Russia attacking Ukraine 2/16?

nashhorn said:
Sorry but in my mind Tank invasion is not ‘strategic strikes’.
Click to expand...

In the opening days of the war Russia clearly resisted civilian casualties. That changed in the last 48hr and will get worse. There is nothing strategic about encircling cities with millions of citizens and laying siege including cruise missiles and cluster bombs. At some point Russia will use Chemical warfare like Syria. Count on it.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I pointed the finger at the Project for a New American Century for more than a decade as an example of the NeoCons putting on paper exactly what their aims were and why we were in Iraq for the 2nd world war. Hint: It was much more than "Sadam was a bad hombre" but rather a stated desire to project American power abroad.

So, I'm extrapolating that because the NeoCons were dumb enough to state their intentions and Putin lies about his own you're taking them the both at their word? That's how you get to Neocons "bad" and Putin is simply looking out for his nations interest?
Click to expand...

I remember that. Total Spectrum dominance. Yep. They spelled it out. To me, it wasn't a big surprise. It was a continuation of our intention to be the superpower in all phases. I didn't take it as if we were going to do what Russia is doing today. I took it to mean that it's a bad world and we were the only one to be trusted with that kind of power. I saw no other alternative. Did we want a Sino-Russo hegemony? Did we believe Europe had the will? What other nation? The answers to me were obvious and it came from my personal belief that this world required a powerful United States to prevent a plummet into darkness. I also saw this as a domestic declaration that Liberalism would weaken us irreparably. Basically, I was glad to hear someone had a plan.

And yes, they said it out loud. Maybe they wanted Russia and China to know we would spend them into oblivion if they wanted to keep up. Did it provoke them? Probably. Would they have become nice little boys who would stay within their own borders?

In my view? That's what hard left wingers believe would do.

I don't.
 
bystander said:
I remember that. Total Spectrum dominance. Yep. They spelled it out. To me, it wasn't a big surprise. It was a continuation of our intention to be the superpower in all phases. I didn't take it as if we were going to do what Russia is doing today. I took it to mean that it's a bad world and we were the only one to be trusted with that kind of power. I saw no other alternative. Did we want a Sino-Russo hegemony? Did we believe Europe had the will? What other nation? The answers to me were obvious and it came from my personal belief that this world required a powerful United States to prevent a plummet into darkness. I also saw this as a domestic declaration that Liberalism would weaken us irreparably. Basically, I was glad to hear someone had a plan.

And yes, they said it out loud. Maybe they wanted Russia and China to know we would spend them into oblivion if they wanted to keep up. Did it provoke them? Probably. Would they have become nice little boys who would stay within their own borders?

In my view? That's what hard left wingers believe would do.

I don't.
Click to expand...

My translation of PNAC was that the world was changing with the US as the only remaining Superpower. It was in our interest to use our military and economic weight Internationally to shape it towards our interests which we've largely done. The whoa moment was to leverage our military, expanding our reach across the globe and more interventions. Essentially PNAC said we had an obligation to be the World's Cops. I'm certain that cabal saw the Arab Spring as a direct outcome of their removal of Sadam Hussein from power.
 
bystander said:
elberthubbard1.jpg
Click to expand...

I never thought of Monahorns as my enemy. I thought of him as an honorable guy with whom I have relatively narrow disagreement, but of course now he's looking less and less honorable to me.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I never thought of Monahorns as my enemy. I thought of him as an honorable guy with whom I have relatively narrow disagreement, but of course now he's looking less and less honorable to me.
Click to expand...

Well, I did think the term "enemy" might be over the top for this but the sentiment was there. The main thing is what it says in general and it seems to be true in most cases.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I never thought of Monahorns as my enemy. I thought of him as an honorable guy with whom I have relatively narrow disagreement, but of course now he's looking less and less honorable to me.
Click to expand...

It was you labeling me a certain way that was the start of this. Nothing dishonorable in pointing true things out. Totally dishonorable to twist words and slander someone you disagree with, repeatedly.
 
Monahorns said:
You say you are a Christian, but your rhetoric on this board shows your true intentions are a lover of this world, 1 John 2:15-16.

You give the world too much benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
This is the spade. A Pharisee might type this message.
 
OUBubba said:
This is the spade. A Pharisee might type this message.
Click to expand...

