Russia and Ukraine

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

Bullshit. Russia will lose and gain nothing. Your little fantasy here is just this.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

This isn't a hypothetical it's a fever dream.

[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.

Of course the weapons-suppliers will say when they can and cannot be used. So if this is a war of the West against Russia as you allege, then how might you explain this Western reticence? Be specific. Yes, Zelenskyy wants to strike into Russian with HIMARS etc, but the fact is that Ukrainians haven't done that -- likely at the behest of the Americans supplying those missiles.

Now, how does that affect your picture of this war being driven by Western interests?

Zelenskyy wants to hit targets in Russia because -- get this -- those railheads and highways are actually funneling Russian materiel into the combat zone.

You complain that he isn't attacking behind Russian lines due to Western pressure, but let's be honest, you'd complain if he launched those attacks despite Western pressures. Whether he attacked in Russia or not (as is the case so far as we can tell), you would still be complaining and crying "foul play".

So stop trying to bullshit folks and just own your views. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, and I am skeptical of even that last part, because it sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself.

Use your head. Zelenskyy stands to gain nothing from a nuclear war. Western limitations on how their weapons are used do no imply Western control of the war in general. And you'd best be happy for that, because if NATO were to go in balls-deep, your buddy Putin's got about six days to his own, personal Sunday.

Also, you again comparing the Korean standoff, which is not a war that has seen half-a-million casualties inflicted by a Russian invasion, is dumb. I'd advise you to abandon that line of argumentation but I think it's a conscious red-herring n your part so you'd probably ignore such simple but well-intended advice.

There's always been a hard stench of bullshittery about you, and your posting here isn't doing you any favors.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Russia did it with Crimea and they weren't stopped, and I'm afraid they're going to get away with it again.

You're not "afraid" they might get away with it. Let's be honest, you're hopeful. Stop trying to bullshit folks.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Russia did it with Crimea and they weren't stopped, and I'm afraid they're going to get away with it again.

You're not "afraid" they might get away with it. Let's be honest, you're hopeful. Stop trying to bullshit folks.

Oh he has Kavier and Vodka all ready to go. Too bad(for him ) it's never happening.

[Pat Mustard]

I think the only thing that's been standing between russia and nuclear weapons in ukraine has been a credible fear of bungling it in the attempt.

I think Russia's biggest fear about using nukes is the rest of the world finding out that they no longer have any which work.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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?

No, you haven't broken any rules, nor did I say or imply that you had.

I responded to you because one of my responsibilities as an admin is to look for rules violations. I was trying to determine if awty - not you - had actually done so. This isn't white-knighting, it isn't an instance of coming to anyone's rescue.

I wouldn't want to stop ANYone from pointing out rules violations, which is why I didn't tell you to do so. This is why we have a report system, which you should consider using if you think there's been a violation. Interestingly enough, it IS against Forum policy to call out suspected rule-breaking in the public areas of the forum.

For the record, there is NOT a rule against derailing threads, unless doing so is egregious enough to fall under the trolling rule (and what awty did certainly doesn't qualify as either that or as flaming).

Boru

[Irreligious Atheist]

Russia did it with Crimea and they weren't stopped, and I'm afraid they're going to get away with it again.

You're not "afraid" they might get away with it. Let's be honest, you're hopeful. Stop trying to bullshit folks.

Ok I admit it. I secretly love Putin, and the Taliban, and I think Saddam Hussein was a swell fellow who I could have a beer with at the pub. Why do girls need to go to school anyways? That was sarcasm, if you couldn't tell.

[Irreligious Atheist]

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.

Of course the weapons-suppliers will say when they can and cannot be used. So if this is a war of the West against Russia as you allege, then how might you explain this Western reticence? Be specific. Yes, Zelenskyy wants to strike into Russian with HIMARS etc, but the fact is that Ukrainians haven't done that -- likely at the behest of the Americans supplying those missiles.

Now, how does that affect your picture of this war being driven by Western interests?

Zelenskyy wants to hit targets in Russia because -- get this -- those railheads and highways are actually funneling Russian materiel into the combat zone.

You complain that he isn't attacking behind Russian lines due to Western pressure, but let's be honest, you'd complain if he launched those attacks despite Western pressures. Whether he attacked in Russia or not (as is the case so far as we can tell), you would still be complaining and crying "foul play".

So stop trying to bullshit folks and just own your views. You're not fooling anyone but yourself, and I am skeptical of even that last part, because it sounds more like you're trying to convince yourself.

Use your head. Zelenskyy stands to gain nothing from a nuclear war. Western limitations on how their weapons are used do no imply Western control of the war in general. And you'd best be happy for that, because if NATO were to go in balls-deep, your buddy Putin's got about six days to his own, personal Sunday.

Also, you again comparing the Korean standoff, which is not a war that has seen half-a-million casualties inflicted by a Russian invasion, is dumb. I'd advise you to abandon that line of argumentation but I think it's a conscious red-herring n your part so you'd probably ignore such simple but well-intended advice.

There's always been a hard stench of bullshittery about you, and your posting here isn't doing you any favors.

Western restraint is explained by them thinking direct attacks on Russia are not the smart move at the moment, or necessary. And Biden is no idiot either. But there are definitely a fair share of neo-cons in positions of power that would love an even more intense proxy showdown with Russia if they got their way.

The sanctions on North Korea could account for hundreds of thousands of people dying due to starvation, but yes, it was never meant to be a one to one comparison. If dumb ass Trump gets back into power and does some dumb operation in Mexico against the cartel which leads to Mexican civilians dying, should the Mexican government then start sending drones into the US to bomb them? Maybe not the best play?

[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?

No, you haven't broken any rules, nor did I say or imply that you had.

I responded to you because one of my responsibilities as an admin is to look for rules violations. I was trying to determine if awty - not you - had actually done so. This isn't white-knighting, it isn't an instance of coming to anyone's rescue.

I wouldn't want to stop ANYone from pointing out rules violations, which is why I didn't tell you to do so. This is why we have a report system, which you should consider using if you think there's been a violation. Interestingly enough, it IS against Forum policy to call out suspected rule-breaking in the public areas of the forum.

For the record, there is NOT a rule against derailing threads, unless doing so is egregious enough to fall under the trolling rule (and what awty did certainly doesn't qualify as either that or as flaming).

Boru

Noted. AWTY can call me a rapist (with no evidence) and a deranged dangerous mental case and a traitor to my country and a troll (trolling is against forum policy, so she's publicly calling me a rule breaker, which you just said is not allowed, after no provocation by me, but I'm no longer allowed to publicly call her out for doing so, and I must just sit there and take it in silence (or abandon my own principles and give in to cancel culture and report her, which I'm not going to do). Understood. Whether I think that's fair or not, I will oblige if thems the rules.

I will no longer defend the notion that I'm not a traitor to my country. Hopefully my silence doesn't speak volumes. Treason is a serious crime. Call the Canadian FBI and lock me up and throw away the keys.