Russia Russia Russia

[Nouseforaname]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I would call anything that reaches quadruple digits as a large swath when discussing segments of a population. But again, we're talking about a term of art instead of the actual thesis of the post. 

Generally, a thesis has to be backed by actual relevant verifiable points.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

8 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

Large swaths is closer to 50% than potentially 10-40.  I know Russian nationals who suddenly put Ukraine flags on their Facebook profile, does that mean that Russian nationals are against the war or is it just confirmation bias ?

 

 

 

So, again, instead of discussing the meat of the issue you're getting into a semantic argument on the adjective used to describe a real phenomenon. 

 

Got it. Keep being intellectually brave, Meazza.

[Deranged Rhino]

7 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

Generally, a thesis has to be backed by actual relevant verifiable points.

 

 

 

And instead of discussing any of those in the post - you pretend they're not there and focus on your interpretation of two words. And, in the process, you get that interpretation completely wrong.  

[Ann]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I disagree. They have boasted and broadcasted the goal for over 8 years in various ways. The goal is to use this conflict to bleed Russians (at the expense of Ukrainians) in order to prompt a regime change in Moscow. 

 

Removing Putin is the goal, and has been for about a decade. And while I agree with you that Russia is the one that marched over a border for territorial gain, it's also true that the west did all it could to force Putin's hand on exactly that issue because they want this fight too. 

 

That's why there's been no attempts to de-escalate. No attempts to find a diplomatic solution. No attempts to do anything but expand and prolong the fight at Russia's expense.

You think that’s the goal? I think that is the excuse. IMO, the goal is money laundering and War, Inc. profits. These people don’t give a shit about the people living there. Those citizens are merely casualties of war and profit. TPTB backing this war are evil. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

First they said they would never send tanks. 

Then they sent tanks. 

Then they said they would never send long range missiles. 

Now they're sending long range missiles. 

Next they'll repeat how they'll never send fighter jets. 

In about a week or two, they'll send fighter jets. 

 

This conflict must continue from the west's perspective, regardless of the human cost for Ukraine, regardless if there's an escalation of the fighting beyond the borders of Ukraine - it must continue. They've sunk all their eggs into this basket and can't allow it to end until they get their desired result... or we're all dead. Whichever comes first.

 

 

Ask yourself again: is Ukraine, a country that's been Russian longer than it's been independent - a country where large swaths of the population want to be Russian - a country that serves no cultural, tactical, strategic, or economic value to the West (and never has) - a country that's so corrupt even leaders from other nations come there to get their beaks wet - is that a country worth gambling all our lives on to keep it (checks notes) "free"?

 

Or maybe, just maybe, there should be serious consideration given to finding a diplomatic solution to the problem - even if it means carving up Ukraine?

 

Did they say they'd never send tanks? 

Did they send tanks?

Did they say they'd never send long range missiles? 

Are they now sending long range missiles? 

Has the country of Ukraine been Russian longer than it's been independent? 

Does the Ukraine serve any economic, military, strategic, or tactical value to the West in the modern world?

Is Ukraine a bastion of corruption?

Have western leaders used Ukraine to feather their own nests?

Has there been any serious diplomatic efforts waged by the west to bring the war to an end?

 

 

Care to address any of those "actual relevant verifiable points"? Or would you like to continue to run away from the actual discussion, @Nouseforaname?

Edited February 18, 2023 by Deranged Rhino

[Nouseforaname]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

So, again, instead of discussing the meat of the issue you're getting into a semantic argument on the adjective used to describe a real phenomenon. 

 

Got it. Keep being intellectually brave, Meazza.

The meat of the discussion is whether Ukraine should agree to be carved out in a peace treaty and one of your supporting facts is that effectively, Ukrainians wanted it this way.

 

I’m discussing the topic you posted and pointing out how you’ll basically say anything to support your argument.  Saying that large swats of Ukrainians want to be part of russia is one of those arguments.  
 

Nothing brave about me calling you out on your bullshit.

[Nouseforaname]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Did they say they'd never send tanks? 

Did they send tanks?

Did they say they'd never send long range missiles? 

