WW3 Please SAY NO!

[KMayUSA6060]

You can both hate innocent people dying and question things.

Imagine if there were this much outcry against Obama when he let Russia take Crimea (and Georgia, or was that Bush?).

Imagine if the US were to invade sovereign countries under the guise of "saving them", and kill innocent people. Oh wait...

Y'all aren't wrong for hating war. But before you go calling people "Russian stooges" or insinuating others are terrorist apologists, you should be able to answer every question possible.

Why is Zelenskyy being dubbed a hero when all he has done is refuse to negotiate with Russia, then force 18-60 year old makes to stay and fight? He takes opportunistic photos that are nothing but propaganda, yet claims to be on the front lines.

Speaking of Zelenskyy, how closely is he tied to Burisma, the same company that has Hunter Biden, CIA people, etc. all on their board? The owner of the network that produced his show which he rose to fame through is on that board as well.

What does Nordstrom 2 have to do with this?

If what Putin is doing is so atrocious, why haven't US/NATO forces stepped in? If we don't want war but want to protect innocent people, why did we declare war via sanctions and leave the innocent people all but defenseless?

Have people forgotten the level of corruption and meddling the US has done in Ukraine? Or Soros's love of Ukraine?

Why did Obama/Biden allow the Clintons to sell uranium to the Russians?

Why did Biden kill our energy independence, only to buy Russian energy exports?


I'm focused on our involvement in this "conflict". Our government is as much to blame as anyone, yet I don't hear any of that coming from the MSM/news.

[Republicaninmass]

Imagine the US response if Cuba agreed to station Nuclear Missiles.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Imagine the US response if Cuba agreed to station Nuclear Missiles.

Of course, we already know the answer to that, 1962.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Of course, we already know the answer to that, 1962.

I believe They planned an invasion first, but it wasnt logistically possible

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I believe They planned an invasion first, but it wasnt logistically possible

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The first thought was a military response to take the missiles out. They later decided to go with a blockade, which they called a quarantine, to prevent any more missiles from being transported to Cuba. The crisis ended when Kennedy gave Khruschev his assurance that Cuba would not be invaded, and he also privately agreed to take some missiles out of Turkey.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by jgannon

The first thought was a military response to take the missiles out. They later decided to go with a blockade, which they called a quarantine, to prevent any more missiles from being transported to Cuba. The crisis ended when Kennedy gave Khruschev his assurance that Cuba would not be invaded, and he also privately agreed to take some missiles out of Turkey.

Sounds like negotiation worked without having to shed blood. Too bad Putin (or, I guess some would say, Biden) hasn't done the same.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Sounds like negotiation worked without having to shed blood. Too bad Putin (or, I guess some would say, Biden) hasn't done the same.

Oh yeah, the U.S. was lucky to have the right president at the right time. That was masterful diplomacy and statesmanship on his part.

I thought Putin would only go as far as recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk. The region leans heavily toward Russia. Official recognition by Russia as to the independence of those two regions, and the presence of Russian troops may have stopped the fighting there.

Putin absolutely made a mistake by going to war. He lost whatever high ground he had. He had legitimate arguments regarding Ukraine, but there was no reason to launch an all-out war. On the United States' part, we were foolish and arrogant, and misread how serious Russia was on the matter.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Imagine the US response if Cuba agreed to station Nuclear Missiles.

So, are you saying the US should have just straight up attacked Cuba with our full military force?

Since we're imagining things, imagine if the US proposed to actually put nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

What would the acceptable Russian response be to that?

Also, as part of the agreement back in 1962, the US promised not to invade Cuba. As part of the agreement back in 1991 to get nuclear weapons out of Ukraine, Russia agreed not to attack Ukraine.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Why is Zelenskyy being dubbed a hero when all he has done is refuse to negotiate with Russia, then force 18-60 year old makes to stay and fight?

Is he actually forcing people to fight? I had not heard that.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Is he actually forcing people to fight? I had not heard that.

Banned them from leaving, then handed out 10k+ firearms to them. All the while pumping propaganda and false Russian death totals in the beginning to presumably fire up a "fighting spirit".

So semantics would affect the answer to your question.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/6936471001/

[steve B]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Banned them from leaving, then handed out 10k+ firearms to them. All the while pumping propaganda and false Russian death totals in the beginning to presumably fire up a "fighting spirit".

So semantics would affect the answer to your question.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ng/6936471001/

Oh, a country lied about casualty totals... How... surprising?

Russia themselves claimed 0 deaths for at least a couple days.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm focused on our involvement in this "conflict". Our government is as much to blame as anyone, yet I don't hear any of that coming from the MSM/news.

So you're saying we're as much to blame as Russia for what's happening right now?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

So you're saying we're as much to blame as Russia for what's happening right now?

Yes.

[Shoeless Moe]

All of you that are good at finding links, can you find one talking about the lead up to this, meaning the month before the Russian Army started lining up their troops on the borders.

Just curious did Putin and Zelensky meet at all?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Yes.

Just curious, how much blame do you place on the US for the Japanese attack in 1941?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Yes.

You are a Fu***** idiot for thinking that. Someone needs to lob a nuke on Putin's head.
.

[Shoeless Moe]

and since every thread needs a Card (...or a Ticket Stub).

Here is mine, note the date on the Ticket from this Washington Senators game (.....not the only thing going on in Washington DC that day).

July 16, 1945

"At precisely 5:30 a.m. on Monday, July 16, 1945, the nuclear age began."

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhatt...45/trinity.htm

First A-Bomb (might be time for another test....I know the perfect spot......................................HINT: it rhymes with Gremlin)

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Leon

You are a Fu***** idiot for thinking that. Someone needs to lob a nuke on Putin's head.
.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...table-n1290831

"The fact that the NATO status question was not put on the table as Putin signaled that he was serious about an invasion — so plainly that the U.S. government was spelling it out with day-by-day updates — was an error, and potentially a catastrophic one. It may sound cruel to suggest that Ukraine could be barred, either temporarily or permanently, from entering a military alliance it wants to be in. But what’s more cruel is that Ukrainians might be paying with their lives for the United States’ reckless flirtation with Ukraine as a future NATO member without ever committing to its defense.

