On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:

> For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should know better mindlessly
> urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.

Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.

> Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to surrender a huge swath of
> territory to their enemy.

Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_ Ukraine could actually get
peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.

But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:

> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of
> Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So
> do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.

I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants all of Ukraine,
or who else wants it.

What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as part of any
peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal would be phony,
and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt like it.

> OTOH, we see idiocy like calls for a NATO enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine,
> or backing the Ukrainians in trying to counter-invade Russia. That's insanity,
> and I hear it coming from both left and right.

Yes, it's quite unfortunate that the U.S. couldn't help Ukraine by enforcing a
no-fly zone there, and it's quite unfortunate that an invasion of Russia, to
cause it to experience the same kind of consequences for being an aggressor
state as Germany experienced in 1945 is not practical at the moment, due to
the illicit posession by Russia of nuclear weapons, built by means of secrets
stolen by espionage from the United States.

Hopefully, some way to correct this imbalance in the world situation can be
found.

John Savard

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
>
> > For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should know better mindlessly
> > urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
>
> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
>
> > Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to surrender a huge swath of
> > territory to their enemy.
>
> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_ Ukraine could actually get
> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
>
> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
>
> > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of
> > Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.. So
> > do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
>
> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants all of Ukraine,
> or who else wants it.
>
> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as part of any
> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal would be phony,
> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt like it.
>
> > OTOH, we see idiocy like calls for a NATO enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine,
> > or backing the Ukrainians in trying to counter-invade Russia. That's insanity,
> > and I hear it coming from both left and right.
>
> Yes, it's quite unfortunate that the U.S. couldn't help Ukraine by enforcing a
> no-fly zone there, and it's quite unfortunate that an invasion of Russia, to
> cause it to experience the same kind of consequences for being an aggressor
> state as Germany experienced in 1945 is not practical at the moment, due to
> the illicit posession by Russia of nuclear weapons, built by means of secrets
> stolen by espionage from the United States.

It's pointless to talk of posession of nuclear weapons being 'illicit'. They have them, _that's what matters_.

Yes, they used espionage to help that along, but honestly, if the positions were reversed the USA would have (and should!) do the same thing. It wasn't purely a matter of espionage, that helped it along, but the idea mooted at the end of the 1940s that the Russians would need 20 years was visibly silly at the time.

The laws of physics are what they are, and Russia had capable scientific talent. Much of the basic prep work necessary for nuclear weaponry was not even secret, it was public-domain physics and chemistry and engineering. Without the spies it might have taken a couple of years longer, but it would still have happened.

The Ukrainian mistake (well, they're made _lots_ of mistakes, but their biggest one) was to agree to the removal of the Soviet nukes they 'inherited' after the breakup, relying on foreigners for safety. That's always dangerous, arguably it was madness (and that was widely commented on at that time, though the establishment press didn't give it much attention).

>
> Hopefully, some way to correct this imbalance in the world situation can be
> found.
>
> John Savard

The only thing that would 'correct' it would a realiable, practical defense against nuclear weapons. Nobody can say when/if that will happen, or what it's nature might be. Absent it, things are the way they are.

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
>
> > For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should know better mindlessly
> > urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
> > Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to surrender a huge swath of
> > territory to their enemy.
> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_ Ukraine could actually get
> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
>
> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
> > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of
> > Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.. So
> > do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants all of Ukraine,
> or who else wants it.
>
> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as part of any
> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal would be phony,
> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt like it.

America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_ that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash point for potential catastrophe.

Like it or hate it, Ukraine's fundamental geography and history make it functionally a 'bufffer state'.

That's not a particularly pleasant position to occupy, but if you're there, you're there. One of the miscalculations the Ukrainians made over the last 20 years is that they didn't _behave_ like a buffer state. That doesn't make the current war and invasion their fault, but it did help put them in this place.