Are they now sending long range missiles? 

Has the country of Ukraine been Russian longer than it's been independent? 

Does the Ukraine serve any economic, military, strategic, or tactical value to the West in the modern world?

Is Ukraine a bastion of corruption?

Have western leaders used Ukraine to feather their own nests?

Has there been any serious diplomatic efforts waged by the west to bring the war to an end?

 

 

Care to address any of those "actual relevant verifiable points"? Or would you like to continue to run away from the actual discussion, @Nouseforaname?

You really should go into a life of politics.  The way you deflect when you’re called out is pretty good and will certainly work on people who don’t pay attention .

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Ann said:

You think that’s the goal? I think that is the excuse. IMO, the goal is money laundering and War, Inc. profits. These people don’t give a shit about the people living there. Those citizens are merely casualties of war and profit. TPTB backing this war are evil. 

 

I think there are plenty of well intentioned people working on this problem who honestly believe in the goal of removing Putin, that it would create a net-good for the world. These same people actually believe they can control the outcome of such a coup, just as they believed they were going to be able to handle the aftermath of removing Saddam and Gadafi etc. 

 

Then I believe there is a smaller subsect that is there for the cash and all the things you rightly point out. 

They're working together, but not necessarily for the same reasons. If that makes sense. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Nouseforaname said:

You really should go into a life of politics.  The way you deflect when you’re called out is pretty good and will certainly work on people who don’t pay attention .

 

You're accusing me of deflecting when you've deflected the entire post to discuss two words that weren't even the salient point of the post. 

 

Rubber/Glue - that's the only argument you have these days and it's as tired as it is stale. 

 

Are you going to address any of those points? Or no?

[Ann]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I think there are plenty of well intentioned people working on this problem who honestly believe in the goal of removing Putin, that it would create a net-good for the world. These same people actually believe they can control the outcome of such a coup, just as they believed they were going to be able to handle the aftermath of removing Saddam and Gadafi etc. 

 

Then I believe there is a smaller subsect that is there for the cash and all the things you rightly point out. 

They're working together, but not necessarily for the same reasons. If that makes sense. 

Agree to disagree. 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

The meat of the discussion is whether Ukraine should agree to be carved out in a peace treaty and one of your supporting facts is that effectively, Ukrainians wanted it this way.

 

Wrong. 

 

The meat of the discussion is whether WE, the west, should care if Ukraine is carved up. 

 

Reading is hard, I know, especially when you're determined to keep your blinders on and dodge the issue.

[Nouseforaname]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're accusing me of deflecting when you've deflected the entire post to discuss two words that weren't even the salient point of the post. 

 

Rubber/Glue - that's the only argument you have these days and it's as tired as it is stale. 

 

Are you going to address any of those points? Or no?

I think Tom already dismantled most of your argument but you really spin and activate your debating reflexes whenever you’re called out.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Nouseforaname said:

I think Tom already dismantled most of your argument but you really spin and activate your debating reflexes whenever you’re called out.

 

He hasn't. 

 

And neither have you. You just said "one of my facts is Ukrainians want it that way" which is wrong. 

 

And you did so while avoiding even addressing the many other points made. And you still are. 

 

Gee, I wonder why?

[Nouseforaname]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

He hasn't. 

 

And neither have you. You just said "one of my facts is Ukrainians want it that way" which is wrong. 

 

And you did so while avoiding even addressing the many other points made. And you still are. 

 

Gee, I wonder why?

Is it because you accused me of siding with evil on the other side of the board or did you decide to walk away from that hill as well?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Nouseforaname said:

Is it because you accused me of siding with evil on the other side of the board or did you decide to walk away from that hill as well?

 

Note the abject terror he shows in even thinking about the points raised in the post. He can't bring himself to answer any of them because he knows deep down what those answers are and how they obliterate his own position. 

 

I'll try again: 

Did they say they'd never send tanks? 

Did they send tanks?

Did they say they'd never send long range missiles? 

Are they now sending long range missiles? 

Has the country of Ukraine been Russian longer than it's been independent? 

Does the Ukraine serve any economic, military, strategic, or tactical value to the West in the modern world?

