WW3 Please SAY NO!

[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."

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by jgannon

Joe! I provided the link about Gorbachev, because I wanted to acknowledge that Gorbachev does tell the story differently. But maybe there is something in the documents which might support what Gorbachev does say about NATO expansion violating the spirit of the agreement. You yourself say you have not looked through all of the documents. Maybe there is something in there that you didn't read that might temper your viewpoint.

Shemp, you may acknowledge what Gorbachev said about a NATO promise, but do you believe him? Based on the rest of your reply, the answer is, "No." If you did, you wouldn't have linked to Margolis' article where he pretty much only talks about the Russians being LIED to.

As for the highlighted portion, if there is something in there about this "spirit," find it. How many times do I have to tell you that you are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that your claim is valid. Do you really expect me to accept your claim because there MIGHT be something in the documents to support you? REALLY??

Lastly, in regards to this "spirit" that was "violated," how exactly would that be documented? If NATO expansion was never brought up by any country on either side, as Gorbachev says, what "spirit" are you talking about?

Shemp, I really don't get it. For some reason, you're still fishing for that angle so you can say Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of US lies or phantom "spirits" about NATO expansion.

Originally Posted by jgannon

Far from being unpatriotic, honest critique of one's country is one of the highest forms of patriotism, because if you love your country, you want to be honest with it and about it so it can be the best country it can be. And if it is a great country, one should also be able to freely discuss things without fear of censorship or intolerance. It's a shame that some people here have equated free speech and dissent from the mainstream line with lack of patriotism.

Get used to it Shemp. There are those who say, "Love it or leave it." I don't know how many times I've heard that. There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hey Mike, The one thing you disagreed with me on is actually not supposed to just be about the current situation. My apologies if it didn't come across that way. That statement was made in regard to all the situations that have ever occurred in the history of mankind, what is going on right now, and what has yet to occur in the future, in which innocent people on all different sides of these issues always seem to end up being the ones paying the highest price. I'm not for both sides, I'm really more for no sides, unless you are counting ALL the common, ordinary, everyday people from ALL races and societies as one unified side. That is the side I am for, not the ones created and put out there by the various leaders in different countries/societies/religions around the world. I always think of the old Black Sabbath song, War Pigs, and tend to view most politicians and military leaders, and some religious leaders, in that light. If these people are supposed to be our leaders and speaking out and fighting for us (Or is it really more for them?), why do they always do it from the rear? If we made all these a--hole politicians, religious, and military leaders who keep getting us into all these conflicts actually have to go out and face one another in fights, instead of sending out young people that still have their whole lives ahead of them to kill and be killed on their behalf, I wonder how much more often they'd come up with peaceful, rational solutions to problems, as opposed to actually ever risking their own lives.

And granted, that won't work in deterring all political/military/religious leaders from still getting us into all kinds of conflicts because let's face it, some of them will always still be psychopathic megalomaniacs. But maybe we can at least start culling the herd of them if they want to kill each other off fighting among themselves. Just leave the rest of us out of it, please.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you intended.

As for Black Sabbath, they're one of my favorite bands (I especially love Vol. 4, but Paranoid is also a great album). Another great song on this topic is Dylan's "Masters of War" on his Freewheelin' album.

100% agree with the rest.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

So Al, when are you going to enlighten us with the translation?

It's getting close to 50 years since I studied Russian, and what I get is:

I often obrashchaois to NET54 for sovetom, iskrenne Vladimir.



OK, I just did a quick Google translation on the words I'm missing.

Hey, if he did, maybe things would have gone differently.

Спасибо

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

WaterCooler Talk - Off Topics
General chat and off topic stuff. Please no politics or religion.

[gawaintheknight]

Two things. One is that we should maybe think about why, in spite of the risks of provoking Putin that many people are highlighting, Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO anyway. I assume they knew the risks very well, but thought it was still safer than not joining. If NATO doesn't let them join, it sends a message to Putin: we don't care about these countries and won't protect them. That's what he thought was the case with Ukraine, and we can see how that's working out.