In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
>>
>> > For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should
>know better mindlessly
>> > urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
>> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
>> > Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to
>surrender a huge swath of
>> > territory to their enemy.
>> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_
>Ukraine could actually get
>> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
>>
>> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
>> > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine
>now, he wants _all_ of
>> > Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and
>pragmatic reasons. So
>> > do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
>> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants
>all of Ukraine,
>> or who else wants it.
>>
>> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as
>part of any
>> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal
>would be phony,
>> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt
>like it.
>
>America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though
>_saying_ that officially might be impolitic. Committing to
>unlimited defense of a state right next door to a hostile nuclear
>power would create a flash point for potential catastrophe.
>
By that reasoning, such NATO members as West Germany and the
United States should not have been allowed to join NATO as they
bordered Warsaw Pact nations.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

On 2/22/2023 12:01 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
> Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
>>>
>>>> For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should
>> know better mindlessly
>>>> urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
>>> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
>>>> Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to
>> surrender a huge swath of
>>>> territory to their enemy.
>>> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_
>> Ukraine could actually get
>>> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
>>>
>>> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
>>>> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine
>> now, he wants _all_ of
>>>> Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and
>> pragmatic reasons. So
>>>> do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
>>> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants
>> all of Ukraine,
>>> or who else wants it.
>>>
>>> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as
>> part of any
>>> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal
>> would be phony,
>>> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt
>> like it.
>>
>> America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though
>> _saying_ that officially might be impolitic. Committing to
>> unlimited defense of a state right next door to a hostile nuclear
>> power would create a flash point for potential catastrophe.
>>
> By that reasoning, such NATO members as West Germany and the
> United States should not have been allowed to join NATO as they
> bordered Warsaw Pact nations.
>
It also deliberately ignores the whole point of NATO.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
>that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
>a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
>point for potential catastrophe.

(Hal Heydt)
Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
and Sweden. What's one more?

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 12:16:08 PM UTC+11, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 11:57:04 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
> > >...
> > >>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
> > >>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
> > >>>
> > >>> Pence is not currently an official.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
> > >>
> > >> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
> > >> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
> > >
> > >We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
> > >fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
> > >extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
> > >gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
> > >But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
> > >people in the USA.
> > Anthing like the $1T thrown on by the Republicans in their last tax
> > break for 1%ers?
> Under Trump the USG vastly increased the National Debt to keep people
> fed and housed, and businesses from going under, during the Covid lockdowns.
> A depressing amount of the money went astray, but the primary goal was achieved.
>
Check the deficits before Covid

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:26:54 AM UTC+11, Johnny1A wrote:
> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him. So it wouldn't necessarily be permanent, and such action on the part of the West would lead to more outbreaks elsewhere, and encourage China.
>
> I say they should know better because one of the core tenets of conservatism is, or should be, realism about human nature. Yet these people are suddenly echoing the same falsehoods and nonsense that the anti-American left used to attack the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.

You might want to refresh your neuron about who lied about Iraq...

In article <rqInvy.Eut@kithrup.com>,
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
> Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
> >America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
> >that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
> >a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
> >point for potential catastrophe.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
> and Sweden. What's one more?

You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
�-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:43:40 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:26:54 AM UTC+11, Johnny1A wrote:
> > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him. So it wouldn't necessarily be permanent, and such action on the part of the West would lead to more outbreaks elsewhere, and encourage China.
> >
> > I say they should know better because one of the core tenets of conservatism is, or should be, realism about human nature. Yet these people are suddenly echoing the same falsehoods and nonsense that the anti-American left used to attack the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
> You might want to refresh your neuron about who lied about Iraq...

It wasn't Bush. The 'Bush lied' lie was made up by the American left _afterward_, when it turned out that Hussein had fooled the world into thinking he had the WMDs. And no, the UN inspectors were not a serious or trustworthy effort, and no, it wasn't war for oil.

