On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:59:29 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
> >> troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
> >> in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
> >> demonstrated?
> >
> >Well, those U.S. troops stationed at the border between East and West
> >Germany seemed to demonstrate it quite well. I don't think the presence
> >of troops from other NATO partners made much difference.

> You're assuming targets standing on a border carry more weight than a
> treaty that says that attacking West Germany will be treated as an
> attack on the United States.

What is stopping the U.S. from signing such a bilateral treaty with Ukraine
at the same time it deploys troops there? Again, there is no need to wait
for NATO to get its act together if it's necessary to act before Russia can
invade.

John Savard

J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> schrieb:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
>>> troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
>>> in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
>>> demonstrated?
>>
>>Well, those U.S. troops stationed at the border between East and West
>>Germany seemed to demonstrate it quite well. I don't think the presence
>>of troops from other NATO partners made much difference.
>
> You're assuming targets standing on a border carry more weight than a
> treaty that says that attacking West Germany will be treated as an
> attack on the United States.

Hmm, targets...

At the time, there were around 2,2 million soldiers in NATO.

NORTHAG had five corps (Dutch, German, British, Belgian, US)
and CENTAG four (two German and two US), with three to four
divisions per corps (Germany had 11 in total).

Not a force to be sneezed at. The Warshaw Pact did have many
more tanks, but they were designed to an inferior standard to the
Western ones - the Soviet philosophy was the massive breakthrough
where it was acceptable to trade several of their own tanks against
one Western one.

We saw in Iraq a few years later how they fared against modern
Western armor (although the quality difference probably was
less in the 1980s).

There was certainly a credible conventional defense component to
NATO in the Cold War.

Of course, Soviet planning was to use tactical nukes right away,
with NATO on a doctrine of "flexible response". That would not
have ended well for the continent, I guess.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 2:59:29 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:20:00 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> And so you function under the misconception that the presence of "US
>> >> troops" will somehow magically prevent an attack or invasion. When,
>> >> in the entirety of the history of the United States, has that been
>> >> demonstrated?
>> >
>> >Well, those U.S. troops stationed at the border between East and West
>> >Germany seemed to demonstrate it quite well. I don't think the presence
>> >of troops from other NATO partners made much difference.
>
>> You're assuming targets standing on a border carry more weight than a
>> treaty that says that attacking West Germany will be treated as an
>> attack on the United States.
>
>What is stopping the U.S. from signing such a bilateral treaty with Ukraine
>at the same time it deploys troops there? Again, there is no need to wait
>for NATO to get its act together if it's necessary to act before Russia can
>invade.

Did Ukraine _ask_ for such a treaty? Or do you want the US to go
barging in where it isn't wanted again?

On 24/03/2022 14.48, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/24/2022 11:14 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:

> Remindd of some US Congresscritter once saying something like "A billion here, a billion there, do that long enough and eventually you're talking real money."

That's a misquote of the original misquote, attributed to the
late, great Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL):

<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen#Misattributed>

Until today, I'd thought that he'd said it.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >What is stopping the U.S. from signing such a bilateral treaty with Ukraine
> >at the same time it deploys troops there? Again, there is no need to wait
> >for NATO to get its act together if it's necessary to act before Russia can
> >invade.

> Did Ukraine _ask_ for such a treaty? Or do you want the US to go
> barging in where it isn't wanted again?

Putin is alleging that Ukraine was interested in joining NATO; this is his
pretext for invading.

Russia, barging in Ukraine, is going where it is very clearly not wanted.

I would presume that Ukraine wanted whatever it could have gotten that
would have prevented that from happening. So presumably if the U.S.
offered effective protection that would start working immediately, without
waiting for NATO to come to unanimous agreement, Ukraine would have
snapped it up quickly. Thus, I hadn't much concerned myself with the issue
you raise here.

John Savard

"Jay E. Morris" <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> writes:
>On 3/24/2022 10:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> An article I read a few days back asserted that the Russians are
>> showing a surprising lack of co-ordination [1], and that NATO is
>> having problems identifying an overall commander. Who, if he existed,
>> would qualify for the descriptor "inept".
>
>Major part of the problem is that their communications suck. Their
>radios are no better maintained than their vehicles and very little
>appears to be encrypted. On top of that, Ukrainian jamming seems to be
>very effective. Russians have resorted to using cell phones and since
>those calls have to go though Ukrainian cell phone towers it might as
>well be a party line. And at critical moments the towers are turned off.
>
>And they lack a core of experienced NCOs so that officers are having to
>do those jobs instead of commanding.
>
>And then there's the Russian's loss of five generals.