Analysts say it’s widely known that Ukraine had no prospect of entering NATO for many years, possibly decades, because of its need for major democracy and anti-corruption reforms and because NATO has no interest in going to war with Russia over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russia has meddled and backed armed conflict for years. But by dangling the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership for years but never fulfilling it, NATO created a scenario that emboldened Ukraine to act tough and buck Russia — without any intention of directly defending Ukraine with its firepower if Moscow decided Ukraine had gone too far."
_____________________________________

https://reason.com/2022/02/28/ukrain...urope-clinton/

"Let's start with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. As Reason's Eric Boehm pointed out, Clinton was the first U.S. president in decades to inherit a world that did not include the Soviet Union. Clinton could have completely revamped NATO now that its purpose—defending member nations against the expansion of the Soviet Union—was no longer applicable. Instead, Clinton, with the Republican Party's support, oversaw an expansion of NATO. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all joined. Years later, Putin would cite this enlargement of NATO as one of the West's "broken promises" that justified his Ukraine policy.

Again, Putin is dead wrong. Nothing justifies his Ukraine policy. But the purpose of NATO was defensive: to protect the world from Russian aggression. If NATO policy is antagonizing Russia and being used as a pretext for invasion, it clearly isn't serving that goal.

With the Clinton administration's backing, NATO also intervened in Yugoslavia in 1999 to ensure an independent Kosovo. That military action never had the backing of the United Nations; it was a violation of international law, just like Putin's attack on Ukraine.

George Bush's foreign policy has not held up well, due to the U.S.'s horrendous misadventures in the Middle East, but Bush blundered in Europe as well. At a 2008 NATO summit—one attended by Putin—Bush staunchly supported Ukraine's eventual admittance to NATO, over the objections of France, the U.K., and Germany.

The Obama administration, of course, inflamed tensions with Russia when the U.S. took sides in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. And then came Donald Trump. Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media ceaselessly accused Trump of being a Russian stooge, even a pro-Putin plant, installed by Russia as president of the U.S. due to a subtle influence campaign on Facebook. This was of course ridiculous—and as evidence of how ridiculous the claims are, Trump's actual administration was just as foolishly tough on Russia as his predecessors. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence even reiterated the 2008 Bucharest declaration.

The Biden administration maintained that same fiction. A clear declaration that the Ukraine would not be joining NATO might have deprived Putin of the intellectual ammo he required to move forward with this invasion. We don't know for sure. But it was incumbent on the U.S. to try. NATO is a means to an end—a more safe and secure Europe—not an end unto itself. If expansion is creating the very conditions that NATO's existence is supposed to prevent, it's not working. Yet every single U.S. president since the end of the Cold War has misunderstood this. And now here we are."
____________________________

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...year_2000.html

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say one thing that I have never said before in public. I will say for the first time that in 2000 when President Bill Clinton was visiting Moscow at the end of his term, I asked him how would America see Russia joining NATO. I would not give you all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my conversation -- look, well, let me put it this way. How did Americans really look at this possibility? You can see it in their practical stance. Open support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring our demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on."
____________________________

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

[Leon]

I am not going to even read that diatribe. What Putin is doing now amounts to heinous war crimes regardless of anything else. Specifically shooting missiles at hospitals, schools and everything else will hopefully earn him a special place in Hell. I guess that is, unless you don't read unbiased reporting. But I respect your opinion and won't be changing mine on this subject. All of those kids and women just being killed. The whole country being demolished. So tragic.
.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...table-n1290831

"The fact that the NATO status question was not put on the table as Putin signaled that he was serious about an invasion — so plainly that the U.S. government was spelling it out with day-by-day updates — was an error, and potentially a catastrophic one. It may sound cruel to suggest that Ukraine could be barred, either temporarily or permanently, from entering a military alliance it wants to be in. But what’s more cruel is that Ukrainians might be paying with their lives for the United States’ reckless flirtation with Ukraine as a future NATO member without ever committing to its defense.

Analysts say it’s widely known that Ukraine had no prospect of entering NATO for many years, possibly decades, because of its need for major democracy and anti-corruption reforms and because NATO has no interest in going to war with Russia over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russia has meddled and backed armed conflict for years. But by dangling the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership for years but never fulfilling it, NATO created a scenario that emboldened Ukraine to act tough and buck Russia — without any intention of directly defending Ukraine with its firepower if Moscow decided Ukraine had gone too far."
_____________________________________

https://reason.com/2022/02/28/ukrain...urope-clinton/

"Let's start with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. As Reason's Eric Boehm pointed out, Clinton was the first U.S. president in decades to inherit a world that did not include the Soviet Union. Clinton could have completely revamped NATO now that its purpose—defending member nations against the expansion of the Soviet Union—was no longer applicable. Instead, Clinton, with the Republican Party's support, oversaw an expansion of NATO. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all joined. Years later, Putin would cite this enlargement of NATO as one of the West's "broken promises" that justified his Ukraine policy.

Again, Putin is dead wrong. Nothing justifies his Ukraine policy. But the purpose of NATO was defensive: to protect the world from Russian aggression. If NATO policy is antagonizing Russia and being used as a pretext for invasion, it clearly isn't serving that goal.

With the Clinton administration's backing, NATO also intervened in Yugoslavia in 1999 to ensure an independent Kosovo. That military action never had the backing of the United Nations; it was a violation of international law, just like Putin's attack on Ukraine.

George Bush's foreign policy has not held up well, due to the U.S.'s horrendous misadventures in the Middle East, but Bush blundered in Europe as well. At a 2008 NATO summit—one attended by Putin—Bush staunchly supported Ukraine's eventual admittance to NATO, over the objections of France, the U.K., and Germany.