Hussein set out to convince the world he had WMDs, and he succeeded.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 2:01:37 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230...@googlegroups.com>,
> Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
> >>
> >> > For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should
> >know better mindlessly
> >> > urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
> >> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
> >> > Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to
> >surrender a huge swath of
> >> > territory to their enemy.
> >> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_
> >Ukraine could actually get
> >> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
> >>
> >> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
> >> > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine
> >now, he wants _all_ of
> >> > Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and
> >pragmatic reasons. So
> >> > do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
> >> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants
> >all of Ukraine,
> >> or who else wants it.
> >>
> >> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as
> >part of any
> >> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal
> >would be phony,
> >> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt
> >like it.
> >
> >America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though
> >_saying_ that officially might be impolitic. Committing to
> >unlimited defense of a state right next door to a hostile nuclear
> >power would create a flash point for potential catastrophe.
> >
> By that reasoning, such NATO members as West Germany and the
> United States should not have been allowed to join NATO as they
> bordered Warsaw Pact nations.

The Russian Federation is not the USSR, and the world is a very different place today than it was in 1950.

In 1950, the USSR was an aggressive threat on a scale and immediacy the today's Russia is simply not. Establishing NATO did not increase the danger of nuclear war, it reduced it. Today's situation is rather different on multiple levels.

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 4:42:52 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 2/22/2023 12:01 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> > In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> >>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should
> >> know better mindlessly
> >>>> urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
> >>> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
> >>>> Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to
> >> surrender a huge swath of
> >>>> territory to their enemy.
> >>> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_
> >> Ukraine could actually get
> >>> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
> >>>
> >>> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
> >>>> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine
> >> now, he wants _all_ of
> >>>> Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and
> >> pragmatic reasons. So
> >>>> do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
> >>> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants
> >> all of Ukraine,
> >>> or who else wants it.
> >>>
> >>> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as
> >> part of any
> >>> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal
> >> would be phony,
> >>> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt
> >> like it.
> >>
> >> America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though
> >> _saying_ that officially might be impolitic. Committing to
> >> unlimited defense of a state right next door to a hostile nuclear
> >> power would create a flash point for potential catastrophe.
> >>
> > By that reasoning, such NATO members as West Germany and the
> > United States should not have been allowed to join NATO as they
> > bordered Warsaw Pact nations.
> >
> It also deliberately ignores the whole point of NATO.

The original point of NATO _ceased to exist in 1989_ . NATO existed primarily to counter and deter _Soviet_ aggression. Secondarily, it once existed also to tie Germany down. In the old cynical summation, NATO was there to 'keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down'. That quote is not original to me, IIRC one of the NATO officials said it.

But that was decades ago.

The question of what NATO is for _today_, and if it should even continue to exist, has been a lively and serious debate ever since 1989, with good arguments on both sides.

But after 1989, a good case can be made that NATO should have refrained from much of its eastward expansion, precisely because the RF is not the USSR and the member-states are not going to behave as if it was. I don't buy into the silly notion that the westward expansion of NATO _caused_ the Ukraine War, but I'm also by no means sure that the NATO alliance would hold together in the crunch over a war in eastern Europe today, either. Making commitments without a reasonable amount of surety that they will be kept is usually worse than doing nothing at all.

Even today, with the Ukraine War, we're seeing a lot more talk than action from most of the NATO membership. A big faction of Germany desperately wants to do business with Russia. The southern Europeans are more concerned with Africa and immigration from that direction, the French are torn between a desire to cozy up with Russia and distaste at Putin's adventurism, a substantial percentage of Americans sympathize with the Ukrainians but consider immigration and border security more pressing. (And the Biden Admin's and the GOP establishment's double-dealing and evasions on that subject make that far worse.) The Ukrainians are getting some help, but there are a whole lot of people in the West who wish this whole thing would just go away.

Contrary to what the establishment media tries to spin, NATO is neither united over Ukraine, nor enthusiastic in their support. Some factions are willing, but overall, not so much.

