Ukraine War

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,632]

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

That's his MO, jump in on a group of exchanges where he hasn't even been following it to call you out when his little cabal buddy probably was the original OP about something he tries to criticize you for.  It's the circle the wagons cabal move 102.4.5.a (the old asking you if you still beat your wife trick).

"hasn't even been following"? "probably"?

You might have topped yourself, Onboard, and that is no small feat.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

"hasn't even been following"? "probably"?

You might have topped yourself, Onboard, and that is no small feat.

EXHIBIT B ^^^^^

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,632]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

EXHIBIT B ^^^^^

Whoosh!

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Post 1: That take is wrong 

Post 2: sarcastic reply to serious engagement 

Post 3: sarcastic reply to serious engagement 

Post 4: Move goal posts with thinly veiled affectation 

 

Who am I? 

[Guest Lobo]

Frank stallone? 

[Anastasis 23,724]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Post 1: That take is wrong 

Post 2: sarcastic reply to serious engagement 

Post 3: sarcastic reply to serious engagement 

Post 4: Move goal posts with thinly veiled affectation 

 

Who am I? 

I guess serious engagement 1 was "Tucker Carlson!" and serious engagement 2 was the 9/11 truther begging me, I guess, for my thoughts on failures in American foreign policy, the blowback, and how that relates to the ongoing war in Ukraine.  The second one is pretty rich, even for this board.  Might as well be talking about the relationship of the planets in the solar system with a flat earther.  

Edited April 2, 2022 by Anastasis

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

I've said this on here before, but I've never changed my handle in spite of how it implicates me as a fool. I was a loyalist well past time to quit. I've hd the opportunity to speak with Vance Bedford casually and at length and even he as told me the same. You get dug in on a position and you fight and sometimes you are wrong. 

What I see here is y'all are wanting to widen this war even more than Zelensky does. You want him to fight to the last Ukrainian but what on earth is your end goal? Do you think we can widen this war and win? That Putin will just go home? Or do you really believe there will be some black swan coup or assassination? Or that we can activate teh forces of Nato along with Ukraine and annihilate Russia forever?

Zelensy has indicated he is willing to accept a neutral Ukraine. Some of you won't accept that on his behalf. You say it can't be enforced, or how can you trust the Russians, or whatever. But this is the only solution. The Ukrainians are willing to accept neutrality and the Russians claim that's what they want to. I am not dumb enough to believe that there should not be some teeth in this state of neutrality. I believe Ukraine should be entitled to Article 5-style protection from attack, but also that it should be effectively disarmed. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp? If we can get Putin to agree to a deal like that, why not go for it?

Otherwise we are just dumping more money and hardware into a black hole that has the potential to end life on the planet. So far this entire invasion has operated exactly the way John Mearsheimer said it would back seven years ago including this alleged retreat, save for the fact that Russian ineptitude has made it a bit more costly than Vlad anticipated. He never wanted to annex Ukraine and occupy it block by block. He wanted to break it, to wreck it, to teach it a lesson, and make it fear that he would do it again absent a promise of neutrality.

As far as I can tell these American opposition to Ukrainian neutrality is "it would makes us look like a puss." Well who cares if a neutral Ukraine is protected by Article 5 like Nato protection. Where if he invades again, he gets the whole enchilada of Nato air support and ground troops in Ukraine and possibly even bombing of Russian soil? 

We need to do whatever we can to put this situation to bed because we have bigger fish to fry. Domestic idiocy, the climate crisis, China on the rise....and here we are getting sucked in (again) to some damn fool thing in the proverbial Balkans. 

[Royalfan5 2,384]

This time you’ll convince everyone, I’m sure of it.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

1 minute ago, Royalfan5 said:

This time you’ll convince everyone, I’m sure of it.

Meh, in a few years I'll be proven right. Or we'll all be dead. 