Two, the "encircled by NATO" thing is not all that's going on. Putin has a set of ideological beliefs that are driving his actions as well.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/0...ssian-fascism/

Ted

[sbfinley]

Since the bulk of the discussion began on the question of how much value should be placed on the reporting of major journalism outlets (or in Layman’s term: “sheep blindly trust MSM”). I think it is particularly noteworthy that today the New York Times pulled all of its foreign correspondents out of Russia. It has held a continual presence there since 1921 - through the rise of bolshevism, the power grab of Stalin, through the Second World War and the sieges that ground the Nazi war machine to a halt, through the Cold War, until today. A paper with more than 130 Pulitzer Prizes and multiple Peabody awards, that defended itself in multiple Supreme Court cases that lay the basis for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and that on at least two occasions has been publicly threatened by the sitting President of the United States of America lowered their presence in Russia to zero. They did it to protect their correspondents from Russia’s new law criminalizing any news the state disagrees with.

The point of news isn’t affirmation of your beliefs, the point is to provide facts that can help you make educated and informed decisions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nyt...eedom.amp.html

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.

Well, I'll tell you, if I went to Vegas I wouldn't play Russian roulette.

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you intended.

As for Black Sabbath, they're one of my favorite bands (I especially love Vol. 4, but Paranoid is also a great album). Another great song on this topic is Dylan's "Masters of War" on his Freewheelin' album.

100% agree with the rest.

No problem! Figured you may have just misunderstood my meaning/intention.

As for Sabbath, have loved them since they first came out. Still have their original early albums from when they all were released. I have always thought and felt their very first, self-titled album, was their absolute best. Don't get me wrong, have Vol. 4 and Paranoid from when they were first released, and both are great. But there's something about their initial album that just puts it apart for me. But only really like them with Ozzie. They were never the same with Dio or anyone else. In fact, about the only song of theirs, without Ozzie singing lead, that I really like for some reason is It's Alright, with I believe Bill Ward handling the lead vocals. Sounds nothing like a typical Sabbath song, but is one of those tunes you can't seem to get out of your head. Did you ever get the opportunity to see them perform live with Ozzie?

Dylan's song is great also. But Sabbath's War Pigs is the first truly anti-war song I remember put out by such a different band than the normal protest and anti-war ballads and standards we were used to at the time. And the song's lyrics from back then are as true today as ever. Basically, the poor, common people of the world end up paying the price for fighting wars started by all the rich, powerful, and crazy a--holes on the planet. We are supposed to learn from history so we don't keep repeating our mistakes, and yet.......

[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.

[sbfinley]

The operation to evacuate forces at Dunkirk happened in May 1940 when American isolationism was still polling at about 70%. When thousands of British civilian sailors crossed the channel into a war zone to save their boys there absolutely was not someone coming to help. They were alone on an Island, the last bastion against fascist leadership in Europe. They weathered and they won.

[BobC]

No matter how this all ends up, why not let the people decide? Have the people of Ukraine vote as to whether or not they want to be part of Russia. And if an overwhelming majority agrees, let them become part of Russia.

Of course Putin would never agree to and abide by this because the Russian government doesn't give common people any true choice as to how they want to be governed, do they? There is no single perfect way for all people to live and be governed. Everyone has different thoughts and ideas on what is right or wrong, and just because you're born into a certain culture or society doesn't mean you should be forced to follow a certain way of life or thinking because of the ill luck you had in being born into a culture/society you ultimately don't like, or want to be part of.

And all this crap about NATO and nukes in neighboring countries being part of the reasoning behind this "special military operation" makes no sense. With all the long range missiles and nuclear weapons in the world today, so what if you don't have missiles in Ukraine pointed at you? Chances are just a small country or two away there are other countries with missiles already pointed at Russia. Just like Russia and China and other communist countries have their missiles and nuclear weapons pointed right back at us and other non-communist and NATO countries in the world. I can only guess at how many missiles and nuclear weapons are right at this moment targeting and locked onto New York city or Washington DC, and await only someone giving the order to have them launched. And the same for those on our supposed side locked onto Moscow and Beijing. I'm guessing the real reason for the uproar is that a missile fired from the Ukraine at Moscow, versus one being fired from the continental US, wouldn't give the Russians as much time to detect the launch and shoot it down. And even if they were able to shoot it down in time, it would still be over Russian territory and likely to inflict damage to Russian people and property, as opposed to a weapons launch say from the US that gets intercepted and shot down over an ocean or some other country. And isn't that one of, if not the main reason, we had the Cuban missile crisis back in Kennedy's day? Our side thinks the same way. Maybe if ALL these countries, ON ALL SIDES of these arguments would just stop all the lies and BS they spew out to all the common ordinary people of the world, and for once were open and honest with the entire planet about what was really bothering them, maybe........just maybe, all these world leaders for once could do something for the betterment of all mankind, and not just for their stupid, greedy selves. But I ain't holding my breath, because at the end of the day we're all mostly still just stupid, selfish humans.