The Obama administration, of course, inflamed tensions with Russia when the U.S. took sides in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. And then came Donald Trump. Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media ceaselessly accused Trump of being a Russian stooge, even a pro-Putin plant, installed by Russia as president of the U.S. due to a subtle influence campaign on Facebook. This was of course ridiculous—and as evidence of how ridiculous the claims are, Trump's actual administration was just as foolishly tough on Russia as his predecessors. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence even reiterated the 2008 Bucharest declaration.

The Biden administration maintained that same fiction. A clear declaration that the Ukraine would not be joining NATO might have deprived Putin of the intellectual ammo he required to move forward with this invasion. We don't know for sure. But it was incumbent on the U.S. to try. NATO is a means to an end—a more safe and secure Europe—not an end unto itself. If expansion is creating the very conditions that NATO's existence is supposed to prevent, it's not working. Yet every single U.S. president since the end of the Cold War has misunderstood this. And now here we are."
____________________________

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...year_2000.html

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say one thing that I have never said before in public. I will say for the first time that in 2000 when President Bill Clinton was visiting Moscow at the end of his term, I asked him how would America see Russia joining NATO. I would not give you all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my conversation -- look, well, let me put it this way. How did Americans really look at this possibility? You can see it in their practical stance. Open support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring our demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on."
____________________________

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Leon

I am not going to even read that diatribe. What Putin is doing now amounts to heinous war crimes regardless of anything else. Specifically shooting missiles at hospitals, schools and everything else will hopefully earn him a special place in Hell. I guess that is, unless you don't read unbiased reporting. But I respect your opinion and won't be changing mine on this subject. All of those kids and women just being killed. The whole country being demolished. So tragic.
.

Calling someone a f'ing idiot while refusing to read information that supports the basis for their opinion, doesn't exactly scream "I respect your opinion."

Much like Michael Jordan, I will retire again from this thread. Good day, gentlemen, and God Bless.

[G1911]

I’m not sure dropping nuclear bombs on the Kremlin or Putin’s head would accomplish anything but eliminating most human life across the globe, if not all of it. However pro-Ukraine people might be right now, it seems to be in the practical interest of no nation to start the exchange of nukes that ends humanity as we know it.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

Not sure how it’s Leon’s fault you had to chose between Putin and Zyuganov in your first election.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Not sure how it’s Leon’s fault you had to chose between Putin and Zyuganov in your first election.

You gotta admit this is hilarious!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...table-n1290831

"The fact that the NATO status question was not put on the table as Putin signaled that he was serious about an invasion — so plainly that the U.S. government was spelling it out with day-by-day updates — was an error, and potentially a catastrophic one. It may sound cruel to suggest that Ukraine could be barred, either temporarily or permanently, from entering a military alliance it wants to be in. But what’s more cruel is that Ukrainians might be paying with their lives for the United States’ reckless flirtation with Ukraine as a future NATO member without ever committing to its defense.

Analysts say it’s widely known that Ukraine had no prospect of entering NATO for many years, possibly decades, because of its need for major democracy and anti-corruption reforms and because NATO has no interest in going to war with Russia over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russia has meddled and backed armed conflict for years. But by dangling the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership for years but never fulfilling it, NATO created a scenario that emboldened Ukraine to act tough and buck Russia — without any intention of directly defending Ukraine with its firepower if Moscow decided Ukraine had gone too far."
_____________________________________

https://reason.com/2022/02/28/ukrain...urope-clinton/

"Let's start with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. As Reason's Eric Boehm pointed out, Clinton was the first U.S. president in decades to inherit a world that did not include the Soviet Union. Clinton could have completely revamped NATO now that its purpose—defending member nations against the expansion of the Soviet Union—was no longer applicable. Instead, Clinton, with the Republican Party's support, oversaw an expansion of NATO. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all joined. Years later, Putin would cite this enlargement of NATO as one of the West's "broken promises" that justified his Ukraine policy.

Again, Putin is dead wrong. Nothing justifies his Ukraine policy. But the purpose of NATO was defensive: to protect the world from Russian aggression. If NATO policy is antagonizing Russia and being used as a pretext for invasion, it clearly isn't serving that goal.

With the Clinton administration's backing, NATO also intervened in Yugoslavia in 1999 to ensure an independent Kosovo. That military action never had the backing of the United Nations; it was a violation of international law, just like Putin's attack on Ukraine.

George Bush's foreign policy has not held up well, due to the U.S.'s horrendous misadventures in the Middle East, but Bush blundered in Europe as well. At a 2008 NATO summit—one attended by Putin—Bush staunchly supported Ukraine's eventual admittance to NATO, over the objections of France, the U.K., and Germany.

The Obama administration, of course, inflamed tensions with Russia when the U.S. took sides in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. And then came Donald Trump. Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media ceaselessly accused Trump of being a Russian stooge, even a pro-Putin plant, installed by Russia as president of the U.S. due to a subtle influence campaign on Facebook. This was of course ridiculous—and as evidence of how ridiculous the claims are, Trump's actual administration was just as foolishly tough on Russia as his predecessors. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence even reiterated the 2008 Bucharest declaration.

The Biden administration maintained that same fiction. A clear declaration that the Ukraine would not be joining NATO might have deprived Putin of the intellectual ammo he required to move forward with this invasion. We don't know for sure. But it was incumbent on the U.S. to try. NATO is a means to an end—a more safe and secure Europe—not an end unto itself. If expansion is creating the very conditions that NATO's existence is supposed to prevent, it's not working. Yet every single U.S. president since the end of the Cold War has misunderstood this. And now here we are."
____________________________

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...year_2000.html

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say one thing that I have never said before in public. I will say for the first time that in 2000 when President Bill Clinton was visiting Moscow at the end of his term, I asked him how would America see Russia joining NATO. I would not give you all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my conversation -- look, well, let me put it this way. How did Americans really look at this possibility? You can see it in their practical stance. Open support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring our demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on."
____________________________

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

I actually read this twice. I will set aside the fact that, over a span of 30 years, global dynamics have ebbed and flowed and are constantly changing. I will set aside the fact that you point out all of the "missteps" made by the corrupt US but nothing Russia has done over those 30 years, which tends to lead us to think we have been corrupt alone. Remember, your knowledge of the Clinton and Bush years comes from reading, and if your reading selections all stem from a common slant, your view will be slanted. (Very common in today's society.)