[Nivek 17,420]

I've said this on here before, but I've never changed my handle in spite of how it implicates me as a fool. I was a loyalist well past time to quit. I've hd the opportunity to speak with Vance Bedford casually and at length and even he as told me the same. You get dug in on a position and you fight and sometimes you are wrong. 
What I see here is y'all are wanting to widen this war even more than Zelensky does. You want him to fight to the last Ukrainian but what on earth is your end goal? Do you think we can widen this war and win? That Putin will just go home? Or do you really believe there will be some black swan coup or assassination? Or that we can activate teh forces of Nato along with Ukraine and annihilate Russia forever?
Zelensy has indicated he is willing to accept a neutral Ukraine. Some of you won't accept that on his behalf. You say it can't be enforced, or how can you trust the Russians, or whatever. But this is the only solution. The Ukrainians are willing to accept neutrality and the Russians claim that's what they want to. I am not dumb enough to believe that there should not be some teeth in this state of neutrality. I believe Ukraine should be entitled to Article 5-style protection from attack, but also that it should be effectively disarmed. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp? If we can get Putin to agree to a deal like that, why not go for it?
Otherwise we are just dumping more money and hardware into a black hole that has the potential to end life on the planet. So far this entire invasion has operated exactly the way John Mearsheimer said it would back seven years ago including this alleged retreat, save for the fact that Russian ineptitude has made it a bit more costly than Vlad anticipated. He never wanted to annex Ukraine and occupy it block by block. He wanted to break it, to wreck it, to teach it a lesson, and make it fear that he would do it again absent a promise of neutrality.
As far as I can tell these American opposition to Ukrainian neutrality is "it would makes us look like a puss." Well who cares if a neutral Ukraine is protected by Article 5 like Nato protection. Where if he invades again, he gets the whole enchilada of Nato air support and ground troops in Ukraine and possibly even bombing of Russian soil? 
We need to do whatever we can to put this situation to bed because we have bigger fish to fry. Domestic idiocy, the climate crisis, China on the rise....and here we are getting sucked in (again) to some damn fool thing in the proverbial Balkans. 

Dude you didn’t give a fuck before about Ukraine and you were all for appeasement.

You political opinions are horrible.

[Brisketexan 106,981]

MAC…one simple question: do you think Putin will ever accept a “neutral” Ukraine with a western security guarantee?

Of course not. Your entire “goal” is a pipe dream. When that falls away, your position is just plain old appeasement. Which has a SUPER great track record.

Aggression inevitably crosses a line where it is tolerated no more. Putin fucked up and crossed it, and there’s no going back. You can’t undo it.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

4 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Dude you didn’t give a fuck before about Ukraine and you were all for appeasement.

You political opinions are horrible.

I am still for appeasement in that appeasement means peace. 

All I hear from the pro-war crowd is "moar bombs" but what is the fucking end goal? Do we really think we can just end Russia here? Without them hunking a few nukes around? The more we pour into there the likelier this is going to quickly escalate into nuclear war. Some of you believe that Putin wouldn't be able to carry out that order, or that Russia's nukes are decrepit and probably don't work, but I think y'all are a bunch of Anton Chigurhs and it doesn't matter much. Those are not bets I want to be forced to take. 

Again -- let's get to the peace table and work out a truly neutral Ukraine. Why is that such an offensive concept for y'all to accept?

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

MAC…one simple question: do you think Putin will ever accept a “neutral” Ukraine with a western security guarantee?

Of course not. Your entire “goal” is a pipe dream. When that falls away, your position is just plain old appeasement. Which has a SUPER great track record.

Aggression inevitably crosses a line where it is tolerated no more. Putin fucked up and crossed it, and there’s no going back. You can’t undo it.

Why not try? Y'all attribute so much to Putin, you'd think he was your dad. 

As for the appeasement thing, lol. He knows he can't take and hold Ukraine; that's why he is pulling back now. The idea that he can sack all the nations of the old Warsaw Pact is as laughable as the idea Todd Orlando could stop a decent offense on 3rd and 17. 

[cactusflinthead 27,628]

31 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

The Ukrainians are willing to accept neutrality and the Russians claim that's what they want to.

Not so sure about that.

You seem to be omitting that quote from about a century ago that they ran again a couple of weeks ago. Y'know about dragging Ukraine into Russia even if they don't want it. Putin thought he could shove around Zelensky and stick him in the ground like that guy in the sewer. Roll  right down the middle of Kyiv and take over.

That ain't how it's going. Ukrainians are comparing Putin to Peter. That's not a compliment. 