Is Ukraine a bastion of corruption?

Have western leaders used Ukraine to feather their own nests?

Has there been any serious diplomatic efforts waged by the west to bring the war to an end?

 

Note, those are 9 points raised in the post he questioned. And he chose to argue against which adjective was used in describing some of the Ukrainian people's preference. Then, when asked if he even understood the larger point being made, he proved he did not by stating my point was " whether Ukraine should agree to be carved out in a peace treaty" when it's not at all my point. 

 

So, is he just too dim to understand the point? No. 

 

He's just unwilling to think beyond his own narrative because it would mean admitting he might backing the wrong horse.

[Nouseforaname]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Note the abject terror he shows in even thinking about the points raised in the post. He can't bring himself to answer any of them because he knows deep down what those answers are and how they obliterate his own position. 

 

I'll try again: 

Did they say they'd never send tanks? 

Did they send tanks?

Did they say they'd never send long range missiles? 

Are they now sending long range missiles? 

Has the country of Ukraine been Russian longer than it's been independent? 

Does the Ukraine serve any economic, military, strategic, or tactical value to the West in the modern world?

Is Ukraine a bastion of corruption?

Have western leaders used Ukraine to feather their own nests?

Has there been any serious diplomatic efforts waged by the west to bring the war to an end?

 

Note, those are 9 points raised in the post he questioned. And he chose to argue against which adjective was used in describing some of the Ukrainian people's preference. Then, when asked if he even understood the larger point being made, he proved he did not by stating my point was " whether Ukraine should agree to be carved out in a peace treaty" when it's not at all my point. 

 

So, is he just too dim to understand the point? No. 

 

He's just unwilling to think beyond his own narrative because it would mean admitting he might backing the wrong horse.

Nice spin. Like I said, a politician.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Nouseforaname said:

Nice spin. Like I said, a politician.

 

Still dodging the questions. 

 

Like a coward. 

 

Never change, Meazza. Never change. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Nouseforaname said:

Nice spin. Like I said, a politician.

 

Note, it's not spin to address the OP. 

 

It's spin to deflect the entire discussion to two words in the OP ("large swaths").

 

And it's dishonest and shitty to pretend that's not what you did.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Note the abject terror he shows in even thinking about the points raised in the post. He can't bring himself to answer any of them because he knows deep down what those answers are and how they obliterate his own position. 

 

I'll try again: 

Did they say they'd never send tanks? 

Did they send tanks?

Did they say they'd never send long range missiles? 

Are they now sending long range missiles? 
 

 

You’re right.  However, they said no when it looked like those measures would have been futile.  Now it appears that the Russians can be beaten back (or forced into settling for less) and the Eastern European members of NATO have a persuasive voice in the matter. It can be argued that it is better for NATO to act as one body then to let it splinter.  Do you want the Poles and the Baltics to jump in on their own?  That’s a likely scenario and a much more messy escalation.
 

 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Has the country of Ukraine been Russian longer than it's been independent? 
 

 

 

Not relevant.  So you just want to let a Sovereign nation get run over by its neighbor?  What about Poland, or the Balkan States who also were Russian longer than independent?  European history since at least 1900 shows that “the Powers” always involved themselves in territorial disputes when one or another got out of line.  
 

 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Does the Ukraine serve any economic, military, strategic, or tactical value to the West in the modern world?

 

Yes.  One major example is supplying wheat and other food supply to much of the globe. Look at the threats of famine a year ago in many parts of the world because Black Sea routes were shut down. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Is Ukraine a bastion of corruption?

Have western leaders used Ukraine to feather their own nests?

 

Corruption is a disqualifier of sovereignty?

Then let’s go get all of Central and South America!
 

 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Has there been any serious diplomatic efforts waged by the west to bring the war to an end?

 

No, and that’s shameful. Though it can be argued that the time isn’t ripe yet for settlement.

 

 

[Nouseforaname]

15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Still dodging the questions. 

 

Like a coward. 

 

Never change, Meazza. Never change. 

Again, what were you implying on the other side of the board? Or am I the only dishonest one apparently ?