But I still don't see how "We teased you about Ukraine." or "We're using Ukraine as a tool against you." or even "We lied about Ukraine entering NATO." is EQUAL to bombing whole cities full of civilians.

KS

PS: Totally off topic, but why were both candidates in 2012 "SOB's?" I can understand not liking their politics or perhaps some decisions from their pasts, but SOB's? I didn't love the choice, but I thought both were decent human beings.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-...table-n1290831

"The fact that the NATO status question was not put on the table as Putin signaled that he was serious about an invasion — so plainly that the U.S. government was spelling it out with day-by-day updates — was an error, and potentially a catastrophic one. It may sound cruel to suggest that Ukraine could be barred, either temporarily or permanently, from entering a military alliance it wants to be in. But what’s more cruel is that Ukrainians might be paying with their lives for the United States’ reckless flirtation with Ukraine as a future NATO member without ever committing to its defense.

Analysts say it’s widely known that Ukraine had no prospect of entering NATO for many years, possibly decades, because of its need for major democracy and anti-corruption reforms and because NATO has no interest in going to war with Russia over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russia has meddled and backed armed conflict for years. But by dangling the possibility of Ukraine’s NATO membership for years but never fulfilling it, NATO created a scenario that emboldened Ukraine to act tough and buck Russia — without any intention of directly defending Ukraine with its firepower if Moscow decided Ukraine had gone too far."
_____________________________________

https://reason.com/2022/02/28/ukrain...urope-clinton/

"Let's start with the Clinton administration in the 1990s. As Reason's Eric Boehm pointed out, Clinton was the first U.S. president in decades to inherit a world that did not include the Soviet Union. Clinton could have completely revamped NATO now that its purpose—defending member nations against the expansion of the Soviet Union—was no longer applicable. Instead, Clinton, with the Republican Party's support, oversaw an expansion of NATO. Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all joined. Years later, Putin would cite this enlargement of NATO as one of the West's "broken promises" that justified his Ukraine policy.

Again, Putin is dead wrong. Nothing justifies his Ukraine policy. But the purpose of NATO was defensive: to protect the world from Russian aggression. If NATO policy is antagonizing Russia and being used as a pretext for invasion, it clearly isn't serving that goal.

With the Clinton administration's backing, NATO also intervened in Yugoslavia in 1999 to ensure an independent Kosovo. That military action never had the backing of the United Nations; it was a violation of international law, just like Putin's attack on Ukraine.

George Bush's foreign policy has not held up well, due to the U.S.'s horrendous misadventures in the Middle East, but Bush blundered in Europe as well. At a 2008 NATO summit—one attended by Putin—Bush staunchly supported Ukraine's eventual admittance to NATO, over the objections of France, the U.K., and Germany.

The Obama administration, of course, inflamed tensions with Russia when the U.S. took sides in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. And then came Donald Trump. Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media ceaselessly accused Trump of being a Russian stooge, even a pro-Putin plant, installed by Russia as president of the U.S. due to a subtle influence campaign on Facebook. This was of course ridiculous—and as evidence of how ridiculous the claims are, Trump's actual administration was just as foolishly tough on Russia as his predecessors. In 2017, Vice President Mike Pence even reiterated the 2008 Bucharest declaration.

The Biden administration maintained that same fiction. A clear declaration that the Ukraine would not be joining NATO might have deprived Putin of the intellectual ammo he required to move forward with this invasion. We don't know for sure. But it was incumbent on the U.S. to try. NATO is a means to an end—a more safe and secure Europe—not an end unto itself. If expansion is creating the very conditions that NATO's existence is supposed to prevent, it's not working. Yet every single U.S. president since the end of the Cold War has misunderstood this. And now here we are."
____________________________

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...year_2000.html

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say one thing that I have never said before in public. I will say for the first time that in 2000 when President Bill Clinton was visiting Moscow at the end of his term, I asked him how would America see Russia joining NATO. I would not give you all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my conversation -- look, well, let me put it this way. How did Americans really look at this possibility? You can see it in their practical stance. Open support of the terrorists in North Caucusus, ignoring our demands and concerns, withdrawing from the arms limitation treaties, and so on."
____________________________

I don't think I'm a f'ing idiot, Leon. I'm 27. My first votable election was in 2012 between two POS. Maybe the generations before me can explain how they let the US government go unchecked with so much corruption for decades. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe, just maybe, if we can expose the corruption within our own government and clean it up, my kids/my grandkids/my great grankids/etc. won't grow up in a world with constant war involving the US.

Yes. Just read this as I was dealing with the other comments. I would have to go back and review Yugoslavia, Kosovo, etc. But yeah, your analysis is spot on.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

You can both hate innocent people dying and question things.

Imagine if there were this much outcry against Obama when he let Russia take Crimea (and Georgia, or was that Bush?).

Apples to oranges. The annexation of Crimea was done under the guise of a “separatist” movement and Russian forces involved did so without flag on their shoulder. There was outcry. It lead to original sanctions and Russia’s eventual expulsion from the G8. The rest is shoulda woulda coulda.


Imagine if the US were to invade sovereign countries under the guise of "saving them", and kill innocent people. Oh wait...



Y'all aren't wrong for hating war. But before you go calling people "Russian stooges" or insinuating others are terrorist apologists, you should be able to answer every question possible.

Why is Zelenskyy being dubbed a hero when all he has done is refuse to negotiate with Russia, then force 18-60 year old makes to stay and fight? He takes opportunistic photos that are nothing but propaganda, yet claims to be on the front lines.