I got news for you. There won't be any useful peace talks until Putin knows he's beat. And that ain't happening until he gets down there himself or a general gets a deathwish and plops the evidence down. 

 

[cactusflinthead 27,628]

Oh yeah this part too

There's also that conversation back home about eating dogs and going on a Children Safari. Yeah and the kid that watched his mom get raped for a week.

I don't think neutrality is in the gameplan.

[Sawbonz 28,240]

34 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Again -- let's get to the peace table and work out a truly neutral Ukraine. Why is that such an offensive concept for y'all to accept?

Putin won’t go to the peace table. Quit being a fucking idiot

[Sawbonz 28,240]

32 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Y'all attribute so much to Putin, you'd think he was your dad

Seriously go fuck yourself

[cactusflinthead 27,628]

Does any of this sound like they want neutrality?

Crossposted ht/ ahb

[Anastasis 23,724]

 

25 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I've said this on here before, but I've never changed my handle in spite of how it implicates me as a fool. I was a loyalist well past time to quit. I've hd the opportunity to speak with Vance Bedford casually and at length and even he as told me the same. You get dug in on a position and you fight and sometimes you are wrong. 

What I see here is y'all are wanting to widen this war even more than Zelensky does. You want him to fight to the last Ukrainian but what on earth is your end goal? Do you think we can widen this war and win? That Putin will just go home? Or do you really believe there will be some black swan coup or assassination? Or that we can activate teh forces of Nato along with Ukraine and annihilate Russia forever?

Zelensy has indicated he is willing to accept a neutral Ukraine. Some of you won't accept that on his behalf. You say it can't be enforced, or how can you trust the Russians, or whatever. But this is the only solution. The Ukrainians are willing to accept neutrality and the Russians claim that's what they want to. I am not dumb enough to believe that there should not be some teeth in this state of neutrality. I believe Ukraine should be entitled to Article 5-style protection from attack, but also that it should be effectively disarmed. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp? If we can get Putin to agree to a deal like that, why not go for it?

Otherwise we are just dumping more money and hardware into a black hole that has the potential to end life on the planet. So far this entire invasion has operated exactly the way John Mearsheimer said it would back seven years ago including this alleged retreat, save for the fact that Russian ineptitude has made it a bit more costly than Vlad anticipated. He never wanted to annex Ukraine and occupy it block by block. He wanted to break it, to wreck it, to teach it a lesson, and make it fear that he would do it again absent a promise of neutrality.

As far as I can tell these American opposition to Ukrainian neutrality is "it would makes us look like a puss." Well who cares if a neutral Ukraine is protected by Article 5 like Nato protection. Where if he invades again, he gets the whole enchilada of Nato air support and ground troops in Ukraine and possibly even bombing of Russian soil? 

We need to do whatever we can to put this situation to bed because we have bigger fish to fry. Domestic idiocy, the climate crisis, China on the rise....and here we are getting sucked in (again) to some damn fool thing in the proverbial Balkans. 

You will see posters here in honest moments tell you exactly what the deal is. And they will literally puff up at the notion of trading Ukrainian lives at the altar of the consequences of our fucked up foreign policy. It's pretty fucking ghoulish to be honest.  

[atomheartbevo 90,665]

38 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I am still for appeasement in that appeasement means peace. 

If Putin gets Ukraine, that doesn't mean there will be peace.  In fact, it's the exact opposite - it just means he gets away with annexing other countries.  The man is not shy about his desire to bring back the USSR.  When Putin is out there telling you that he believes he has the right to annex other countries, you should listen to him.

And he's already got troops in parts of Moldova and Georgia, and those illegal bases are not far from the capitols of both countries, so if he had pulled off Ukraine, well we all saw the Belarusian leader's map where it had Moldova in play.

38 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

All I hear from the pro-war crowd is "moar bombs"

Because that's the only thing that Putin understands.

38 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

but what is the fucking end goal? Do we really think we can just end Russia here?

It's not about ending Russia, it's about hitting the schoolyard bully hard enough that he stops fucking with everybody.

38 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Without them hunking a few nukes around? The more we pour into there the likelier this is going to quickly escalate into nuclear war. 