On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 07:20:15 UTC, Johnny1A wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 2:01:37 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> > In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> > >> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should
> > >know better mindlessly
> > >> > urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
> > >> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
> > >> > Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to
> > >surrender a huge swath of
> > >> > territory to their enemy.
> > >> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_
> > >Ukraine could actually get
> > >> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
> > >>
> > >> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
> > >> > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine
> > >now, he wants _all_ of
> > >> > Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and
> > >pragmatic reasons. So
> > >> > do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
> > >> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants
> > >all of Ukraine,
> > >> or who else wants it.
> > >>
> > >> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as
> > >part of any
> > >> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal
> > >would be phony,
> > >> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt
> > >like it.
> > >
> > >America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though
> > >_saying_ that officially might be impolitic. Committing to
> > >unlimited defense of a state right next door to a hostile nuclear
> > >power would create a flash point for potential catastrophe.
> > >
> > By that reasoning, such NATO members as West Germany and the
> > United States should not have been allowed to join NATO as they
> > bordered Warsaw Pact nations.
> The Russian Federation is not the USSR, and the world is a very different place today than it was in 1950.
>
> In 1950, the USSR was an aggressive threat on a scale and immediacy the today's Russia is simply not. Establishing NATO did not increase the danger of nuclear war, it reduced it. Today's situation is rather different on multiple levels.

You mean that in 1950, Russia didn't have intercontinental
nuclear missiles, and wasn't fighting war to conquer
democratic countries.

On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 07:18:10 UTC, Johnny1A wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:43:40 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:26:54 AM UTC+11, Johnny1A wrote:
> > > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him. So it wouldn't necessarily be permanent, and such action on the part of the West would lead to more outbreaks elsewhere, and encourage China.
> > >
> > > I say they should know better because one of the core tenets of conservatism is, or should be, realism about human nature. Yet these people are suddenly echoing the same falsehoods and nonsense that the anti-American left used to attack the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> >
> > You might want to refresh your neuron about who lied about Iraq...
> It wasn't Bush. The 'Bush lied' lie was made up by the American left _afterward_, when it turned out that Hussein had fooled the world into thinking he had the WMDs. And no, the UN inspectors were not a serious or trustworthy effort, and no, it wasn't war for oil.
>
> Hussein set out to convince the world he had WMDs, and he succeeded.

Why is everything you just said untrue? I know you've
done that, but I don't know why.

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 6:18:10 PM UTC+11, Johnny1A wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:43:40 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:26:54 AM UTC+11, Johnny1A wrote:
> > > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him. So it wouldn't necessarily be permanent, and such action on the part of the West would lead to more outbreaks elsewhere, and encourage China.
> > >
> > > I say they should know better because one of the core tenets of conservatism is, or should be, realism about human nature. Yet these people are suddenly echoing the same falsehoods and nonsense that the anti-American left used to attack the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.
> >
> > You might want to refresh your neuron about who lied about Iraq...
> It wasn't Bush. The 'Bush lied' lie was made up by the American left _afterward_, when it turned out that Hussein had fooled the world into thinking he had the WMDs. And no, the UN inspectors were not a serious or trustworthy effort, and no, it wasn't war for oil.

Utter bullshit, the Bush administration wanted a pretext to invade so they pushed flimsy, ancient and completely discredited evidence as reliable.

