advertisement


Ukraine V

Hook said:
Not at all. I will try one last time. The question was "Is sending arms to Ukraine a good idea?". It was your question, remember?

Then you said, "If the answer is yes, then why hasn't any country done it?". I assumed you were talking about your own question, and I replied that 31 countries already had.

I started becoming confused when you said your own question was meaningless. Tell me please, what exactly have I forgotten?

Lastly, I never demanded yes or no as the only content of any answer. I invited caveats and substantiation multiple times.
Click to expand...
So we’re not talking about the question that you were asking but the one that I was asking? I have answered my own question, what is it about my answer to my question that you still have questions about? Where did I say “is sending arms to Ukraine a good idea?”
 
ks.234 said:
So we’re not talking about the question that you were asking but the one that I was asking? I have answered my own question, what is it about my answer to my question that you still have questions about? Where did I say “is sending arms to Ukraine a good idea?”
Click to expand...

Post #359.
 
Joe Hutch said:
I think that, almost without exception, the citizens of Eastern and Central Europe were only too pleased to escape from the repressive regimes imposed on them by Russia post-WW2. How would you convince them that going back to the Iron Curtain would be a good idea? Appeal to their better nature? Threaten them that, unless they do, they will be bombed to Hell and back?

(I'm being charitable and assuming that you're just being a bit naive here).
Click to expand...

It is not true that all citizens were happy about the ending of the Soviet Empire. Experiences were different in different countries. Hungary was a much freer country than others in the Eastern Bloc and relatively prosperous and not all of them were happy about the changes. I'm sure there were millions in Yugoslavia who weren't as well. Also the flood of immigrants from east to west and the move towards fascism would suggest that all is not well with capitalism in some of the eastern countries. Indeed it suits the likes of US and Germany to keep these places as vassal states for the big capitalists with their never-ending supply of cheap labour.

That said, it would be terrible for those states who become Russian satellites once more and lose their independence. There is nothing good about that. However, it is not certain that that would be the result for many of these nations, particularly those further west where a suitable compromise may be possible, such as that enjoyed by Finland. Indeed there is not the ideological problem of Stalinism to be dealt with now, just the military problem. An iron clad guarantee of neutrality from the likes of Czechia, Hungary, Poland etc could be enough to agree their independence even if they have to be released from the EU. It would depend upon diplomacy though. Sadly the damage has been done in the Ukraine and I don't see that a long-term peaceful solution is likely which will give full territorial independence to them. It just doesn't tally with Russian defensive security after the way US and its European allies have interfered there for several years

I would not have to convince these countries of anything. As Klassik has pointed out above Ukraine is being used as a proxy war against Russia by the Americans. US foreign policy has never catered for the well-being of the citizens of foreign nations to any material degree. This war is not about supporting freedom fighters despite the propaganda that you are all lapping up.

I'm not sure why you think that all of these countries would automatically be invaded by Putin, especially given his apparent weakness. As Klassik wrote articulately above, it is difficult to have it both ways.

What I'm providing is a scenario to end the bloodshed. It may be successful or it may not be. What I haven't heard from all of the war-mongers on here is any plan of how this can be ended and the killing stopped for good. Because that is the goal isn't it?
 
--------------------------------------
This is at the heart of the issue. Based on the US's comments and history, there's little reason for Klassik to believe that the US is arming Ukraine for Ukraine to determine their course. The US seems intent on draining Russia the way they did to the USSR in the 1980s with Afghanistan. That was a long, brutal war with long-range consequences long after the war was over with that the US and the rest of the world is still dealing with. Arming Ukraine for Ukraine to fight for their self-determination is one thing, but arming Ukraine in order to use Ukraine as a pseudo-US Army is a whole different matter.
-------------------------------------------

I think this is your "money shot." Let's unpack.

Your entire argument appears to be based on nothing more than your emotional judgement call and personal anti-american animus.

There are no factual basis given, only "there is very little reason that I believe X."

What's more, even with prima-facia evidence of Russian continued genocide of Ukranian people and perhaps even more horrifically, Ukrainian national identity, you seem far more concerned with the future of Russia and that it not be "drained."

As an aside, given that you are apparently Dutch, I want to tell you that I was very desturbed by your country's passing your anti-burqa law. I consider that a descriminatory attack on religious and personal freedom of Muslims in your country.
 
Super Bigote said:
It is not true that all citizens were happy about the ending of the Soviet Empire. Experiences were different in different countries. Hungary was a much freer country than others in the Eastern Bloc and relatively prosperous and not all of them were happy about the changes. I'm sure there were millions in Yugoslavia who weren't as well. Also the flood of immigrants from east to west and the move towards fascism would suggest that all is not well with capitalism in some of the eastern countries. Indeed it suits the likes of US and Germany to keep these places as vassal states for the big capitalists with their never-ending supply of cheap labour.