If Putin tosses a nuke into Ukraine, it's over for Russia.  I mean, Russia will still exist and we aren't going to level it or nuke it, but even China and India and other countries will draw a line with nukes, and Russia will be isolated in a way that it will be hard to recover from for quite a few decades.

38 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Again -- let's get to the peace table and work out a truly neutral Ukraine. Why is that such an offensive concept for y'all to accept?

The only "neutral" Ukraine that Russia will accept, is a Ukraine that it can invade again in 5 or 10 years once Putin thinks he's figured out how to take out Ukraine once and for all.

When somebody like Putin tells the entire world that he don't believe that Ukraine has a right to exist, and that they are just Russians by another name, and he spreads that message through the official state media, listen to them.

[brakeman 28,758]

Wow. Breathtaking. 

Bravo.  You mfer should be in journalism, and perchance you are.

I liked this piece about the fight for Kiev, it's a cool multimedia link, and it's free.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/02/world/europe/kyiv-invasion-disaster.html

 

Edited April 3, 2022 by brakeman
The smaller Ukrainian force was vastly underestimated.

[Mach 1 1,677]

57 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I am still for appeasement in that appeasement means peace. 

All I hear from the pro-war crowd is "moar bombs" but what is the fucking end goal? Do we really think we can just end Russia here? Without them hunking a few nukes around? The more we pour into there the likelier this is going to quickly escalate into nuclear war. Some of you believe that Putin wouldn't be able to carry out that order, or that Russia's nukes are decrepit and probably don't work, but I think y'all are a bunch of Anton Chigurhs and it doesn't matter much. Those are not bets I want to be forced to take. 

Again -- let's get to the peace table and work out a truly neutral Ukraine. Why is that such an offensive concept for y'all to accept?

 

I appreciate your desire for peace; I believe most would like that as well.

Honest negotiations require honesty from both sides. One side has flown the neutrality ballon, the other has tied civilians hands behind their back an murdered them. Kind of like the 1930/40s, which one side seems to want to return to.

So in an environment where one side plays that card, and the other says, Fuck That, we aren’t appeasing another ruthless dictator again in our backyard, you get what we are seeing. A willingness to die rather than live under the terms of a murderous dictator.

 

[cactusflinthead 27,628]

6 minutes ago, brakeman said:

Wow. Breathtaking. 

Bravo.  You mfer should be in journalism, and perchance you are.

I liked this piece about the fight for Kiev, it's a cool multimedia link, and it's free.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/04/02/world/europe/kyiv-invasion-disaster.html

 

Saw that earlier. It's pretty kickass

[Gatorubet 30,765]

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I've said this on here before, but I've never changed my handle in spite of how it implicates me as a fool. I was a loyalist well past time to quit. I've hd the opportunity to speak with Vance Bedford casually and at length and even he as told me the same. You get dug in on a position and you fight and sometimes you are wrong. 

What I see here is y'all are wanting to widen this war even more than Zelensky does. You want him to fight to the last Ukrainian but what on earth is your end goal? Do you think we can widen this war and win? That Putin will just go home? Or do you really believe there will be some black swan coup or assassination? Or that we can activate teh forces of Nato along with Ukraine and annihilate Russia forever?

Zelensy has indicated he is willing to accept a neutral Ukraine. Some of you won't accept that on his behalf. You say it can't be enforced, or how can you trust the Russians, or whatever. But this is the only solution. The Ukrainians are willing to accept neutrality and the Russians claim that's what they want to. I am not dumb enough to believe that there should not be some teeth in this state of neutrality. I believe Ukraine should be entitled to Article 5-style protection from attack, but also that it should be effectively disarmed. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp? If we can get Putin to agree to a deal like that, why not go for it?

Otherwise we are just dumping more money and hardware into a black hole that has the potential to end life on the planet. So far this entire invasion has operated exactly the way John Mearsheimer said it would back seven years ago including this alleged retreat, save for the fact that Russian ineptitude has made it a bit more costly than Vlad anticipated. He never wanted to annex Ukraine and occupy it block by block. He wanted to break it, to wreck it, to teach it a lesson, and make it fear that he would do it again absent a promise of neutrality.