The problem with being humans is that there will never be 100% agreement on how we should live and interact with one another. So we are doomed to always have wars and conflicts it seems, at least till we finally succeed in killing ourselves off, or we're done in by some cataclysmic event beyond our control. One of my hopefully most realistically obtainable goals is that I don't live long enough to see either of those things happen. That along with one day completing an S74-1 white silk Ty Cobb advertising back run.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Churchill had some help coming. Not sure Zelensky does.

In addition to what Steve mentioned, the US ambassador to the UK at the time was a Nazi sympathizer. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.

Washington never directly commanded more than 17,000 troops at any one time, and most of them were poorly trained militiamen. The British army, which at the time was the largest, best-trained and well-equipped force in the world, had 48,000 men in North America, plus another 30,000 German mercenaries, 13,000 Indians and 25,000 loyalists.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

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.

The Russians still have not destroyed the Ukrainian Air Force (their objective on day 1), taken Kyiv (day 3), and are nowhere near ready to install a puppet government (end of the first week). They were expecting to have this done and dusted by now, and instead are spinning their wheels and taking heavy casualties. Meanwhile, Ukraine is receiving a steady flow of equipment and volunteers from abroad, while the Russian economy is in free fall, they are staring at a default on their debt, and the Ruble-USD exchange rate is now 144-1.

Look at Putin's body language here. He doesn't look or sound like someone who is winning; he looks like his parents caught him misbehaving and now he's trying to explain why he shouldn't get sent to bed without any supper.

[Shoeless Moe]

Churchill and the Brits would be speaking German right now if the US didn't get involved.

Don't kid yourself.

All Dunkirk was, was a successful retreat.

D-Day, Battle of the Bulge, etc were led by the US. That and the Russians encircling the Germans at Stalingrad, and stopping their advance on to Moscow, those events turned the tide.

Chruchill had BIG TIME help in the US & USSR.

Zelensky may have made the error in thinking he was getting help. Any he is currently getting is very minimal.

And did Putin ever say all this: we'll have this done by Day 1, this done by Day 3?

Provide that link. Not the media saying what his plan was. Could even be false propaganda for all we know. Could be true, that's why I'd like to see a link. They say he wanted it wrapped up in a week so he looks bad. Gives hope to the Ukrainians. Now what if they said he said he wanted it wrapped up in a month or 2. So then is he ahead of schedule?

Not sure how everyone knows what his plans were when I'm not even sure Putin knows. Yes, I'm sure he thought it would be easier. But what will he do in response: turn up the carnage. Not sure that's a much better alternative.

[Shoeless Moe]

....and let's not forget Churchill was voted out of office in 1945.

Apparently not the hero to all.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Churchill and the Brits would be speaking German right now if the US didn't get involved.

Don't kid yourself.

Where did I ever say anything like that? Unless you're confusing me with someone else in this thread?

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

All Dunkirk was, was a successful retreat.

Not to mention the Russians encircling the Germans at Stalingrad, and stopping their advance on to Moscow, that turned the tide as well.

The only city the Russians have besieged so far is Mariupol, which is near the border with Russia and in the part of Ukraine that was very friendly to the Russians.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

And did Putin ever say all this: we'll have this done by Day 1, this done by Day 3?

Provide that link. Not the media saying what his plan was. Not sure how they know when I'm not even sure Putin knows. Yes, I'm sure he thought it would be easier. But what will he do in response: turn up the carnage. Not sure that's a much better alternative.

From Marco Rubio, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Yes, they could be wrong, but so far what he's been posting has been accurate.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Churchill and the Brits would be speaking German right now if the US didn't get involved.

Hitler lost the war the minute he invaded the USSR June 22,1941. The Germans could never match the manpower or production from the unbombable Urals and further east. Stalin had no problem sacrificing millions of people in order to keep himself and communism in power. Eight out of every ten German soldiers killed in WW2 were on the Eastern Front. More German soldiers were killed in and around Stalingrad in one battle than were killed by the US the entire war.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by egri

From Marco Rubio, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Yes, they could be wrong, but so far what he's been posting has been accurate.

Senate Intelligence, now that's funny.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Hitler lost the war the minute he invaded the USSR June 22,1941. The Germans could never match the manpower or production from the unbombable Urals and further east. Stalin had no problem sacrificing millions of people in order to keep himself and communism in power. Eight out of every ten German soldiers killed in WW2 were on the Eastern Front. More German soldiers were killed in and around Stalingrad in one battle than were killed by the US the entire war.