Dude is a hero, but thatÂ’s just my opinion. You claim he refuses to negotiate with Russia is categorically false in every aspect. He has called for direct talks with Putin which so far the Russia leader has refused. His government has twice met for negotiations with Russian leaders. He has been in direct contact with multiple world leaders acting as intermediaries between the two sides including must recently Israeli Prime Minister Bennett.
That claim of yours is idiotically false on all accounts.

He absolutely did close the borders to men 18-60 in the event of needed conscription. True. He did that as the commander in chief of the Ukrainian military because (you know) theyÂ’re currently being invaded (you need a link for that too)?


DudeÂ’s the leader of the Democratic government under invasion (once again you require a primary source?) Of course heÂ’s not trying to flank column with a Javelin. That propaganda you call him out on is letting his country know heÂ’s still there for them and not fleeing in the night - considering you know they are rising together to fend off an invading force.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...r-plant-putin/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews...%3fid=83226054



Speaking of Zelenskyy, how closely is he tied to Burisma, the same company that has Hunter Biden, CIA people, etc. all on their board? The owner of the network that produced his show which he rose to fame through is on that board as well.

What is GodÂ’s name does any of that have to do with another country INVADING a sovereign country to overthrow itÂ’s democratically elected government. ItÂ’s also possible he has Dollywood passes. How close is he to Folly Parton? Know one knows!

Even then and clap with me as I this YOU. DONT. INVADE. A. SOVEREIGN. COUNTRY. AND. BOMB. THEIR. CIVIALIANS. BECAUSE. YOU. DONÂ’T. LIKE. WHO. THEIR. LEADER. IS.

ThatÂ’s article 2 section 4 of the UN bylaws and charter if need reference.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text




What does Nordstrom 2 have to do with this?

CLAP with me and read that last part again.

If what Putin is doing is so atrocious, why haven't US/NATO forces stepped in? If we don't want war but want to protect innocent people, why did we declare war via sanctions and leave the innocent people all but defenseless?

Because anyone with even elementary knowledge of Geopolitics knows a lethal dispute between NATO and Russia carries a large chance of nuclear response for either or both sides. Literally my 11 year old understands that. NATO keeps “calculated ambiguity” to whether or not they maintain a “use first” doctrine in the event of a lethal dispute - but without doubt the chances they are tactically used increases exponentially if the two sides met on the battlefield.


https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999...nale-first-use



Have people forgotten the level of corruption and meddling the US has done in Ukraine? Or Soros's love of Ukraine?

I honestly donÂ’t think the give two shits about about this idiotic ramble considering they are being invaded and having their sovereignty compromised. Could be wrong. They could sit around a camp fire and cook up all kinds of X-Files BS, but just an educated guess is they just want the 100,000+ invading troops, artillery leveling their cities, missiles killing many, and hired mercenaries to GTFO.

Why did Obama/Biden allow the Clintons to sell uranium to the Russians?

For the life of me I donÂ’t have a clue what this has do with a nation invading and trying to overthrow a democratically elected government of a sovereign nation.

Why did Biden kill our energy independence, only to buy Russian energy exports?

The same.

I'm focused on our involvement in this "conflict". Our government is as much to blame as anyone, yet I don't hear any of that coming from the MSM/news.

Read slowly. Our. Government. Did. Not. Invade. The. Sovereign. Nation. Of. Ukraine.

Answered above.

[Shoeless Moe]

Well found Putin & Zelensky's 1st meeting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du2DjJEtc0k

[jgannon]

It's hard to have a face-saving way out of this, but something must be done. The sad truth is, the U.S. and Ukraine should have agreed to Ukraine being a neutral state a long time ago. But Russian hysteria, "Putin bad" thinking, and self-defeating U.S. delusions of hegemony kept that from happening. If they had simply dealt with Russia and engaged in the world of realpolitik, the invasion never would have happened. As far as admiring Zelensky, all I have to say, is that he is not going to defeat the Russians, and the U.S. and NATO are not going to directly fight the Russians. The U.S. encouraged Zelensky to play a dangerous game and it blew up in their faces. The U.S. never had any intentions of backing Ukraine up militarily.

The longer Zelensky holds out, the more his people are going to die. He may be trying to negotiate, but anything short of a promise to remain a neutral state will fail. Putin is not going to back down now. With some countries contemplating sending planes and Russia being on nuclear alert as well as stating that sanctions are tantamount to an act of war, the situation is getting more and more dangerous. Zelensky is frankly being selfish and self-defeating by asking the U.S. to establish a no-fly zone and not reading the handwriting on the wall.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

It's hard to have a face-saving way out of this, but something must be done. The sad truth is, the U.S. and Ukraine should have agreed to Ukraine being a neutral state a long time ago. But Russian hysteria, "Putin bad" thinking, and self-defeating U.S. delusions of hegemony kept that from happening. If they had simply dealt with Russia and engaged in the world of realpolitik, the invasion never would have happened. As far as admiring Zelensky, all I have to say, is that he is not going to defeat the Russians, and the U.S. and NATO are not going to directly fight the Russians. The U.S. encouraged Zelensky to play a dangerous game and it blew up in their faces. The U.S. never had any intentions of backing Ukraine up militarily.

The longer Zelensky holds out, the more his people are going to die. He may be trying to negotiate, but anything short of a promise to remain a neutral state will fail. Putin is not going to back down now. With some countries contemplating sending planes and Russia being on nuclear alert as well as stating that sanctions are tantamount to an act of war, the situation is getting more and more dangerous. Zelensky is frankly being selfish and self-defeating by asking the U.S. to establish a no-fly zone and not reading the handwriting on the wall.

If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence. If you wouldn’t then that’s fine, if you would however in one breath be willing to fight for the United States right to govern itself democratically and in the last breath call Zelensky selfish for doing just that - then you you’re completely missing the point.