As far as I can tell these American opposition to Ukrainian neutrality is "it would makes us look like a puss." Well who cares if a neutral Ukraine is protected by Article 5 like Nato protection. Where if he invades again, he gets the whole enchilada of Nato air support and ground troops in Ukraine and possibly even bombing of Russian soil? 

We need to do whatever we can to put this situation to bed because we have bigger fish to fry. Domestic idiocy, the climate crisis, China on the rise....and here we are getting sucked in (again) to some damn fool thing in the proverbial Balkans. 

I heard that in this voice:

[Macanudo 13,331]

21 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I heard that in this voice:

Yep.   Appeasement only means kicking the can down the road until its covered in so much mud that eventually when you go to kick it, you break your ankle.   

Peace in our time is a lie.

[Anastasis 23,724]

6 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Peace in our time is a lie.

War is Peace. 

[cactusflinthead 27,628]

 

 

[wildcat09 29,597]

4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I've said this on here before, but I've never changed my handle in spite of how it implicates me as a fool. I was a loyalist well past time to quit. I've hd the opportunity to speak with Vance Bedford casually and at length and even he as told me the same. You get dug in on a position and you fight and sometimes you are wrong. 

What I see here is y'all are wanting to widen this war even more than Zelensky does. You want him to fight to the last Ukrainian but what on earth is your end goal? Do you think we can widen this war and win? That Putin will just go home? Or do you really believe there will be some black swan coup or assassination? Or that we can activate teh forces of Nato along with Ukraine and annihilate Russia forever?

Zelensy has indicated he is willing to accept a neutral Ukraine. Some of you won't accept that on his behalf. You say it can't be enforced, or how can you trust the Russians, or whatever. But this is the only solution. The Ukrainians are willing to accept neutrality and the Russians claim that's what they want to. I am not dumb enough to believe that there should not be some teeth in this state of neutrality. I believe Ukraine should be entitled to Article 5-style protection from attack, but also that it should be effectively disarmed. Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp? If we can get Putin to agree to a deal like that, why not go for it?

Otherwise we are just dumping more money and hardware into a black hole that has the potential to end life on the planet. So far this entire invasion has operated exactly the way John Mearsheimer said it would back seven years ago including this alleged retreat, save for the fact that Russian ineptitude has made it a bit more costly than Vlad anticipated. He never wanted to annex Ukraine and occupy it block by block. He wanted to break it, to wreck it, to teach it a lesson, and make it fear that he would do it again absent a promise of neutrality.

As far as I can tell these American opposition to Ukrainian neutrality is "it would makes us look like a puss." Well who cares if a neutral Ukraine is protected by Article 5 like Nato protection. Where if he invades again, he gets the whole enchilada of Nato air support and ground troops in Ukraine and possibly even bombing of Russian soil? 

We need to do whatever we can to put this situation to bed because we have bigger fish to fry. Domestic idiocy, the climate crisis, China on the rise....and here we are getting sucked in (again) to some damn fool thing in the proverbial Balkans. 

And yet Russia is still shooting.

After a month of this shit, I thought these simple facts might make your brain start working again. I'm sorry that I was wrong.

[956 Worldwide 35,599]

If you can see images of executed civilians with their hands tied, posed in front of their houses and still cling to the idea that this war is about Russian security guarantees and hypothetical Ukrainian NATO membership, I don’t know what to say.  If you can see that and posit that the U.S. is “trading Ukrainian lives for their foreign policy” instead of recognizing it for what it is- an existential struggle in which only Ukraine and Ukrainians risk being wiped out— you are willfully ignorant. 

”I was wrong. John Mearsheimer was wrong.”
 

Practice it, it’s not that hard. 

[956 Worldwide 35,599]

Any peace deal with Putin that involves a concession of territory will end with men being tied up and shot in the street and women and girls being raped as it is brought under Russian control.  The same thing will happen anywhere that the Russians are forced to withdraw from. 
 

America didn’t do this and neither did NATO and if you still think they’re even partly to blame you’re either a total dunce or simply constitutionally unable to admit being wrong. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

8 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Not so sure about that.

You seem to be omitting that quote from about a century ago that they ran again a couple of weeks ago. Y'know about dragging Ukraine into Russia even if they don't want it. Putin thought he could shove around Zelensky and stick him in the ground like that guy in the sewer. Roll  right down the middle of Kyiv and take over.