I believe I basically said that. Stalingrad was the turning point. But if the US are not involved on the East, that's more of Hitler's army fighting the Soviet Union on the West. Not sure if that changes anything, but possibly it would have.

I pose this question to you:

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Senate Intelligence, now that's funny.

Now that's a real oxymoron!

[egri]

The Russian Defense Ministry put out this video of some of their special forces in Ukraine a few days ago (this isn't 'Ukrainian propaganda'; if anything, it is supposed to make the Russians look good). Two things I noticed: their helmets do not have NVG mounts, which means the elite forces deploying in the winter (i.e., long nights) don't have NVGs. And, they do not have optical sights on their rifles. Here's another one from the 'exercises' leading up to the war. Again, elite troops who are lacking very basic equipment that would be standard in any Western military.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by sbfinley

The point of news isn’t affirmation of your beliefs, the point is to provide facts that can help you make educated and informed decisions.

I believe the problem nowadays lies with the people who watch talking heads/political commentators/opinion people/etc and think that all of that is “news.”

That and they never leave their echo chamber of confirmation bias.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by egri

The Russian Defense Ministry put out this video of some of their special forces in Ukraine a few days ago (this isn't 'Ukrainian propaganda'; if anything, it is supposed to make the Russians look good). Two things I noticed: their helmets do not have NVG mounts, which means the elite forces deploying in the winter (i.e., long nights) don't have NVGs. And, they do not have optical sights on their rifles. Here's another one from the 'exercises' leading up to the war. Again, elite troops who are lacking very basic equipment that would be standard in any Western military.

This is very strange and interesting. Russia has of course developed numerous optics of several types for the AK-12/15 series and several of them are known to have entered mass production (I believe some have become available for export in the US). Odd they would take them off to shoot a video, but also odd if their special forces are not even using them at all. Easier optic mounting was one of the big selling points of the new rifles.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by BCauley

I believe the problem nowadays lies with the people who watch talking heads/political commentators/opinion people/etc and think that all of that is “news.”

That and they never leave their echo chamber of confirmation bias.

+1

[egri]

Originally Posted by G1911

This is very strange and interesting. Russia has of course developed numerous optics of several types for the AK-12/15 series and several of them are known to have entered mass production (I believe some have become available for export in the US). Odd they would take them off to shoot a video, but also odd if their special forces are not even using them at all. Easier optic mounting was one of the big selling points of the new rifles.

The only reason I can think of that isn’t ‘they don’t have them’ is opsec, but it shouldn’t be a secret that they use that equipment; just off the top of my head, the US, UK and Israel don’t make a secret of it.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

WaterCooler Talk - Off Topics
General chat and off topic stuff. Please no politics or religion.

Aren't you precious?!?

Originally Posted by Kzoo

The Criminal Cabal consists of, among others, the Central Bankers, the WEF and Klaus Schwab, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, and the Windsors (some would include the Vatican on this list, to my initial surprise as I'm Catholic).

The Buffett, Soros, Gates, Bloomberg, Bezos, Zuckerberg, and the 'political leader' type folks in our world are simply their foot soldiers carrying out and pushing their agenda towards a One World Government/Global Reset, a cashless Digital Currency, population control, etc.

Hmm, just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by irv

I believe our media is corrupt and biased with a penchant for protecting U.S. interests by creating and pushing false narratives in an effort to make them look all divine and the like so I really have a hard time believing much of anything that we are being told about Putin, Russia, Zelenskyy and the Ukraine.

Just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

I say we send The Donald over there.

See if he can talk his boy into ending this.

He does that, he would wrap up the next election.

Yeah, this was kind of tongue-in-cheek, but still just as political as my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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.

Much, much more political than my statement and your response ... crickets.

Originally Posted by irv

He is likely just upset like John Kerry is about Putin's lack of buying into the global warming scam. Couldn't believe my eyes when I seen that. Just how stupid can these dingleberries get?
How dare Putin invade another country and not be concerned about climate change!!!

"“I hope President Putin will help us to stay on track with respect to what we need to do for the climate,” Mr. Kerry added"

While climate change should not be political, you think it is. Remember this thread from May 2020:

https://www.net54baseball.com/showth...+change&page=2

You claimed I believe in climate change because I want to punish, weaken, and control "the people that I hate, the ones that voted for," in YOUR words, "The Orange Meanie." Remember that? YOU brought up politics. Good times, huh?