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 2:35:10 AM UTC-5, Johnny1A wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 4:42:52 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 2/22/2023 12:01 PM, James Nicoll wrote:
> > > In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 10:54:43 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-7, Johnny1A wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> For ex, I see way too many right-wing commentators who should
> > >> know better mindlessly
> > >>>> urging that we force Ukraine to negotiate peace.
> > >>> Yes, I definitely don't approve of that.
> > >>>> Of course in practice, right now, doing so forces Ukraine to
> > >> surrender a huge swath of
> > >>>> territory to their enemy.
> > >>> Although that's unfortunate, and a bitter pill to swallow, _if_
> > >> Ukraine could actually get
> > >>> peace on those terms, I would urge them to go for it.
> > >>>
> > >>> But, of course, they can't, as you outline below:
> > >>>> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine
> > >> now, he wants _all_ of
> > >>>> Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and
> > >> pragmatic reasons. So
> > >>>> do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him.
> > >>> I make zero excuses for Putin, so I don't care _why_ he wants
> > >> all of Ukraine,
> > >>> or who else wants it.
> > >>>
> > >>> What I do know is that he demands that Ukraine not join NATO as
> > >> part of any
> > >>> peace deal, and that is enough to tell me that any peace deal
> > >> would be phony,
> > >>> and he would go ahead and invade Ukraine again whenever he felt
> > >> like it.
> > >>
> > >> America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though
> > >> _saying_ that officially might be impolitic. Committing to
> > >> unlimited defense of a state right next door to a hostile nuclear
> > >> power would create a flash point for potential catastrophe.
> > >>
> > > By that reasoning, such NATO members as West Germany and the
> > > United States should not have been allowed to join NATO as they
> > > bordered Warsaw Pact nations.
> > >
> > It also deliberately ignores the whole point of NATO.
> The original point of NATO _ceased to exist in 1989_ . NATO existed primarily to counter and deter _Soviet_ aggression. Secondarily, it once existed also to tie Germany down. In the old cynical summation, NATO was there to 'keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down'. That quote is not original to me, IIRC one of the NATO officials said it.

The "Soviet aggression" you refer to is simply one particular instantiation of
Russian Aggression, which has been a constant since the time of Peter the Great
in the late 1600s. That aggression has been a continues as a feature of Russian
imperialism from then until the present day.

He established the policy that 'Moscow, and historic Russia sit on an indefensible
plain. Therefore, we *must* have enough influence on all our neighbors to make
invasion difficult or impossible".

This has become tied up in the notion of 'Russian World', aka 'Russkiy Mir".. This
is a doctrine of Russian Exceptionalism, the idea that Russia is not a normal country,
but has a holy destiny to spread authoritarianism, Orthodox religion, and Russian
hegemony to the entire world, or barring that, all of Europe. On Russian channels,
I now see calls for the SMO to continue until Lisbon is taken, and also Alaska.

Pre invasion discussion of 'Russkiy Mir:
https://warspiel.substack.com/p/russian-exceptionalism-and-foreign

[Yes, I know similar accusations are made against the US]

On top of that, Russia has never been a functioning democracy. It has almost always been
run, de facto, by monarchal strongmen, whose primary goal is to stay in power. This
overrides any concerns about freedom, tolerance, or the welfare of the mass of the
people.

Tsarist Russia was a threat to the West.
Soviet Russia was a threat to the West.
Modern Russia is a threat to the West.

My ideal end of the war is for the Russian forces to collapse and leave,
and then for the Russian Empire to break up, preferably peacefully.

pt

On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:26:54 AM UTC+11, Johnny1A wrote:
>> Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him. So it wouldn't necessarily be permanent, and such action on the part of the West would lead to more outbreaks elsewhere, and encourage China.
>>
>> I say they should know better because one of the core tenets of conservatism is, or should be, realism about human nature. Yet these people are suddenly echoing the same falsehoods and nonsense that the anti-American left used to attack the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>
>You might want to refresh your neuron about who lied about Iraq...

Sadly, it appears he doesn't have one.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On 2/22/23 21:51, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <rqInvy.Eut@kithrup.com>,
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230-b1a4-8212005a3c02n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Johnny1A <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
>>> that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
>>> a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
>>> point for potential catastrophe.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
>> and Sweden. What's one more?
>
> You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).
>
It is a very small border, but it is there. When landing at Vardo, you
used to have to fly over the USSR to make the turn to line up with the
runway.
--
Dave Scruggs
Captain, Boulder Creek Fire (Retired)
Sr. Software Engineer (Retired, mostly)