That ain't how it's going. Ukrainians are comparing Putin to Peter. That's not a compliment. 

I got news for you. There won't be any useful peace talks until Putin knows he's beat. And that ain't happening until he gets down there himself or a general gets a deathwish and plops the evidence down. 

 

 

That is absurd talk designed for a Ukrainian audience. W/o our hardware they are not a "locomotive."

They are even less of one as regards to EU membership. It is conceivable that even ornery old Vlad would accept Ukraine in the EU, but do you know why? Because it would weaken the entire union economically, maybe to the point of being a poison pill for the entire enterprise. If the Germans resent Greece as a burden on the EU, let's see what they think about a country with four times the population and 1/7th the GDP per capita. Frankfurt don't like it....

And as for NATO, if it is truly a defensive alliance, why does it need Ukraine within its ranks as opposed to neutral?

Edited April 3, 2022 by MaybeACoordinator

[DigglerontheHoof 21,561]

Never thought I'd say this but, apparently, the Wehrmacht didn't kill enough Russians in WWII.   Should've killed them all. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

7 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

You will see posters here in honest moments tell you exactly what the deal is. And they will literally puff up at the notion of trading Ukrainian lives at the altar of the consequences of our fucked up foreign policy. It's pretty fucking ghoulish to be honest.  

It occurs to me that some of this could be the inborn American inability to accept draws. We've eliminated them from pretty much all our sports. We can't abide a game without a clear-cut winner and a loser. Fair enough. But you know who would win if we can create a neutral Ukraine? The Ukraine you armchair guerilla commandos profess to love. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

2 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Never thought I'd say this but, apparently, the Wehrmacht didn't kill enough Russians in WWII.   Should've killed them all. 

If this is where your mind is at...wow. "Just think of how many more Jews the Wehrmacht could have gotten to!"

[DigglerontheHoof 21,561]

1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

If this is where your mind is at...wow. "Just think of how many more Jews the Wehrmacht could have gotten to!"

Definitely hyperbole, but, fuck the Russians.  Zero empathy for anything that happens to them after their war crimes in Ukraine.  

[956 Worldwide 35,599]

44 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

If this is where your mind is at...wow. "Just think of how many more Jews the Wehrmacht could have gotten to!"

It’s telling that you’re more outraged about imaginary war crimes in 1942 than about very real atrocities from yesterday. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

7 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s telling that you’re more outraged about imaginary war crimes in 1942 than about very real atrocities from yesterday. 

Because I know that any citation of civilian deaths at the hands of the American military will be dismissed out of hand as "whataboutism," I will only put forth a token effort to make the argument. And to say, "yeah what about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam? And by proxy, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras? And The Phillippines circa 1900? (Read Mark Twain's diaries on our atrocities there.) Of all people, who are we to pontificate about the civilian casualties inflicted by others? Of course, we have had the decency to confine most of ours to brown people, so we didn't rip the fart in church Putin has in that regard. And we always believe we have learned our lesson and won't do the same in the next war, and then the next war rolls around, and it's the same ol' same ol'. "The enemy was using them as human shields." "We acted off bad intel." 

[956 Worldwide 35,599]

25 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Because I know that any citation of civilian deaths at the hands of the American military will be dismissed out of hand as "whataboutism," I will only put forth a token effort to make the argument. And to say, "yeah what about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam? And by proxy, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras? And The Phillippines circa 1900? (Read Mark Twain's diaries on our atrocities there.) Of all people, who are we to pontificate about the civilian casualties inflicted by others? Of course, we have had the decency to confine most of ours to brown people, so we didn't rip the fart in church Putin has in that regard. And we always believe we have learned our lesson and won't do the same in the next war, and then the next war rolls around, and it's the same ol' same ol'. "The enemy was using them as human shields." "We acted off bad intel." 

People who have their hands bound and are shot in the head, then left in mass graves or in front of their homes as a warning are not “civilian casualties” you utter cretin.  Here, let me illustrate what that looked like the last time it happened in Ukraine:

 

Your juvenile, knee-jerk leftism has broken your moral compass. 