Our country was built on the blood of people who died for our sovereign independence. Expecting another nation to hide under the covers when their moment arises is cowardice.

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence. If you wouldn’t then that’s fine, if you would however in one breath be willing to fight for the United States right to govern itself democratically and in the last breath call Zelensky selfish for doing just that - then you you’re completely missing the point.

Our country was built on the blood of people who died for our sovereign independence. Expecting another nation to hide under the covers when their moment arises is cowardice.

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

[jgannon]

I'll just add that negotiating a peace is not surrender or cowardice.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

124 word response and you didn’t even come close to answering the question. If America’s sovereign right to govern itself was challenged by an invading force would you fight to defend (or expect those capable) it or would you accept an outside power dictating your governance? Don’t slyly evade the question like a corrupt politician. Answer it.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

I'm sure glad people don't think we are a "free" country with a recently stolen election. Also, I'm sure glad we don't have corruption in our country. Lastly, it's a blessing that we don't have neo-Nazis groups in this country, I don't know, holding rallies. Because if we did, people would think other countries would be justified in freeing us by military force.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Ukraine was ostensibly "free" although it is a very corrupt country and neo-Nazis groups are a force to be reckoned within the country. By declaring neutrality, Ukraine may not have become a part of NATO, but it would have actually safeguarded it's security. They have brought on the very thing they had hoped to keep from happening. That's why elected leaders should be learned in history and politics, actually having a background for leading. Zelensky was a comedian. At any rate, Zelensky should have acknowledged the reality of the situation and avoided trouble with his nuclear power neighbor. His people are dying for his mistake. His calls for a no-fly zone show how delusional and out of touch with reality he is.

Hey, what do you know? We agree on something! We should learn from history.

Let's make up a hypothetical situation and see if we can use history to help us formulate a way to react.

Let's assume there's a country ... let's make one up and call it Deutschdirt. Let's say they were really down on their luck and agreed to a treaty. But then later on, they got a leader that didn't like that treaty. He didn't think it was fair. So he decided to annex a bordering country because, I don't know, he claimed Deutschdirters who lived there weren't being treated properly. Let's say that no other country objected. That leader then decided to take over another country and all the other countries said, "Neville mind him taking that country. If we let him have that country, he'll stop."

Is there anything in world history that you can think of that might give us a hint at how this might play out?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

If it were America under siege from a larger invading nation would you accept our capitulation? Or would you fight and possibly die for your sovereign independence. If you wouldn’t then that’s fine, if you would however in one breath be willing to fight for the United States right to govern itself democratically and in the last breath call Zelensky selfish for doing just that - then you you’re completely missing the point.

Our country was built on the blood of people who died for our sovereign independence. Expecting another nation to hide under the covers when their moment arises is cowardice.

America is under siege - from within and abroad. That's a huge part of this discussion is recognizing the real enemy.

What if you weren't willing to die but you were banned from leaving by this so called "hero"? Is that a noble cause or corrupt politics? Prove Zelenskyy is fighting for Ukraine's sovereignty and not to protect a hidden agenda. Again, he's been posting propaganda left and right. Why falsify the number of Russian deaths within the first couple of days? Why allow people to say you're on the front lines when you're not? Question Zelenskyy. He could very well be full of integrity in this situation, but we don't know. And the fact that every single news outlet is reporting him as a hero - instantly - is extremely off to me.

I love this country (America) more than most. But I am sick and tired of it being destroyed, because this is the greatest damn country in the world. We lead by example - peace through strength. Ironically enough, the last president that exemplified that didn't see Russia grow its territory, nor did we have a single war started for 4 years. So when things don't add up, I'm going to ask questions. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You want to truly care about innocent people - Ukrainians and elsewhere? Figure out why the US is meddling in so many damn countries. Figure out why our president's son has a spot on a Ukrainian gas company's board, along with CIA, etc. Figure out why NATO still exists and is growing. Figure out why we have alliances with countries that are more pro-Russian than pro-America (Germany, Italy to name a couple). Figure out why we've stoked the flames with economic sanctions instead of taking military action against a country that is supposedly getting their asses handed to them by a bunch of under-manned, under-armed, and under-trained Ukrainians - or ask yourself if that's really happening based on those simple facts I laid out. Figure out why there are supposedly thousands of Russians dying, yet the vast majority of videos coming out are Russian attacks on Ukraine. Figure out why Russia had been staging their military for months prior to this conflict, and nobody did a damn thing about it. FIGURE OUT WHY GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S LITTLE BLACK BOOK HASN'T BEEN EXPOSED YET!

Saving lives starts with ridding the American government of as much corruption as we can - in both parties. I hate McConnell just as much as I hate Biden. I hate Ted Cruz just as much as I hate Obama. None of them give a damn about you and me - the average American citizen - so why shouldn't we be looking at every possible way to expose them?

Ask. The. Damn. Questions.

Hollywood is corruption's biggest ally. "I can't believe what I'm seeing, this is just like a movie. I never thought this would ever happen." Make reality fiction.

Sheep only say, "BAAAAAAA." Don't be a sheep.

Oh, and then do all of this questioning while paying $4+ - minimum - per gallon of gas because the person in charge right now, telling us that Putin/Russia are the enemy, cut our energy independence - only to buy 200k+ barrels of oil per day from Russia. Then ask who the real enemy is.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

America is under siege - from within and abroad. That's a huge part of this discussion is recognizing the real enemy.

What if you weren't willing to die but you were banned from leaving by this so called "hero"? Is that a noble cause or corrupt politics? Prove Zelenskyy is fighting for Ukraine's sovereignty and not to protect a hidden agenda. Again, he's been posting propaganda left and right. Why falsify the number of Russian deaths within the first couple of days? Why allow people to say you're on the front lines when you're not? Question Zelenskyy. He could very well be full of integrity in this situation, but we don't know. And the fact that every single news outlet is reporting him as a hero - instantly - is extremely off to me.