Six Generals.

The current casuality estimates range from 7 to 15 thousand
KIA and three times that in wounded/combat-ineffective.

There are about 280,000 russian soldiers assigned
to the Ukraine operation. 60,000 (at the
high end of the casuality estimates) is better than 20%,
which, at a unit level, is high enough that the unit is
considered combat ineffective.

They've lost more in Ukraine than in the entire 10 year
Afghan war.

On 3/25/2022 6:44 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 24/03/2022 14.48, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/24/2022 11:14 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:
>
>> Remindd of some US Congresscritter once saying something like "A
>> billion here, a billion there, do that long enough and eventually
>> you're talking real money."
>
> That's a misquote of the original misquote, attributed to the
> late, great Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL):
>
> <https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen#Misattributed>
>
> Until today, I'd thought that he'd said it.
>
A bit disappointing but not exactly surprising. :) Thanks for the info.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 22:39:57 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:

>On 3/24/2022 10:59 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> An article I read a few days back asserted that the Russians are
>> showing a surprising lack of co-ordination [1], and that NATO is
>> having problems identifying an overall commander. Who, if he existed,
>> would qualify for the descriptor "inept".
>
>Major part of the problem is that their communications suck. Their
>radios are no better maintained than their vehicles and very little
>appears to be encrypted. On top of that, Ukrainian jamming seems to be
>very effective. Russians have resorted to using cell phones and since
>those calls have to go though Ukrainian cell phone towers it might as
>well be a party line. And at critical moments the towers are turned off.

Which may help explain the earlier Russian refusal to launch a Western
communications satellite. If they were aware, at that time, that their
army would be using civilian communications and projected that onto
everyone else.

>And they lack a core of experienced NCOs so that officers are having to
>do those jobs instead of commanding.

Some Armies train and retain professional NCOs who take a lot of the
load off the Officers -- and some do not.

Similarly, some Armies encourage initiative among the junior officers
that is, the ones actually likely to be commanding an attack as
opposed to being at HQ some way back). and even NCOs, where they are
used to advantage. Others encourage doing exactly what Higher
Headquarters has ordered, and nothing else.

IIRC, one of the reasons for the Fall of France in WWII was that the
German field commanders were alloowed to be flexible, while the French
made all their decisions at the top -- all too often after the
situation on the ground had changed.

>And then there's the Russian's loss of five generals.

Depends on how competent, as opposed to merely being political (as
opposed to being both), they were. If their replacements were more
competent, then this may have been helpful to the Russians.

But not very helpful, unless yesterday's stories about the Ukraine
recapturing the outskirts of Kyiv were overly optimistic.

I mean, if the Ukrainians can start the Russians retreating, who can
say where they might stop? In war, the attacked country has the right
to cross the border and bring the war to it's attacker. Not that
invading Russia has ever been a particularly great idea, of course.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:41:31 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> I mean, if the Ukrainians can start the Russians retreating, who can
> say where they might stop?

I don't think that Ukraine should risk nuclear war by having its troops
cross the border into Russia. But if the retreating Russian troops should
retreat all the way to Moscow, or wherever Putin's dacha might be, that
would not be amiss.

John Savard

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >What is stopping the U.S. from signing such a bilateral treaty with Ukraine
>> >at the same time it deploys troops there? Again, there is no need to wait
>> >for NATO to get its act together if it's necessary to act before Russia can
>> >invade.
>
>> Did Ukraine _ask_ for such a treaty? Or do you want the US to go
>> barging in where it isn't wanted again?
>
>Putin is alleging that Ukraine was interested in joining NATO; this is his
>pretext for invading.

And this has exactly what to do with the US forming a treaty with
Ukraine to prevent a Russian invasion?

>Russia, barging in Ukraine, is going where it is very clearly not wanted.
>
>I would presume that Ukraine wanted whatever it could have gotten that
>would have prevented that from happening.

That you presume means nothing. Google "presumptious".