[wildcat09 29,597]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Because I know that any citation of civilian deaths at the hands of the American military will be dismissed out of hand as "whataboutism," I will only put forth a token effort to make the argument. And to say, "yeah what about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam? And by proxy, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras? And The Phillippines circa 1900? (Read Mark Twain's diaries on our atrocities there.) Of all people, who are we to pontificate about the civilian casualties inflicted by others? Of course, we have had the decency to confine most of ours to brown people, so we didn't rip the fart in church Putin has in that regard. And we always believe we have learned our lesson and won't do the same in the next war, and then the next war rolls around, and it's the same ol' same ol'. "The enemy was using them as human shields." "We acted off bad intel." 

All empire bad. Try it.

[WhatTheBuck 28,937]

Still recommended reading. Still relevant. It illustrates many of the ways Bush/Cheney foreshadowed the Trump presidency.

 

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

People who have their hands bound and are shot in the head, then left in mass graves or in front of their homes as a warning are not “civilian casualties” you utter cretin.  Here, let me illustrate what that looked like the last time it happened in Ukraine:

 

Your juvenile, knee-jerk leftism has broken your moral compass. 

What is your source for this info?

[Bojack 2,092]

2 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It occurs to me that some of this could be the inborn American inability to accept draws. We've eliminated them from pretty much all our sports. We can't abide a game without a clear-cut winner and a loser. Fair enough. But you know who would win if we can create a neutral Ukraine? The Ukraine you armchair guerilla commandos profess to love. 

I've not followed all of your posting on this.  What would a draw look like?  Do you really think if Ukraine had adopted a posture of neutrality that Vlad would respect that and  leave them alone?

[Hefeweizen 5,445]

I’d documented you leftist piece of fuck.  Go look at bucha.  It’s not Babi Yar yet but give your God Putin time and he’ll get there.   Executing males 18-60.  That’s your “reaction to NATO.

 

 Disingenuous dick hole.

[Hefeweizen 5,445]

8 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

What is your source for this info?

“Just asking questions” isn’t just for Q apparently.

[MaybeACoordinator 8,350]

4 minutes ago, Bojack said:

I've not followed all of your posting on this.  What would a draw look like?  Do you really think if Ukraine had adopted a posture of neutrality that Vlad would respect that and  leave them alone?

Yes, I do. If you have not followed my posts I would direct you to the realist school of IR as espoused by Dr John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. "Why Ukraine Is the west's fault" has an inflammatory headline but it was not so inflammatory in 2014 when he gave the talk as it is now. Check him out on Youtube. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It’s telling that you’re more outraged about imaginary war crimes in 1942 than about very real atrocities from yesterday. 

You would likely be closer to assessing the attitude of the average eastern European than I ever would, so disregarding the scholarly debate (the Holomodor question--was it intentional genocide vs Soviet bungling) my outsider view is that there exists systemic bias against native Ukrainians by native Russians as opposed to a 'we welcome them back into the fold' (of Mother Russia) type of situation. Would that be near the mark?

Edited April 3, 2022 by Mrs Whiggins

[Hefeweizen 5,445]

You’re clueless.  Sorry, you are living in a world before mass war crimes were being documented in Ukraine.

 

Directed at. MAC.  

Edited April 3, 2022 by Hefeweizen
Fuck Tom Herman.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

6 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Yes, I do. If you have not followed my posts I would direct you to the realist school of IR as espoused by Dr John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago. "Why Ukraine Is the west's fault" has an inflammatory headline but it was not so inflammatory in 2014 when he gave the talk as it is now. Check him out on Youtube. 

Yeah....  no.

[956 Worldwide 35,599]

17 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

What is your source for this info?

What a disingenuous and pathetic reply. It’s all over the fucking news and you’re still posting shit from a self-aggrandizing Chicago professor in 2014.  It appears to be the sole source of information you have used to form your opinion about what is happening in Ukraine. Are you capable of absorbing and synthesizing new information. 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/03/they-were-all-shot-russia-accused-of-war-crimes-as-bucha-reveals-horror-of-invasion

[WhatTheBuck 28,937]

I think it’s awesome how we keep announcing in American media that Putin isn’t receiving the truth about facts on the ground in Ukraine. It’s got to drive him crazy and scare the hell out of his underlings.