Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2973648]That's a recipe for endless war, "prosecution of war crimes" in particular....You could level the same accusations at the USA that you're leveling at Russia. The Mexican-American war is a good analogy ...[/QUOTE]The main reason that Germany is a decent country today is due to the prosecution of war crimes and the de-nazification of society. Justice and the prosecution of crimes is critical to the continuance of a free, egalitarian state. Truly, the Mexican-American war is an excellent comparison to the current Russian invasion of Ukraine -- the difference being we won decisively. I believe one of the reasons the US is such a f!cked up country today is that our imperialistic crimes in the 19th century were never punished. Further, I believe that the failure to pscourge the oligarchic slave holders for their insurrection in 1861 is the principle cause of the current revanchism of the southern US.

If you hope for a modern, prosperous, free and open Russia, as I do, then you should hope for war crimes prosecutions and the de-putinization of Russia.

[QUOTE=JohnClayton;2973658]The main reason that Germany is a decent country today is due to the prosecution of war crimes and the de-nazification of society. Justice and the prosecution of crimes is critical to the continuance of a free, egalitarian state. Truly, the Mexican-American war is an excellent comparison to the current Russian invasion of Ukraine -- the difference being we won decisively. I believe one of the reasons the US is such a f!cked up country today is that our imperialistic crimes in the 19th century were never punished. Further, I believe that the failure to pscourge the oligarchic slave holders for their insurrection in 1861 is the principle cause of the current revanchism of the southern US.

If you hope for a modern, prosperous, free and open Russia, as I do, then you should hope for war crimes prosecutions and the de-putinization of Russia.[/QUOTE]You're making my point Clayton. There was no way Mexico, even if aided with arms (but not troops) from Europe, was going to win the war. And then go marching into Washington D. C. And prosecute James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and George McClellan for war crimes. And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2973648]Ukraine and the West have to be realistic. Russia has a lot more manpower and military capability than Ukraine in addition to a huge nuclear arsenal. It's not going to lose this war.
[/QUOTE]So how come they lost in Afghanistan? They were a nuclear power then, with a lot of manpower and military capability.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2973667]You're making my point Clayton. There was no way Mexico, even if aided with arms (but not troops) from Europe, was going to win the war. And then go marching into Washington D. C. And prosecute James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and George McClellan for war crimes. And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.[/QUOTE]Your "point" is fallacious. It's called the tu quoque fallacy. When faced with the fact that there was no treaty stipulating that NATO won't expand into Eastern Europe, and while even the idea of past verbal assurances are questionable, you dive back 180 years and start talking about the Mexican-American War. So whether it's this whataboutism or some other, rest assured folks, that when Tiny goes there he's a fish out of water in the hear and now and regarding his slanted, Russophile perspective. Congratulations Paul in Zurich.

[URL]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque[/URL]

I'll also add that it's nauseating when you claim to care about human life when appeasement historically has encouraged aggression rather than deter it. What is Russia's word worth in any agreement? Oh but forgot, you're the guy who believes Putin hasn't targeted civilians, while you glad hand here with guys who assert that Alexi Navalny died of natural causes.

This is the 82-year old who told Putin to go fuck himself, although I like another quote more.

[QUOTE]Don't be scared. When you're scared, fear itself overcomes everything. Don't be scared. When you're scared nothing fucking will change.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/19blniw/id_tell_him_to_go_fck_himself_this_russian_woman/?rdt=40169[/URL]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2973667] And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.[/QUOTE]Unsurprisingly your analogy only has your beloved Russia with nukes. NATO will very likely send troops if Puts launches tactical nukes. Odds of him doing that though are slim. Use of the big stuff is a suicide mission. What they count on is making guys like you cower (not hard), to secure appeasement so they can regroup and start more fights in the future. The hope though of course is that they make another go at democracy at some point. The West hopes to be influential in that by exacting costs.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2973667]... no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.[/QUOTE]You continue to advance disinformation about the inevitability of Russian victory. In 2022, when it was already clear that the Russian army was not the second greatest army in the world, only the second greatest in Ukraine, I was worried that Putin would launch his nukes. However, I believe now, that he perceives the war only in terms of his personal survival. He knows that the chance disappears if he uses nukes.

[QUOTE=JohnClayton;2973708]You continue to advance disinformation about the inevitability of Russian victory. In 2022, when it was already clear that the Russian army was not the second greatest army in the world, only the second greatest in Ukraine, I was worried that Putin would launch his nukes. However, I believe now, that he perceives the war only in terms of his personal survival. He knows that the chance disappears if he uses nukes.[/QUOTE]Russia has either lost or failed in their objectives in a number of armed conflicts since developing nukes. Tiny is also incorrect in assuming that Russia is entitled to a sphere of influence while they have an economy about the size of Brazil. That horse left the stable long ago, while nuclear saber rattling is unlikely to get it back.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2973667]You're making my point Clayton. There was no way Mexico, even if aided with arms (but not troops) from Europe, was going to win the war. And then go marching into Washington D. C. And prosecute James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, and George McClellan for war crimes. And, reaching further into the depths of my fantasy world, no way Europeans would have sent troops if the USA had weapons that could be launched with the touch of a red button and would destroy them ten times over.[/QUOTE]I have no idea what you're talking about and why.