You ignore all the things said between the two of us leading up to that. The purpose was clearly undetected, so I will spell it out. I was being accused of actually believing one thing while clearly explaining that I didn't. I am still being slandered by insinuating true intentions and twisting words and making spacious claims of motive. My assumption was that he is a self aware and circumspect about his own actions. I also assumed he and others could recognize patterns and put 2 and 2 together to see the point. Was I wrong to give benefit of the doubt? (do you notice the purposeful use of language in the last sentence that references the argument?)
 
I had no problem with NATO expansion to the Warsaw pact countries of Poland, Hungary, etc. Or the Baltic countries of Lat, Lith and Estonia. Those countries are not historically part of Russia, and were invaded and controlled by an evil communist dictatorship since the end of WWII. Tough stuff Russia, we won you lost, now these countries are NATO.

But Ukraine is a different story. Russian thinking towards Ukraine is different, and obviously was a red line for them that they're willing to go to war to stop. It ended badly for everyone involved - Russia, the west, and Ukraine itself.
 
Monahorns said:
You ignore all the things said between the two of us leading up to that. The purpose was clearly undetected, so I will spell it out. I was being accused of actually believing one thing while clearly explaining that I didn't. I am still being slandered by insinuating true intentions and twisting words and making spacious claims of motive. My assumption was that he is a self aware and circumspect about his own actions. I also assumed he and others could recognize patterns and put 2 and 2 together to see the point. Was I wrong to give benefit of the doubt? (do you notice the purposeful use of language in the last sentence that references the argument?)
Click to expand...
You're a piece of work. Yes, I ignored all of that. That's a lover's spat and way too much to read unless I'm doing a colon cleanse. You caught my attention when you called his faith into question. That's crappy and you owe him an apology. Pharisee's don't do that well.
 
Re: Kissinger

The man was all about reality if nothing else. But now that "we've learned our lesson" should we give China the green light on Taiwan? How about Argentina on Islas Malvinas (Falkland islands)? What about the Kuril Islands (Russia and Japanese dispute). Guess the Japanese better get ready since we've learned our lesson.
 
Musburger1 said:
Retired Colonel MacGregor. Worth viewing imo.
And Taylor, would you call this guy a Putin apologist?

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. He makes a number of interesting points but he also makes a lot of suppositions about Putin’s goals which cannot be confirmed but do make some sense. Also makes suppositions about Xi and China’s involvement which cannot be confirmed Other people with some expertise have posed differing opinions

I will quote Chao En Lai: ask me again in a hundred years
 
huisache said:
Thanks for posting this. He makes a number of interesting points but he also makes a lot of suppositions about Putin’s goals which cannot be confirmed but do make some sense. Also makes suppositions about Xi and China’s involvement which cannot be confirmed Other people with some expertise have posed differing opinions

I will quote Chao En Lai: ask me again in a hundred years
Click to expand...
I couldn't get passed *******'s talking to us like he's feeding us unflavored oatmeal with a spoon and wiping away the drool with a napkin.
 
Monahorns said:




Click to expand...


Thanks for sharing, @Monahorn. Clearly they all thought at the time that Putin was a rational actor. History is proving, especially with Ukraine, that isn't the case. A "neutral" Ukraine? What does that even mean. In 2015 when Mearshiemer gave that speech Russia had taken Crimea, was supporting Donbas rebels with armaments and mercenaries. He's complaining about Ukraine taking a hardline against Russia? What would the US do if Mexico was occupying Texas? Stay "neutral"? That's patently absurd. The assumption he's making has proven 100% false. That Russia would accept a situation where they're a puppet. They can't make economic agreements with the West or Russia? Really? That's what triggered voting out the Russian puppet in 2010 (?). There was huge support domestically for an EU economic agreement that Russia and their puppet wouldn't support. So, the Parliament essentially impeached him. It was all legal but what I see Mearshiemer encouraging is that Ukraine couldn't grow. No ability to choose their own destiny. That's simply not realistic.
 
I've been reading Bill Roggio since he was writing on the Long War Journal. His articles on Afghanistan were very accurate, unlike the "all is well" rubbish that the US Government put out, all the better for Generals to obtain more stars, and for retired ones to get cushy defense contractor jobs.

His analysis of the invasion is below, and seems very well thought out.

FDD | Putin is not crazy and the Russian invasion is not failing. The West's delusions about this war - and its failure to understand the enemy - will prevent it from saving Ukraine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top