And your response to Irv's political statement ... crickets.

Very selective of you, don't you think?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by BobC

No problem! Figured you may have just misunderstood my meaning/intention.

As for Sabbath, have loved them since they first came out. Still have their original early albums from when they all were released. I have always thought and felt their very first, self-titled album, was their absolute best. Don't get me wrong, have Vol. 4 and Paranoid from when they were first released, and both are great. But there's something about their initial album that just puts it apart for me. But only really like them with Ozzie. They were never the same with Dio or anyone else. In fact, about the only song of theirs, without Ozzie singing lead, that I really like for some reason is It's Alright, with I believe Bill Ward handling the lead vocals. Sounds nothing like a typical Sabbath song, but is one of those tunes you can't seem to get out of your head. Did you ever get the opportunity to see them perform live with Ozzie?

Dylan's song is great also. But Sabbath's War Pigs is the first truly anti-war song I remember put out by such a different band than the normal protest and anti-war ballads and standards we were used to at the time. And the song's lyrics from back then are as true today as ever. Basically, the poor, common people of the world end up paying the price for fighting wars started by all the rich, powerful, and crazy a--holes on the planet. We are supposed to learn from history so we don't keep repeating our mistakes, and yet.......

I've never seen Sabbath live. Unfortunately. But I also have all the albums I bought back in the day. From their first album to the last one I bought, Mob Rules in 1981. I guess we'll have to disagree on Dio. I liked him in Sabbath. I also liked him in Rainbow and a lot of his solo stuff. Hmm, since we disagree on what is their best album and Dio, are we supposed to start shouting at and denigrating each other? Isn't that how it works these days?

Take care.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe View Post
Churchill and the Brits would be speaking German right now if the US didn't get involved.

False; Churchill hasn't spoken any language for quite some time

[BobC]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I've never seen Sabbath live. Unfortunately. But I also have all the albums I bought back in the day. From their first album to the last one I bought, Mob Rules in 1981. I guess we'll have to disagree on Dio. I liked him in Sabbath. I also liked him in Rainbow and a lot of his solo stuff. Hmm, since we disagree on what is their best album and Dio, are we supposed to start shouting at and denigrating each other? Isn't that how it works these days?

Take care.

LOL

No, we're not disagreeing about Sabbath. I don't totally dislike them with RJD, just always liked them more with Ozzie. And too bad you never got the chance to see them together live. Never had the time to see them when they were first together. Almost caught them on their Black and Blue Tour with Blue Oyster Cult and Riot in 1980, but something came up and couldn't make it. Always regretted missing that show, but not too much since Ozzie had already been kicked from the group the year before. So when luck would have it, in 1999 Ozzie got back with Sabbath and was headlining Ozzfest. I made sure to get there. Unbelievable show as Sabbath and Ozzy hit the main stage following Slayer, Deftones, System of a Down, Godsmack, Primus, and with Rob Zombie as Sabbath's lead-in. They sounded and played better than I ever would have hoped, and their playlist was one for the ages:

War Pigs
N.I.B.
Fairies Wear Boots
After Forever
Sweetleaf
Into the Void
Electric Funeral
Dirty Women
Black Sabbath
Paranoid

I only wish they could have included Snowblind and Iron Man on the playlist. And Ozzy even came out with buckets of water, and then a fire hose, to help cool the crowd down. For the few years it was around, Ozzfest was truly a unique experience. But if you were lucky enough to catch it one of the few times Ozzy headlined with Sabbath..........that was something else.

Take care.

[blackandgold]

This was their Ozzfest setlist in Pittsburgh in 2001:
N.I.B.
Snowblind
Scary Dreams
War Pigs
Iron Man
Into the Void
The Wizard
Black Sabbath
Paranoid
Children of the Grave

[Cliff Bowman]

I don’t know much about Black Sabbath other than the first two albums but I do know that Ian Gillan said that he was the worst possible lead singer for them and that the album he did with them was a disaster, but he also says the other three in the group are great guys and he’s on excellent terms with them.