>So presumably if the U.S.
>offered effective protection that would start working immediately, without
>waiting for NATO to come to unanimous agreement, Ukraine would have
>snapped it up quickly.

So do you have any evidence to support this contention?

>Thus, I hadn't much concerned myself with the issue
>you raise here.

You are the one arguing in favor of a course of action. So show that
that course of action was actually a viable option.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >What is stopping the U.S. from signing such a bilateral treaty with Ukraine
>> >at the same time it deploys troops there? Again, there is no need to wait
>> >for NATO to get its act together if it's necessary to act before Russia can
>> >invade.
>
>> Did Ukraine _ask_ for such a treaty? Or do you want the US to go
>> barging in where it isn't wanted again?
>
> Putin is alleging that Ukraine was interested in joining NATO; this is his
> pretext for invading.

Not much "alleging" about it, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations .

On 3/25/2022 10:18 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> What is stopping the U.S. from signing such a bilateral treaty with Ukraine
>>>> at the same time it deploys troops there? Again, there is no need to wait
>>>> for NATO to get its act together if it's necessary to act before Russia can
>>>> invade.
>>
>>> Did Ukraine _ask_ for such a treaty? Or do you want the US to go
>>> barging in where it isn't wanted again?
>>
>> Putin is alleging that Ukraine was interested in joining NATO; this is his
>> pretext for invading.
>
> Not much "alleging" about it, see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations .

Its a chicken and the egg thing. Did Ukraine want to join NATO because
Russia had already seized some of their territory or did Russia invade
to seize their territory because they might join NATO? :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:34:44 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >I would presume that Ukraine wanted whatever it could have gotten that
> >would have prevented that from happening.

> That you presume means nothing. Google "presumptious".

> >So presumably if the U.S.
> >offered effective protection that would start working immediately, without
> >waiting for NATO to come to unanimous agreement, Ukraine would have
> >snapped it up quickly.

> So do you have any evidence to support this contention?

> >Thus, I hadn't much concerned myself with the issue
> >you raise here.

> You are the one arguing in favor of a course of action. So show that
> that course of action was actually a viable option.

Ukraine did not have any options available to it that would have prevented
a Russian invasion; I recommended that the U.S. should have provided it
with one. If it decided not to avail itself of the opportunity, that would not
have been the fault of the U.S..

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:735de261-104e-4abe-8a4a-b06aba0534aan@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 10:34:44 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 07:17:49 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >I would presume that Ukraine wanted whatever it could have
>> >gotten that would have prevented that from happening.
>
>> That you presume means nothing. Google "presumptious".
>
>> >So presumably if the U.S.
>> >offered effective protection that would start working
>> >immediately, without waiting for NATO to come to unanimous
>> >agreement, Ukraine would have snapped it up quickly.
>
>> So do you have any evidence to support this contention?
>
>> >Thus, I hadn't much concerned myself with the issue
>> >you raise here.
>
>> You are the one arguing in favor of a course of action. So show
>> that that course of action was actually a viable option.
>
> Ukraine did not have any options available to it that would have
> prevented a Russian invasion; I recommended that the U.S. should
> have provided it with one. If it decided not to avail itself of
> the opportunity, that would not have been the fault of the U.S..
>
They did have the option of joining (or beginning the process, at
any rate) NATO around the time they gave up their nuclear weapons.
And decided not to.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
> >> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
> >> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
> >
> >This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
> >
> >I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
> >place, that the United States should have placed its troops
> >in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
> >Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
> >function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
> >with East Germany during the Cold War.
> >
> >You opposed this.
> >
> >So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
> >right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
> >was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
> >place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
> >a nuclear war would need to be taken.
> >
> >I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
> >Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
> >had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
> >be having a nuclear war now.
> >
> >Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
> >
> >But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
> >to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
> >is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.
> It occurred to me last night that, if Putin actually believes that
> Ukraine joining NATO is an /existential threat/ to Russia, this may
> mean he believes NATO plans to attack Russia (which is very unlikely,
> no matter how cold Europe gets) -- which might suggest that, in
> addition to being a magalomaniac, he is also disconnected from
> reality.
> --

_ magalomaniac_

I thought that spelling was reserved for the loonier Trumpkins.