On 2023-02-23, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 23 February 2023 at 07:18:10 UTC, Johnny1A wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 22, 2023 at 11:43:40 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 8:26:54 AM UTC+11, Johnny1A wrote:
>> > > Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons. So do many of the power plays in Moscow, it's not just him. So it wouldn't necessarily be permanent, and such action on the part of the West would lead to more outbreaks elsewhere, and encourage China.
>> > >
>> > > I say they should know better because one of the core tenets of conservatism is, or should be, realism about human nature. Yet these people are suddenly echoing the same falsehoods and nonsense that the anti-American left used to attack the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.
>> >
>> > You might want to refresh your neuron about who lied about Iraq...
>> It wasn't Bush. The 'Bush lied' lie was made up by the American left _afterward_, when it turned out that Hussein had fooled the world into thinking he had the WMDs. And no, the UN inspectors were not a serious or trustworthy effort, and no, it wasn't war for oil.
>>
>> Hussein set out to convince the world he had WMDs, and he succeeded.
>
> Why is everything you just said untrue? I know you've
> done that, but I don't know why.

That's a very strong statement you just made, please give your evidence!
That the liberal conspiracy theory that Bush lied is incorrect seems pretty
straightforward.

It's been debated here before, here's just some of the comments and
cites I gave:

Bill Clinton disagrees with you:
> https://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/
> Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that
> Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out
> of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass
> destruction remained unaccounted for.

John Kerry disagrees with you:
> Some Democrats like Kerry (who had access to the classified report
> including dissents) were much more concerned about nuclear WMDs than
> Bush. Kerry stated "All US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is
> seeking nuclear weapons" (Oct,2002). That's a much stronger
> statement than Bush ever made. Was Kerry lying?

The Washington Post wasn't able to find any evidence of Bush lying:
> The Washington Post (my local paper) last looked at the question in
> 2019 (that I know of, at least). Despite valiant efforts, they were
> unable to come up with anything concrete that Bush said or did. The
> best they could do was come up with "excessive hype" by both Democrats
> and Republicans.

Bill Clinton and the Democrats thought Iraq had WMD and bombed Iraq in 1998:
From Bill Clinton speech annoncing the bombing:
> First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to
> retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear
> weapons programs in months, not years.
> Note the "retain."
>> Another quote in support the same day (from your favorite source!)
> Pelosi:
> Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
> mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the
> region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
> The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
> eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
> troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.
>
> Bill Clinton and his cabinet had made clear their belief that Iraq had WMD
> earlier that year. Eg
> Clinton:
> The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of
> chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type
> missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production
> program and build many, many more weapons.
> Albright:
> No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done,
> or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass
> destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different
> from other dictators.

Debate in Fall 2002 (prior to the decision to invade):
> Al Gore (vice president at time of bombing) Sept 2002:
> We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
> weapons throughout his country.
>
> Carl Levin (Dem Senator, Chair of Armed Services Committee) Sept 2002
> We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
> a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored
> the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
> destruction and the means of delivering them.
>
> Robert Byrd (Dem Senator) Oct 2002:
> The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
> confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical
> and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
> course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.
>
> Henry Waxman (Dem Representative) Oct 2002:
> Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy
> towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about
> Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course
> of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has
> demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
> weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.
>
> John Kerry (Dem Senator) Jan 2003
> We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence
> that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a
> developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
> destruction.
>
> Hillary Clinton (Dem Senator) Oct 2002:
> In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
> show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
> biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
> nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
> terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently
> no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September
> 11, 2001.
> It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
> Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
> and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear
> weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the
> political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we
> know all too well affects American security.
> _Now this much is undisputed_. The open questions are: what should we
> do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Sources for the above quotes:
https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/words-of-mass-destruction/

What exactly was Bush lying about, Robert?

Chris

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 2:47:05 PM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
[snip]
> Sources for the above quotes:
> https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
> http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/words-of-mass-destruction/
>
> What exactly was Bush lying about, Robert?

I'm willing to accept your evidence that the US government as a whole
was misled into believing Saddam had WMDs.

I still don't think completely toppling the government of Iraq was well
intentioned, well timed, or even a good idea, and I feel secure in assigning
100% of the blame for that to Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and their underlings.