[KMayUSA6060]

Brief break from retirement.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/10/russia...nside-ukraine/

[BobC]

Originally Posted by blackandgold

This was their Ozzfest setlist in Pittsburgh in 2001:
N.I.B.
Snowblind
Scary Dreams
War Pigs
Iron Man
Into the Void
The Wizard
Black Sabbath
Paranoid
Children of the Grave

Another great song list, and see that they did add Snowblind and Iron Man to that year's song list. Wish I could have seen them perform those two songs. I think Black Sabbath and N.I.B. are their two greatest and most iconic songs ever. Biggest reason I like their very first album most of all, those are the first and last songs on Side 1. And when you throw in Geezer's bass solo intro to N.I.B. (titleded "Bassically"), it really sets that finale up. At the time, they were a sound that had never been heard before. And to complete it you need Ozzy's voice. Iommi's sound was also unique. Do you know the story behind his accident and why he plays and sounds like he does? He is one of the most underrated guitarists of all time IMHO. And the bass/rhythm section of Ward and Butler are up there with the best as well, and are second to none.

I saw Ozzy/Sabbath in Columbus at the 1999 Ozzfest, with my then 13 year old oldest son, and a couple of his friends. We made a pact that none of them would ever tell their Mothers what I really took them to. LOL

Took my daughter, who's 3 years older than my elder son, to the 2000 Ozzfest, which was much closer to home, at the Blossom Music Center located between Cleveland and Akron. Unfortunately, Ozzy went solo without Sabbath that year. It was still great, but just wasn't the same. He did mostly his solo hits, but still threw in War Pigs, and ended the night with Paranoid. But it wasn't Sabbath.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I don’t know much about Black Sabbath other than the first two albums but I do know that Ian Gillan said that he was the worst possible lead singer for them and that the album he did with them was a disaster, but he also says the other three in the group are great guys and he’s on excellent terms with them.

Oh yeah, Butler, Ward, and Iommi are all phenomenal musicians. And Ian Gillan is definitely no slouch as a singer either. First ever concert I went to was to see him and Deep Purple in 1973. Listening to them perform Smoke On the Water live would blow your mind, along with your eardrums. LOL

Thing to me is, you need Ozzy's voice to match up with and bring out the best of Black Sabbath. They truly demonstrate how the sum can be so much greater than the parts. They just aren't the same with someone else singing their songs.

[Shoeless Moe]

Sounds like Kyiv is about to fall.

Isn't that where Zelensky is? or is he on the move?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Shemp, you may acknowledge what Gorbachev said about a NATO promise, but do you believe him? Based on the rest of your reply, the answer is, "No." If you did, you wouldn't have linked to Margolis' article where he pretty much only talks about the Russians being LIED to.

As for the highlighted portion, if there is something in there about this "spirit," find it. How many times do I have to tell you that you are the one making the claim, you are the one who needs to provide evidence that your claim is valid. Do you really expect me to accept your claim because there MIGHT be something in the documents to support you? REALLY??

Lastly, in regards to this "spirit" that was "violated," how exactly would that be documented? If NATO expansion was never brought up by any country on either side, as Gorbachev says, what "spirit" are you talking about?

Shemp, I really don't get it. For some reason, you're still fishing for that angle so you can say Putin is justified in attacking Ukraine because of US lies or phantom "spirits" about NATO expansion.



Get used to it Shemp. There are those who say, "Love it or leave it." I don't know how many times I've heard that. There is one political party in this country that seems to think they own patriotism and you're either with them or against them. If you don't wrap yourself up in the American flag or wear a flag pin, you're unpatriotic. If they are in the White House, you don't dare criticize the government because to do so is unpatriotic. In fact, you could probably storm the Capitol to prevent a fair election from being certified and you would probably be called a patriot by them ... if it is done to keep them in the White House of course.

Infraction given - Politics

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by BobC

Oh yeah, Butler, Ward, and Iommi are all phenomenal musicians. And Ian Gillan is definitely no slouch as a singer either. First ever concert I went to was to see him and Deep Purple in 1973. Listening to them perform Smoke On the Water live would blow your mind, along with your eardrums. LOL

Thing to me is, you need Ozzy's voice to match up with and bring out the best of Black Sabbath. They truly demonstrate how the sum can be so much greater than the parts. They just aren't the same with someone else singing their songs.

This is true. Even though I really like Dio, the old BS songs aren't the same with him instead of Ozzy.

[irv]

113 BILLION to Ukraine, and counting.
To put this into perspective. If one had just 1 million dollars it would take 3 yrs to spend it if one spent a $1,000 dollars each and every day (24/7 365)
To spend the same amount, a $1,000 each and every day, with just 1 billion, (not 113) it would take one 2,740 yrs to spend it.

Just curious how many are willing to send their son's and daughters to Ukraine, (one of the most corrupt and crooked regimes on this planet) to help Zelenskyy out like he is suggesting?