I love this country (America) more than most. But I am sick and tired of it being destroyed, because this is the greatest damn country in the world. We lead by example - peace through strength. Ironically enough, the last president that exemplified that didn't see Russia grow its territory, nor did we have a single war started for 4 years. So when things don't add up, I'm going to ask questions. Facts don't care about your feelings.

You want to truly care about innocent people - Ukrainians and elsewhere? Figure out why the US is meddling in so many damn countries. Figure out why our president's son has a spot on a Ukrainian gas company's board, along with CIA, etc. Figure out why NATO still exists and is growing. Figure out why we have alliances with countries that are more pro-Russian than pro-America (Germany, Italy to name a couple). Figure out why we've stoked the flames with economic sanctions instead of taking military action against a country that is supposedly getting their asses handed to them by a bunch of under-manned, under-armed, and under-trained Ukrainians - or ask yourself if that's really happening based on those simple facts I laid out. Figure out why there are supposedly thousands of Russians dying, yet the vast majority of videos coming out are Russian attacks on Ukraine. Figure out why Russia had been staging their military for months prior to this conflict, and nobody did a damn thing about it. FIGURE OUT WHY GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S LITTLE BLACK BOOK HASN'T BEEN EXPOSED YET!

Saving lives starts with ridding the American government of as much corruption as we can - in both parties. I hate McConnell just as much as I hate Biden. I hate Ted Cruz just as much as I hate Obama. None of them give a damn about you and me - the average American citizen - so why shouldn't we be looking at every possible way to expose them?

Ask. The. Damn. Questions.

Hollywood is corruption's biggest ally. "I can't believe what I'm seeing, this is just like a movie. I never thought this would ever happen." Make reality fiction.

Sheep only say, "BAAAAAAA." Don't be a sheep.

Oh, and then do all of this questioning while paying $4+ - minimum - per gallon of gas because the person in charge right now, telling us that Putin/Russia are the enemy, cut our energy independence - only to buy 200k+ barrels of oil per day from Russia. Then ask who the real enemy is.

Even more words. Not even gonna count them. Still didn’t answer it.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Why is Zelenskyy being dubbed a hero when all he has done is refuse to negotiate with Russia, then force 18-60 year old makes to stay and fight? He takes opportunistic photos that are nothing but propaganda, yet claims to be on the front lines.

This is spot on and something that really bothers me about the media and society all together. So quick to automatically declare someone is heroic because it just "feels right" so everyone just runs with it.

I was disgusted at a CNN headline today comparing Zelenskyy to Churchill... reminded me of some member of congress shouting at a member of Trump's cabinet, don't recall who or the particular matter, "Sir, do you not have any decency!" only to see all the cretins cheer on the cringeworthy imitation. It seems our culture relies on what might as well be thespians spewing cheesy lines and rhetoric for inspiration. I'm a conservative (I guess?), but this is pervasive across Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and anyone who can't acknowledge that their preferred news source isn't just as biased is living in a fantasy world. It's all the same tomfoolery and I'm as ashamed of someone I probably agree with as much as the prima donnas I oppose for falling for the ruse.

I think we're already living in some type of satirical dystopia... Seems as though the likely outcome of this conflict will either take the humous part of that out of that equation or, hopefully, back to some version of a sane world.

BTW, I hope Zelenskyy does prove to be heroic but to me that's a very serious word to throw around... akin to labeling someone a HOF caliber player.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

This is spot on and something that really bothers me about the media and society all together. So quick to automatically declare someone is heroic because it just "feels right" so everyone just runs with it.

Maybe - and bear with me because this might sound crazy - it “feels right” for people who love their country for all it faults, no matter where that may be, to label someone heroic when that person heads the democratically elected government of a nation being invaded by someone bent on destroying that right of self governance and (here’s where it gets crazy) then in the face of all odds and with free western governments offering him heli-ubers left and right stays with his people as they fight the invading force.

[sbfinley]

I’m beginning to think I’m sheepish from praising Zelensky for not running away from and capitulating to the invaded force shelling small civilian towns and taking among its victims two toddlers today. I should probably get woke and hold off my judgement until I found out if he ate the same Olive Garden as a Burisma executive.


https://twitter.com/myroslavapetsa/s...FU1jTUoltpnoSQ

[Shoeless Moe]

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

That probably would have eliminated A LOT of civilian deaths, not to mention the flattening of cities.

The U.S. should be the last ones criticizing civilian deaths after we dropped 2 A-Bombs on ENTIRE cities, and killed 100's of thousands of civilians.

That being said let's stay on the present day, where everyone is a little more civilized.

But I don't know the exact numbers but possibly 100 civilians dead so far.
Those A-Bombs killed well over 200,000. Let's not go nuts here. That's quite difference.

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

NATO has yet to provide Fifers and Drummers to Ukraine. Conversely the Russian musical instruments are stuck at the back of 40 mile convoy.

I love ya Moe personally, but I can’t believe we’re laying any amount of blame higher than zero on Zelensky for not adhering to Napoleonic era military tactics. If Zelensky and his people believe concessions are acceptable I have no problem with whatever they accept. (For reference the most recent Russia list of concessions demanded included re-writing the Ukrainian constitution.)

It’s their country, it’s their sovereign right to govern themselves. It’s their homes, land, and businesses. They had so many people voluntarily sign up (not conscripted) for the Territorial Defense force they couldn’t arm them all.

When the invaders accepted a ceasefire in Mariupol to allow civilians to leave they only allowed movement on one specific route. Before the ceasefire they bombed the route making it impassable. A second ceasefire had to be agreed upon because no-one was able to leave. Russia demanded the second evacuation had to stick a different specific route. The Red Cross checked the route and discovered land mines and butterfly mines (banned by the Geneva convention) on the route. They are now trying to reach a third agreement.