1. Mexico, unlike Ukraine, never was aided with arms or troops even though they did appeal to the British. Arguing whether or not they would or wouldn't have won had they received help is utterly pointless.

2. Mexico didn't lose to Texas and later the USA because they had fewer soldiers or weapons. If I remember correctly, the US army was smaller than Mexico's. Mexicans lost because they were disorganized, lacked discipline and were plagued with infighting and political instability.

3. Santa Anna being a narcissist and self-proclaimed Napoleon of the West, royally fucked things up for his country.

4. Finally, for the umpteenth time: What happened in the 19th century has zero bearing for the 2022 Russian colonial war against Ukraine. In the past 200 years, America has changed. Russia hasn't.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2973692]What they count on is making guys like you cower (not hard), to secure appeasement so they can regroup and start more fights in the future. The hope though of course is that they make another go at democracy at some point. The West hopes to be influential in that by exacting costs.[/QUOTE]I guess Tiny is solely responsible for the fall of all the Zelensky loving, Putin hating governments falling in the Western powers like Germany, the USA, now Canada, and soon to be France.

Of all the arguments made, the most compelling against Ukraine I have seen is that we could have built a water pipeline and natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Western USA with the money wasted on Ukraine.

This is a clear case of Democratic pols putting their interests above their constituents and IMO why they and the other Zelensky backers got voted out. In the USA's case, the Dems wanted payback for their belief Putin rigged the 2016 election and to hide all the dirt that is and was going on in Ukraine.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2973889]I guess Tiny is solely responsible for the fall of all the Zelensky loving, Putin hating governments falling in the Western powers like Germany, the USA, now Canada, and soon to be France.

Of all the arguments made, the most compelling against Ukraine I have seen is that we could have built a water pipeline and natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Western USA with the money wasted on Ukraine.

This is a clear case of Democratic pols putting their interests above their constituents and IMO why they and the other Zelensky backers got voted out. In the USA's case, the Dems wanted payback for their belief Putin rigged the 2016 election and to hide all the dirt that is and was going on in Ukraine.[/QUOTE]You don't have an "argument" here. Why? Because you are just repeating the same nonsense again that's already been refuted dozens of times, here in ISG on these threads. You type up false information, and when corrected, whether ten, twenty, or one hundred times, just keep typing up and posting the same falsehoods. Yours is the most common fallacy of the ad-nauseam. A large portion of Republicans have from the beginning been in favor of Ukrainian aid, while Trump himself oversaw the first administration to send lethal aid.

Anyway here's the voting data on the last Ukrainian aid package from eight months ago, House and Senate. It's all quite bipartisan, which well undermines your "Democrat" conspiracy theories. The third link explains your fallacy of the ad-nauseam, which essentially means that if you tell a lie long enough some are liable to believe it. Regardless you've known for a long time that Ukrainian aid has been quite bipartisan, but instead choose to try and fool a few mongers on stupid shit threads. Knock yourself out, as there isn't a lot of hope for the sort of people that would fall for it, embracing what sounds good to them without doing any fact checking.

[URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/full-list-of-republican-senators-who-voted-against-ukraine-aid/ar-AA1nz2Eq[/URL]

[URL]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/these-112-house-republicans-voted-against-ukraine-aid/ar-AA1nmjSP[/URL]

[URL]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_nauseam[/URL]

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2973889]I guess Tiny is solely responsible for the fall of all the Zelensky loving, Putin hating governments falling in the Western powers like Germany, the USA, now Canada, and soon to be France.[/QUOTE]Tiny, like you, is responsible for his constant logical fallacies. I'll leave it at that, but Germany's center-right CDU leader Friedrich Merz, who is the likely next chancellor, is a staunch supporter of Ukraine, and unlike the present leader, supports the use of the German made, long range "Taurus" missles inside Russia.

[URL]https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/12/09/germanys-cdu-leader-friedrich-merz-visits-kyiv-to-reaffirm-support[/URL]

[URL]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/16/germany-set-for-new-elections-after-chancellor-scholz-loses-confidence-vote[/URL]

We know you've exaggerated the US situation, but if you have any evidence that Canada and France are about to close up shop in the matter of support for Ukraine and distaste for the cowardly dictator Putin, then link us to your sources. Links are something you almost never provide, while that would make for a good start in building some credibility for yourself.