--
Kevin R

On 3/25/2022 4:45 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>>>> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>>>> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
>>>
>>> This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
>>>
>>> I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
>>> place, that the United States should have placed its troops
>>> in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
>>> Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
>>> function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
>>> with East Germany during the Cold War.
>>>
>>> You opposed this.
>>>
>>> So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
>>> right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
>>> was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
>>> place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
>>> a nuclear war would need to be taken.
>>>
>>> I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
>>> Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
>>> had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
>>> be having a nuclear war now.
>>>
>>> Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
>>>
>>> But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
>>> to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
>>> is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.
>> It occurred to me last night that, if Putin actually believes that
>> Ukraine joining NATO is an /existential threat/ to Russia, this may
>> mean he believes NATO plans to attack Russia (which is very unlikely,
>> no matter how cold Europe gets) -- which might suggest that, in
>> addition to being a magalomaniac, he is also disconnected from
>> reality.

Putin doesn't believe that but he'd like it if the Russian population did.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> They did have the option of joining (or beginning the process, at
> any rate) NATO around the time they gave up their nuclear weapons.
> And decided not to.

At the time, the circumstances may have been very different.

Or, even then, there was concern that an attempt to join
NATO would have been viewed as provocative by Russia.

So, while that seems to be an argument in favor of J. Clarke's
position, I don't think it's definitive.

Basically, to me the issue is very simple and clear-cut.

In 2008, Russia annexed Crimea by force. At that point, it
should have been apparent that Ukraine was in serious danger
of a full-scale invasion, and steps should have been taken
immediately to provide Ukraine with the level of protection
against further Russian aggression that NATO membership
would provide - but in a manner that would give Putin no
time to react to the "provocation" before the protection was
fully in place.

I believe that the United States had the capacity to achieve
this; then it could wait for NATO to catch up.

And the current invasion of Ukraine shows unmistakably,
and beyond any argument, that this is what should have
been done. Look at the devastation and the loss of life.
None of that need have happened.

John Savard

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:52:04 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
> > They did have the option of joining (or beginning the process, at
> > any rate) NATO around the time they gave up their nuclear weapons.
> > And decided not to.
> At the time, the circumstances may have been very different.
>
> Or, even then, there was concern that an attempt to join
> NATO would have been viewed as provocative by Russia.
>
> So, while that seems to be an argument in favor of J. Clarke's
> position, I don't think it's definitive.
>
> Basically, to me the issue is very simple and clear-cut.
>
> In 2008, Russia annexed Crimea by force.

FFS Savard, this is why you get no respect. You can't even get a
simple (and recently, widely discussed) date right.

Try doing a little checking before pontificating.

Pt

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 13:13:08 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/25/2022 10:18 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 7:12:01 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 21:11:00 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What is stopping the U.S. from signing such a bilateral treaty with Ukraine
>>>>> at the same time it deploys troops there? Again, there is no need to wait
>>>>> for NATO to get its act together if it's necessary to act before Russia can
>>>>> invade.
>>>
>>>> Did Ukraine _ask_ for such a treaty? Or do you want the US to go
>>>> barging in where it isn't wanted again?
>>>
>>> Putin is alleging that Ukraine was interested in joining NATO; this is his
>>> pretext for invading.
>>
>> Not much "alleging" about it, see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations .
>
>Its a chicken and the egg thing. Did Ukraine want to join NATO because
>Russia had already seized some of their territory or did Russia invade
>to seize their territory because they might join NATO? :P

In any case there are Americans on the ground in Ukraine. They are
not there in any official capacity, which makes little difference to
the Russians they are blowing up.

And now France and Turkey are joining up to provide "humanitarian
aid", apparently in the form of a mission to collect refugees
presumably from some port or other. And when the Russians fire on the
French and the French in self defense sink the Black Sea Fleet, I
suspect it will be on.

Meanwhile in other news, the Russians have fragged at least one of
their own officers (well, actually they drove a tank over him, but
same difference).

Epic Games has donated $50 million.
Estonia has donated 220 million Euros in military equipment, the third
largest such donation after the US and UK.

And in the Bayraktar song, the Ukrainians call Russians "orcs".
Speaking of which, Turkey is sending more Bayraktars.

And Putin is going to be _so_ embarrased when the Ukrainians roll into
Red Square.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:36:41 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 9:52:04 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> > In 2008, Russia annexed Crimea by force.
> FFS Savard, this is why you get no respect. You can't even get a
> simple (and recently, widely discussed) date right.