Anyone else curious when WW3 is about to begin? We are getting closer and closer each and everyday.
And before anyone thinks Putin is the aggressor here, please tell me why Joe and company discouraged Zelenskyy from reaching a peace agreement with him? Why is the U.S. so heavily invested in Ukraine? Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation, an explanation that would justify supporting Zelenskyy and his band of Nazi's?
Since 2014 Russia is the only side who has been advocating for peace and negotiations, hence the Minsk agreements. Even now they have reached out to end the conflict. Deaf ears... If they wanted to destroy Ukraine they would have by now. I don't think that is what they want to do despite all of the rhetoric.
https://youtu.be/gQRrj1FZICE
Zelinsky:

Ukraine needs fresh young Americans to help fight on the ground war.

"The US will have to send their Son's & Daughter's... to WAR..."

"....and they will be DYING."

https://twitter.com/JamesPhillips00/...84722253312002

[steve B]

How about looking at Putins offer.

"Give us 20% of your country and we might leave you alone for a while, maybe"

Such a bargain!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by steve B

How about looking at Putins offer.

"Give us 20% of your country and we might leave you alone for a while, maybe"

Such a bargain!

Right. It frustrates me that some people didn't learn the simple lesson of WW2: When dealing with a sociopathic megalomaniac intent on starting wars and grabbing land from its sovereign neighbors, appeasement doesn't work.

[Smarti5051]

Using the "James Phillips quote machine," I believe this accurately reflects Irv's position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as I am quoting Irv directly:

"Putin is the aggressor. . . . [T]he U.S. [is] so heavily invested in Ukraine[,] that would justify supporting Zelenskyy. . . . [M]any are willing to send their son's and daughters to Ukraine, to help Zelenskyy out."

I am shocked to read this! I disagree with Irv's position and do not believe we should be sending American troops to fight in Ukraine. Based on the quote above, it seems like Irv might be motivated by profit, not peace.

Obviously, this is all malarky, and everyone with the benefit of reading what Irv actually said knows it. But, anybody reading or reposting the quote above without his original post will have no idea how manipulated it is. It underscores how dangerous it is to premise your ideas on a completely falsified account of what the originator of information actually said.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

Using the "James Phillips quote machine," I believe this accurately reflects Irv's position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, as I am quoting Irv directly:

"Putin is the aggressor. . . . [T]he U.S. [is] so heavily invested in Ukraine[,] that would justify supporting Zelenskyy. . . . [M]any are willing to send their son's and daughters to Ukraine, to help Zelenskyy out."

I am shocked to read this! I disagree with Irv's position and do not believe we should be sending American troops to fight in Ukraine. Based on the quote above, it seems like Irv might be motivated by profit, not peace.

Obviously, this is all malarky, and everyone with the benefit of reading what Irv actually said knows it. But, anybody reading or reposting the quote above without his original post will have no idea how manipulated it is. It underscores how dangerous it is to premise your ideas on a completely falsified account of what the originator of information actually said.

I am confused by your post, Scott? I am not saying and/or suggesting the above bold at all, quite the opposite actually.
I think it is crazy that it, the Ukraine war, has actually escalated to this point.
Like I've asked numerous times now, why is the U.S. so invested in Ukraine?

It is nothing but a Proxy war with Russia and they've been planning this for sometime now but someone got in the way for 4 years.

NATO, the U.S. and Ukraine are the aggressors here.
China is currently doing business with Mexico.
What do you suppose would happen if China put up military bases and missle silo's along the U.S./Mexican border?
Both side of the political fence would react as expected.
This is something the U.S. and their funded media tries to keep from us.

I am no Putin sympathizer but he is not the aggressor here nor did he start this but those that are, like I said, are going to get us into WW3.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by irv

I am confused by your post, Scott? I am not saying and/or suggesting the above bold at all, quite the opposite actually.
I think it is crazy that it, the Ukraine war, has actually escalated to this point.
Like I've asked numerous times now, why is the U.S. so invested in Ukraine

I think he is saying that someone nefarious could quote your post out of context to make it say the opposite of what you actually mean. Not that any members here would do that .

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

I think he is saying that someone nefarious could quote your post out of context to make it say the opposite of what you actually mean. Not that any members here would do that .