I will not blame them for fighting for the God given sovereign right to govern themselves.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

I hope something like that happens, but I can't imagine it at this point. I think even if both were willing to make concessions it would be laying the groundwork for an even bigger conflict in the future. Think about how NATO would view Russia at that point and would they just lift all sanctions at that point. I just think that would alleviate the problem in the short run but lead to WW3.

I think the only way to avert WW3 is for a Ukraine victory without direct NATO involvement. Maybe, just maybe, if things really turned south against Putin and he realized there was no way to victory and he would agree to some type of a deal and Ukraine would give up some territory with a lot of concessions from Russia. I just can't see that happening though. I'm really not sure how this turns out but I fear it's only a matter of time before a lot more countries get pulled into this.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

Yeah, sure. A bunch of guys standing against 20 miles of tanks. That would be smart.

If an inner city gang invaded my home with intent to kill me, I would take cover. I wouldn't walk into my front yard to "fight fair."

[egri]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Looking at this objectively. The Russians are bombing the cities, but the Ukraine fighters are hiding and fighting in the cities. So while yes civilians are getting killed, but isn't that in part Zelensky's fault being all holed up instead of out on the battlefield other then the occassional picture?

I mean I know he's a busy guy and probably has a lot on his mind. I can not even fathom the situation he is in. So I do also give him lots of credit, but...

Shouldn't it be army vs army out on the battlefield?

That probably would have eliminated A LOT of civilian deaths, not to mention the flattening of cities.

The U.S. should be the last ones criticizing civilian deaths after we dropped 2 A-Bombs on ENTIRE cities, and killed 100's of thousands of civilians.

That being said let's stay on the present day, where everyone is a little more civilized.

But I don't know the exact numbers but possibly 100 civilians dead so far.
Those A-Bombs killed well over 200,000. Let's not go nuts here. That's quite difference.

All that being said I still feel Zelensky should make a few concessions and get this over with so no more have to die on either side. Putin ain't backing down until he wins, I think that much we all can agree on. Be nice if he crumbled, but no signs of it yet. Zelensky needs to be the bigger man, take West of the river give East of the river to Putin. Putin saves face, gains land, Zelensky 1. lives, 2. Ukraine get less, but that's a lot better than the alternative 3. No more deaths 4. They both look like winners to their side. End it already, 2 stubborn leaders. Figure it out.

Serious question, should George Washington have surrendered after his defeat in New York, or Winston Churchill have surrendered after Dunkirk? Both would have saved a lot of civilian deaths, but left their respective countries much worse off.

Putin is a liar and a thug, and his domestic critics are either dead or in jail. Any peace will only last as long as it takes him to replace his losses, then he will be on the march again. Besides, the Russians are getting taken to the woodshed. Their advance has stalled out, their generals are getting picked off like fish in a barrel, and with the muddy season about to start, they won't be going anywhere any time soon.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by egri

Serious question, should George Washington have surrendered after his defeat in New York, or Winston Churchill have surrendered after Dunkirk? Both would have saved a lot of civilian deaths, but left their respective countries much worse off.

Putin is a liar and a thug, and his domestic critics are either dead or in jail. Any peace will only last as long as it takes him to replace his losses, then he will be on the march again. Besides, the Russians are getting taken to the woodshed. Their advance has stalled out, their generals are getting picked off like fish in a barrel, and with the muddy season about to start, they won't be going anywhere any time soon.

Churchill had some help coming. Not sure Zelensky does.

Washington, he had the homefield advantage, them Brits had a long boat ride across the pond, and it was a fairly even strength battle wasn't it, I don't recall numbers for each side.

This is like my little league team taking on the Yankees. Granted they are looking more like the Orioles, but still. As for taken to the Woodshed, not sure we are watching the same skirmish. Maybe they have put up more resistance then Putty expected, but I do not see the tide turning. As of now looks like they are just delaying the inevitable.

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

Maybe - and bear with me because this might sound crazy - it “feels right” for people who love their country for all it faults, no matter where that may be, to label someone heroic when that person heads the democratically elected government of a nation being invaded by someone bent on destroying that right of self governance and (here’s where it gets crazy) then in the face of all odds and with free western governments offering him heli-ubers left and right stays with his people as they fight the invading force.

I think we just view the word heroic differently. Pretty much an easy binary choice he had to make. He made the right one and should be applauded for that. Not saying that I'd like to change places with him, and I'm not egotistical enough to think I'd somehow wind up in his position, but I feel fairly confident that I and everyone else on this board would've done the same. Brave? Yes. Heroic? Not quite yet.

He's basically in a George W. Bush post 9/11 situation right now. Opinions may differ but the overwhelming majority probably wouldn't declare Bush as being heroic now. Not comparing people but just the situation.

Regardless, I'm obviously wanting to see Russia pull out before things get any worse and he definitely deserves praise for doing the right thing.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by ronniehatesjazz

I think we just view the word heroic differently. Pretty much an easy binary choice he had to make. He made the right one and should be applauded for that.

I disagree it was easy. Easy would be accepting a NATO chopper to Berlin and leading a government in exile. Easy would be leaving and watching the people who freely elected you be absorbed by a nation detaining a survivor of the siege of Leningrad for standing outside the Kremlin and calling for peace. There is nothing about his choice that was “easy.” That’s just my opinion though.

[Exhibitman]

"Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"
--John Lennon

Pray to whatever gods you believe in and for the sake of all our children that this is not the start of WWIII.

Peace and Love, brothers and sisters. Out.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

"Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one"
--John Lennon

Pray to whatever gods you believe in and for the sake of all our children that this is not the start of WWIII.

Peace and Love, brothers and sisters. Out.

Enough of that Lennon Communist manifesto!!!

Pick a better song, like say Twisted Sister "We're Not Gonna Take It" for the Ukraine. And maybe "Rapid Fire" by Judas Priest for the Russians.

Funny story, well not really a story, but at the grocery store yesterday, and this guy maybe 50-60's and I are perusing the salad dressings, and he points to the Russian dressing and says "don't get that one". Cracked me up.