowed to do with the weapons. Whether it's rational to strike someone attacking you, it's not as simple as that. North Korea would not be wise to strike South Korea due to sanctions by the West, and in kind, Ukraine should not be striking Russia. If Zelensky can not be shown to be a rational actor, his toys should be taken away so he is forced to negotiate an end to the war.

Well, duh, if grants are offered the lending party can say "we don't want you using this for that". That doesn't change the operational calculus, which is what Zelenskyy is arguing against. What you need to show now is how his argumentation is "irrational" or based in "panic".

As for your comparison to the situation on the Korean peninsula, let me know when there's a war there, otherwise this is just another red-herring moment from you. And comparing Un to Zelinskyy when the former is paranoid for no good reason while the latter is involved in defending his country against a massive and unwarranted invasion is either stupid or disingenuous -- you can take your pick there.

If I were in Kyiv, I'd strike any Russian asset I could, especially any Russian assets that would prolong this invasion. I bet you would too, but I also bet you're afraid to admit it, or afraid to fight it out. But if I could halt this invasion by striking Murmansk or Vladivostok or Tankograd, you could be sure I would. And if I needed those weapons from somewhere else, I'd sure ask for them, because my people are being shelled and missiled, my country is being plundered, and so on.

Read up on the Guadalcanal campaign, or the partisan Soviet efforts in 1943, the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, or the Transport Plan by the 8th Air Force to better understand my point ... because it seems clear to me you don't really have a grasp on it right now in this conversation. It's not about cutting the head off the snake, it's about cutting the head off the body. Denying your enemy the ability to fight at all is a greater, and cheaper, victory than defeating him on the field of battle.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Again, right on brand.  Zelenskyy is always showing himself to be an irrational actor, throwing his toys around, when he should be forced to some table somewhere to negotiate how much of his country they'll be conceding.

The Pentagon papers tell us that Zelenski knows he will be forced to the negotiating table and very soon, so it doesn't matter what I personally think about it. It's just reality at this point, so be a realist about it. Russia did it with Crimea and they weren't stopped, and I'm afraid they're going to get away with it again.

[The Architect Of Fate]

But the West told Ukraine that Ukraine was not allowed to do this kind of attack on Russia by drone, and especially on the Kremlin I would assume, if it was them, so clearly this does change things if this was Ukraine.

What the West told Ukraine is irrelevant (assuming this isn't a false flag )and no this changes zilch. Ukraine needs weapons to win and they will have them. 

Ukraine understands and acknowledges behind the scenes that they will have to negotiate and give things up, Helios, and fairly soon at that. Did you miss the Pentagon papers that came out?

Nope, they are still winning and won't so this statement is bullshit. Ukraine will not negotiate and Russia will lose period. Sorry Kremlin Gremlin.

China is not irrelevant. They've drawn a red line. They should supply weapons to Russia. They should not let NATO grow stronger at their expense when they can do something about it.

It's a bluff and they are irrelevant. So more bullshit. 

You use papers in air quotes because you're a Blue Anoner. A socialist version of a Q-Anoner. All news that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions are ruled fake news by default. You needn't justify why you're calling it fake news or using the air quotes.

A conspiracy theorist falsely accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. That's flipping rich. 


So congrats on wasting your time and mine on this drivel.