Well, yes, but more precisely, I was drawing a parallel to the quote of Zelenskyy being tortured by the Twitter user Irv referenced in his original statement. Much like my tortured quote of Irv, JamesPhillips bastardized a quote from Zelenskyy to suggest he said something very different from what he actually said. Irv then uses this mis-quote as support for part of his argument. I was pointing out that relying on a bad source for factual information can be dangerous.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by irv

It is nothing but a Proxy war with Russia and they've been planning this for sometime now but someone got in the way for 4 years.

NATO, the U.S. and Ukraine are the aggressors here.

Putin has said the biggest tragedy of the 20th century was the disillusion of the USSR. His plans in Ukraine are clearly to conquer as many countries and grab as much land as possible. Early in the war, Lukashenko laid out the plan to invade Moldova after conquering Ukraine. Medvedev has even suggested Russia should move int east Germany.

The war is in Ukraine because Russia invaded Ukraine. They have been bombing hospitals, apartments, schools, and power plants (in winter) to kill as many civilians as possible. There are thousands of documented instances of torture, civilian executions, rape as policy, and other various war crimes.

When you say the USA, NATO, and Ukraine are the aggressors, you are dead wrong. It's like blaming Poland for being invaded by Hitler.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

Well, yes, but more precisely, I was drawing a parallel to the quote of Zelenskyy being tortured by the Twitter user Irv referenced in his original statement. Much like my tortured quote of Irv, JamesPhillips bastardized a quote from Zelenskyy to suggest he said something very different from what he actually said. Irv then uses this mis-quote as support for part of his argument. I was pointing out that relying on a bad source for factual information can be dangerous.

Yes, the twitter bit is snapshot of the full conversation and just like I posted, it was posted out of context, but at the same time if you can't see that Zelenskyy is just trying to elicit sympathy and instill fear in the American Public so the billions keep flowing, then I can't help you.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Putin has said the biggest tragedy of the 20th century was the disillusion of the USSR. His plans in Ukraine are clearly to conquer as many countries and grab as much land as possible. Early in the war, Lukashenko laid out the plan to invade Moldova after conquering Ukraine. Medvedev has even suggested Russia should move int east Germany.

The war is in Ukraine because Russia invaded Ukraine. They have been bombing hospitals, apartments, schools, and power plants (in winter) to kill as many civilians as possible. There are thousands of documented instances of torture, civilian executions, rape as policy, and other various war crimes.

When you say the USA, NATO, and Ukraine are the aggressors, you are dead wrong. It's like blaming Poland for being invaded by Hitler.

Yes, not denying that but like I wrote above, how do you think the U.S. would react if China, even without the help of NATO, placed military bases and missle silo's along the U.S. border?

Those other things you wrote, Mark, are straight out of the MSM feeds. The oldest trick in the book to make Putin and Russia look a bunch of barbarians to drum up support and dwell up sympathy for Ukraine.
Watch the vid I posted earlier/yesterday/whenever about Ukraine. It should be an eye opener. Azov Nazi's are a large part of Zelenskyy's army/support groups. They have been torturing/killing citizens in the eastern parts of Ukraine for years now.

This NBC journalist is now on a Ukrainian Nazis hit list all because he questioned some Russian citizens in Crimea about Ukraine and Ukraine govt (Zelenskyy/the Nazi's) didn't like it. Real fine caring people over there.
https://twitter.com/KanekoaTheGreat/...46414926225408
https://myrotvorets-center.translate..._x_tr_pto=wapp

[Smarti5051]

Originally Posted by irv

Yes, the twitter bit is snapshot of the full conversation and just like I posted, it was posted out of context, but at the same time if you can't see that Zelenskyy is just trying to elicit sympathy and instill fear in the American Public so the billions keep flowing, then I can't help you.

I 100% agree with the part about Ukraine appealing to Americans by pointing out that they are a huge underdog to a world power that is attacking them mercilessly and further pointing out that alot of NATO countries that are former USSR territories could result in USA being "forced" to be involved with troops on the ground.

I disagree with your assertion that you originally posted that the quote you used was "posted out of context." You claimed, as did the Twitter poster, that Zelinskyy was calling upon America to send fresh troops to Ukraine to fight Russia. That is just flat out false, and if you read your own post, nowhere in there do I see any effort to clarify that the quote is false. Instead, you specifically reference an equally false quote from JamesPhillips on Twitter. When called out on it, you, like JamesPhillips, basically double down by saying you know it is out of context and false, but it doesn't matter because you believe that is what he meant or that he is just trying to scare Americans. No, if you are going to quote somebody, quote them in context and correctly, not what you are trying to extrapolate from what they are saying to support a position.