Oops. 2008 was when Russia began its rampage of aggression,
all right, but it did so by invading Georgia.

John Savard

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 16:45:21 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >
>> >> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>> >> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>> >> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
>> >
>> >This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
>> >
>> >I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
>> >place, that the United States should have placed its troops
>> >in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
>> >Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
>> >function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
>> >with East Germany during the Cold War.
>> >
>> >You opposed this.
>> >
>> >So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
>> >right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
>> >was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
>> >place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
>> >a nuclear war would need to be taken.
>> >
>> >I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
>> >Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
>> >had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
>> >be having a nuclear war now.
>> >
>> >Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
>> >
>> >But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
>> >to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
>> >is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.
>> It occurred to me last night that, if Putin actually believes that
>> Ukraine joining NATO is an /existential threat/ to Russia, this may
>> mean he believes NATO plans to attack Russia (which is very unlikely,
>> no matter how cold Europe gets) -- which might suggest that, in
>> addition to being a magalomaniac, he is also disconnected from
>> reality.
>> --
>
>_ magalomaniac_
>
>I thought that spelling was reserved for the loonier Trumpkins.

It may well be, but in this case, it was only a typo.

Sorry 'bout that.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:31:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 3/25/2022 4:45 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>>>>> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>>>>> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
>>>>
>>>> This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
>>>>
>>>> I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
>>>> place, that the United States should have placed its troops
>>>> in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
>>>> Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
>>>> function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
>>>> with East Germany during the Cold War.
>>>>
>>>> You opposed this.
>>>>
>>>> So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
>>>> right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
>>>> was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
>>>> place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
>>>> a nuclear war would need to be taken.
>>>>
>>>> I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
>>>> Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
>>>> had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
>>>> be having a nuclear war now.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
>>>>
>>>> But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
>>>> to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
>>>> is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.
>>> It occurred to me last night that, if Putin actually believes that
>>> Ukraine joining NATO is an /existential threat/ to Russia, this may
>>> mean he believes NATO plans to attack Russia (which is very unlikely,
>>> no matter how cold Europe gets) -- which might suggest that, in
>>> addition to being a magalomaniac, he is also disconnected from
>>> reality.
>
>Putin doesn't believe that but he'd like it if the Russian population did.

Apparently, he gave a speech which sounded a whole lot like a
Republican Party position: the usual "cancel culture" and other
nonsense.

Debased minds think alike? Putin turning Republican? Republicans
revealed as the Party of Putin? Who can say?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 2:59:28 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:31:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >On 3/25/2022 4:45 PM, Kevrob wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> >>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
> >>>>> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
> >>>>> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
> >>>> place, that the United States should have placed its troops
> >>>> in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
> >>>> Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
> >>>> function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
> >>>> with East Germany during the Cold War.
> >>>>
> >>>> You opposed this.
> >>>>
> >>>> So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
> >>>> right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
> >>>> was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
> >>>> place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
> >>>> a nuclear war would need to be taken.
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
> >>>> Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
> >>>> had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
> >>>> be having a nuclear war now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
> >>>>
> >>>> But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
> >>>> to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
> >>>> is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.
> >>> It occurred to me last night that, if Putin actually believes that
> >>> Ukraine joining NATO is an /existential threat/ to Russia, this may
> >>> mean he believes NATO plans to attack Russia (which is very unlikely,
> >>> no matter how cold Europe gets) -- which might suggest that, in
> >>> addition to being a magalomaniac, he is also disconnected from
> >>> reality.
> >
> >Putin doesn't believe that but he'd like it if the Russian population did.
> Apparently, he gave a speech which sounded a whole lot like a
> Republican Party position: the usual "cancel culture" and other
> nonsense.
>
> Debased minds think alike? Putin turning Republican? Republicans
> revealed as the Party of Putin? Who can say?
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."
There is apparently an explanation entirely in terms of Russian internal politics: Putin has made alliance with the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and is presenting himself as the defender of Orthodox Russian values (in both senses) against foreign decadence. - I don't doubt that he would be happy to spout any line that divides his enemies, but in this case the exterior effect is merely a bonus. Supposedly Putin was baptised by his Mother and has always worn a cross. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/06/vladimir-putin-a-miracle-defender-of-christianity-or-the-most-evil-man