BTW, since your Putin sucking up grows all the time, I have a question for you. Do you believe like Blood Red that Alexi Navalny simply died of natural causes? Of course that opens a big can of worms regarding a history of similar events, but a straight answer to that question would be much appreciated.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2973956]Yours is the most common fallacy of the ad-nauseam. A large portion of Republicans have from the beginning been in favor of Ukrainian aid, while Trump himself oversaw the first administration to send lethal aid.[/QUOTE]You are as delusional on this as on Covid. Trump ran on peace in Ukraine not war. The support for war among Republicans in Ukraine is dwindling like crazy. [URL]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-stalled-u-s-aid-for-ukraine-exemplifies-gops-softening-stance-on-russia[/URL].

And some Republicans have been scared of being painted as Putin lovers. That is something you Dems have been falsely charging since Russiagate. And this is what was in the news today, [URL]https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-still-hiding-details-russiagate-newly-released-document-shows[/URL] The Electronic Communication, dated May 16,2017, claimed to have an "articulable factual basis" to suspect that Trump "wittingly or unwittingly" was illegally acting on behalf of Russia. Aaron Mate is looking like crazy as to why this FBI investigation was actually begun.

Ah yes, the truckers in Canada protesting Covid could have been and were accused of the same. They may have unwittingly been acting on behalf of Russia too. Hell, who could NOT be accused of that?

So being a Putin lover, is the same as in the 50's of being a communist lover. So just like in the 1950's, no pol is gong to run on not being pro Zelensky and anti Putin. The question is not what European leaders say but what are they going to do.

The real question, and one that does not bother you at all, is why the hell was the FBI bending over backwards and conducting an illegal investigation to call Trump a Putin lover. The deep state seems to originated this whole shaming crap and making the accusation of being a "Putin lover".

And I am lying? How about you and all the Democratic leaders saying we were supporting Ukraine until they achieved victory? Yeah, Ukraine is going to win against Russia. How long have you all been lying about that? When is Victory Day Paulie? This crap has been going on for years now. How pathetic are you to claim yourself moral as the bodies continue to pile up.

And the Trump election did not signify a change in Ukraine policy? Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Despite challenges, Ukraine is currently winning the economic war with Russia.

[URL]https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/12/18/ukraine-is-winning-the-economic-war-against-russia[/URL]

A Russian victory would come with very high costs for the West, in both the short and long term.

[URL]https://www.globsec.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/Costs%20of%20Inaction%20&%20Benefits%20of%20Action%20report.pdf[/URL]

[URL]https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/high-price-losing-ukraine-part-2-%E2%80%94-military-threat-and-beyond[/URL]

[URL]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/price-russian-victory[/URL]

There's a lot of good content out there folks, for those that want to learn. Or one can continue to read Russia propaganda and listen to YouTube blowhards that knowingly or unknowingly promote the same. It's your choice.

[QUOTE=Paulie97;2973674]Your "point" is fallacious. It's called the tu quoque fallacy. When faced with the fact that there was no treaty stipulating that NATO won't expand into Eastern Europe, and while even the idea of past verbal assurances are questionable, you dive back 180 years and start talking about the Mexican-American War. So whether it's this whataboutism or some other, rest assured folks, that when Tiny goes there he's a fish out of water in the hear and now and regarding his slanted, Russophile perspective. Congratulations Paul in Zurich.

[URL]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque[/URL]

I'll also add that it's nauseating when you claim to care about human life when appeasement historically has encouraged aggression rather than deter it. What is Russia's word worth in any agreement? Oh but forgot, you're the guy who believes Putin hasn't targeted civilians, while you glad hand here with guys who assert that Alexi Navalny died of natural causes.[/QUOTE]Quoque tu too, and quoque your Ivy Leave philosophy degree. Does that make sense? Or how about "Paulie makes Ad Hominem arguments, and then when somebody replies in kind, Paulie tu quoques him." I didn't know what Ad Hominem meant until I saw it used in your posts. Well, you're the master of that. You end up calling board members losers, stupid or immoral in the majority of your posts.

I said the Mexican American War occurred long ago, and that my analogy came from "my fantasy world. " With the possible exception of you, I don't believe board members are current or past movers and shakers in the USA foreign policy / defense / military complex. Furthermore, the person I was replying to presumably wasn't even American. He lives in Zurich. So how am I "appealing to hypocrisy. To shift the focus [B]back on the person making the criticism[/B]"?

What's "nauseating" is enabling this war, so hundreds of thousands more will die, instead of pushing the sides to stop fighting.

Navalny is one person. According to the UN, 12,300 civilians have died in Ukraine over 2 years and 10 months. The allies killed around 24,000 in bombing raids in Dresden in three days. Around 200,000 died from the Hiroshima bomb. Is that another good example of quoque tu?