That said, it would be terrible for those states who become Russian satellites once more and lose their independence. There is nothing good about that. However, it is not certain that that would be the result for many of these nations, particularly those further west where a suitable compromise may be possible, such as that enjoyed by Finland. Indeed there is not the ideological problem of Stalinism to be dealt with now, just the military problem. An iron clad guarantee of neutrality from the likes of Czechia, Hungary, Poland etc could be enough to agree their independence even if they have to be released from the EU. It would depend upon diplomacy though. Sadly the damage has been done in the Ukraine and I don't see that a long-term peaceful solution is likely which will give full territorial independence to them. It just doesn't tally with Russian defensive security after the way US and its European allies have interfered there for several years

I would not have to convince these countries of anything. As Klassik has pointed out above Ukraine is being used as a proxy war against Russia by the Americans. US foreign policy has never catered for the well-being of the citizens of foreign nations to any material degree. this is not about supporting freedom fighters despite the propaganda that you are all lapping up.

I'm not sure why you think that all of these countries would automatically be invaded by Putin, especially given his apparent weakness. As Klassik wrote articulately above, it is difficult to have it both ways.

What I'm providing is a scenario to end the bloodshed. It may be successful or it may not be. What I haven't heard from all of the war-mongers on here is any plan of how this can be ended and the killing stopped for good. Because that is the goal isn't it?
Click to expand...
Your "scenario to end bloodshed"=Putin's wishlist.

Does your approach work on other forums?
 
DimitryZ said:
--------------------------------------
This is at the heart of the issue. Based on the US's comments and history, there's little reason for Klassik to believe that the US is arming Ukraine for Ukraine to determine their course. The US seems intent on draining Russia the way they did to the USSR in the 1980s with Afghanistan. That was a long, brutal war with long-range consequences long after the war was over with that the US and the rest of the world is still dealing with. Arming Ukraine for Ukraine to fight for their self-determination is one thing, but arming Ukraine in order to use Ukraine as a pseudo-US Army is a whole different matter.
-------------------------------------------



As an aside, given that you are apparently Dutch, I want to tell you that I was very desturbed by your country's passing your anti-burqa law. I consider that a descriminatory attack on religious and personal freedom of Muslims in your country.
Click to expand...

Klassik is an American based in Houston.
 
ks.234 said:
By misquoting me?
Click to expand...

In post 359, you said:

“Again, the yes/no question is meaningless.

If I say, “yes, pour in more arms, pour them in, as much as possible”, then so what?

The questions has to then be, “is that a good idea?””​

Then, in post 371, I replied with:

Since "Should any country send arms to Ukraine?" is a "meaningless" question, then let's change it to "Is sending arms to Ukraine a good idea?".​

Stop gaslighting. I did not misquote you, and playing the victim card is ridiculous.
 
For those on this thread from the beginning, it's worth noting that the pattern of increased "let's have peace" posts corresponds to an expected change in the military situation - i.e.Russia not doing well.
 
Hook said:
In post 359, you said:

“Again, the yes/no question is meaningless.

If I say, “yes, pour in more arms, pour them in, as much as possible”, then so what?

The questions has to then be, “is that a good idea?””​

Then, in post 371, I replied with:

Since "Should any country send arms to Ukraine?" is a "meaningless" question, then let's change it to "Is sending arms to Ukraine a good idea?".​

Stop gaslighting. I did not misquote you, and playing the victim card is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You can see that the words you say I have said do not appear where you said
I said them. It was very obviously about increasing arms to Ukraine, a which is different to your quote which is not what I said.
 
ks.234 said:
You can see that the words you say I have said do not appear where you said
I said them. It was very obviously about increasing arms to Ukraine, a which is different to your quote which is not what I said.
Click to expand...
So more weapons, less weapons, no weapons? Or you won't say?

Honestly, the best way to stop immediate bloodshed is for the West to side with Russia and attack Ukraine, then divide it up.
 
Super Bigote said:
Klassik is an American based in Houston.
Click to expand...

Yes, and as such, Klassik is fully aware of US foreign policy failures as it relates to NATO and many other areas. The US president was one who supported the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq and he did this as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations so it's not that he was not privy to intelligence on the matter since he was the highest-ranking official in the Senate as far as foreign policy goes. Senate Majority Leader Schumer and many in the House and Senate supported the war as well so it's not like the US has well-informed executives, if we're kind, and that must be considered when assessing the ability for the US to properly handle this situation.
 
Klassik said:
Yes, and as such, Klassik is fully aware of US foreign policy failures as it relates to NATO and many other areas. The US president was one who supported the Bush-Blair invasion of Iraq and he did this as chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations so it's not that he was not privy to intelligence on the matter since he was the highest-ranking official in the Senate as far as foreign policy goes. Senate Majority Leader Schumer and many in the House and Senate supported the war as well so it's not like the US has well-informed executives, if we're kind, and that must be considered when assessing the ability for the US to properly handle this situation.
Click to expand...
Klassik must be a naturalized American, like myself, since Klassik's language rythm is distinctly foreign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top