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 08:52:32 -0700 (PDT), Andrew McDowell
<mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 2:59:28 PM UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 17:31:50 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
>> <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/25/2022 4:45 PM, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:56:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> >>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:44:00 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> So you think that there is some kind of mind control ray or something
>> >>>>> that can make Vladimir Putin not nuts? I wish there was--maybe
>> >>>>> somebody would use it to make _you_ not nuts.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> This is not as effective an argument as you may think.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I had proposed, before the invasion of the Ukraine took
>> >>>> place, that the United States should have placed its troops
>> >>>> in Ukraine, with the permission and co-operation of the
>> >>>> Ukrainian government, where they would perform the same
>> >>>> function as U.S. troops stationed on West Germany's border
>> >>>> with East Germany during the Cold War.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You opposed this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So I now claim that the invasion of Ukraine proves I was
>> >>>> right and you were wrong: if the course of action I suggested
>> >>>> was taken by the U.S., Ukraine wouild have no more been a
>> >>>> place Russia _could_ invade than, say, Poland. No risk of
>> >>>> a nuclear war would need to be taken.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I understand what you have written to mean that, oh,
>> >>>> Russia could still have invaded Ukraine even if the U.S.
>> >>>> had done that, so my idea would just have meant we would
>> >>>> be having a nuclear war now.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, I certainly agree that a nuclear war is a bad idea.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But *if* Putin is really that nuts, then when he gets around
>> >>>> to Poland, we will have a nuclear war anyways. So far, there
>> >>>> is no evidence that Putin is really that nuts.
>> >>> It occurred to me last night that, if Putin actually believes that
>> >>> Ukraine joining NATO is an /existential threat/ to Russia, this may
>> >>> mean he believes NATO plans to attack Russia (which is very unlikely,
>> >>> no matter how cold Europe gets) -- which might suggest that, in
>> >>> addition to being a magalomaniac, he is also disconnected from
>> >>> reality.
>> >
>> >Putin doesn't believe that but he'd like it if the Russian population did.
>> Apparently, he gave a speech which sounded a whole lot like a
>> Republican Party position: the usual "cancel culture" and other
>> nonsense.
>>
>> Debased minds think alike? Putin turning Republican? Republicans
>> revealed as the Party of Putin? Who can say?
>> --
>> "I begin to envy Petronius."
>> "I have envied him long since."
>There is apparently an explanation entirely in terms of Russian internal politics: Putin has made alliance with the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church and is presenting himself as the defender of Orthodox Russian values (in both senses) against foreign decadence. - I don't doubt that he would be happy to spout any line that divides his enemies, but in this case the exterior effect is merely a bonus. Supposedly Putin was baptised by his Mother and has always worn a cross. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/06/vladimir-putin-a-miracle-defender-of-christianity-or-the-most-evil-man

I hate to break it to the Guardian but if they think being a "defender
of Christianity" is antithetical to being "The Most Evil Man" they
might want to research a fellow named "Torquemada".

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:1bd7c2b3-d962-414b-875e-ef4fbaa5c9a9n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 4:48:11 PM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> They did have the option of joining (or beginning the process,
>> at any rate) NATO around the time they gave up their nuclear
>> weapons. And decided not to.
>
> At the time, the circumstances may have been very different.

At the time, they weren't actively being invaded by Russia.

But joining an alliance isn't about what's happening *now*, it's
about what might happen in the future.

They made a mistake.

Also, you snipped out the fucking *stupid* thing you said that I
was replying to:

> Ukraine did not have any options available to it that would have
> prevented a Russian invasion;

They did, in fact, have such an option, back when it was practical
to do so. By January of this year, there was *nothing* that
*anyone* could have done to prevent the invasion short of nuclear
war.
>
> Or, even then, there was concern that an attempt to join
> NATO would have been viewed as provocative by Russia.

All the other SSRs joining didn't provoke a nuclear war.
>
> So, while that seems to be an argument in favor of J. Clarke's
> position, I don't think it's definitive.
>
> Basically, to me the issue is very simple and clear-cut.

Because you are a simple person, you need to see simple (and in
your case, violent) solutions to complex problems.

That says *far* more about you than it does about the problems.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.