On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 1:13:22 PM UTC-5, BCFD36 wrote:
> On 2/22/23 21:51, Robert Woodward wrote:
> > In article <rqInv...@kithrup.com>,
> > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
> >>> that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
> >>> a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
> >>> point for potential catastrophe.
> >>
> >> (Hal Heydt)
> >> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
> >> and Sweden. What's one more?
> >
> > You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).
> >
> It is a very small border, but it is there. When landing at Vardo, you
> used to have to fly over the USSR to make the turn to line up with the
> runway.

At the moment it has the only open border crossing between Russia and the west.
Treaties that help preserve the local fish stocks are still in force, but people think
that if Russian vessels are denied access to Norway's port and territorial
waters, the Russians will have no choice but to break it.

And if the port is open, no point in keeping the land closed.

Cross border student hockey is suspended, though. The Russian students are
pro-war, the Norwegians pro-Ukranian.

William Hyde

On 2023-02-23, Ross Presser <rpresser@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 2:47:05 PM UTC-5, Chris Buckley wrote:
> [snip]
>> Sources for the above quotes:
>> https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
>> http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/
>> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/words-of-mass-destruction/
>>
>> What exactly was Bush lying about, Robert?
>
> I'm willing to accept your evidence that the US government as a whole
> was misled into believing Saddam had WMDs.
>
> I still don't think completely toppling the government of Iraq was well
> intentioned, well timed, or even a good idea, and I feel secure in assigning
> 100% of the blame for that to Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and their underlings.

I suspect most historians would assign at least some of the blame to
Saddam! His speeches, activities, and active attempts to mislead
about possession of WMDs all contributed. (I was regaled with his
latest attempts every 3-4 weeks by a fellow baseball parent who was a
CIA operative.)

There are fine legitimate arguments on both sides as to whether
it was a good idea. Politics certainly played a large part. For
instance, the US was under increasingly strong pressure from the
Middle Eastern countries to remove its military bases from Saudi
Arabia (very understandably). But it would have been political
suicide for any US president to remove those bases on their own
post-Sept 11. (The bases got removed a year after the invasion.)

Chris

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 14:00:22 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, February 23, 2023 at 1:13:22?PM UTC-5, BCFD36 wrote:
>> On 2/22/23 21:51, Robert Woodward wrote:
>> > In article <rqInv...@kithrup.com>,
>> > djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <5e6feffc-f92c-4230...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Johnny1A <johnny1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> America should not want Ukraine to joint NATO, either, though _saying_
>> >>> that officially might be impolitic. Committing to unlimited defense of
>> >>> a state right next door to a hostile nuclear power would create a flash
>> >>> point for potential catastrophe.
>> >>
>> >> (Hal Heydt)
>> >> Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Poland, Turkey. Soon to add Finland
>> >> and Sweden. What's one more?
>> >
>> > You skipped Norway (BTW, Sweden doesn't border Russia).
>> >
>> It is a very small border, but it is there. When landing at Vardo, you
>> used to have to fly over the USSR to make the turn to line up with the
>> runway.
>
>At the moment it has the only open border crossing between Russia and the west.
>Treaties that help preserve the local fish stocks are still in force, but people think
>that if Russian vessels are denied access to Norway's port and territorial
>waters, the Russians will have no choice but to break it.
>
>And if the port is open, no point in keeping the land closed.
>
>Cross border student hockey is suspended, though. The Russian students are
>pro-war, the Norwegians pro-Ukranian.

Well of course the Russian students are.

If they weren't, they's be shot.

And their parents as well.

Putin -- the New Tsar
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 14:51:26 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/18/2023 11:07 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 22:25:38 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
>...
>>>> You did read Mr. Pence's plan, referred to above, did you
>>>> not? That's about as lately as it gets...
>>>
>>> Pence is not currently an official.
>>>
>>> I've noticed that some of the GOP congressmen _finally_ seem to be getting that the heart of their problem, politically, is precisely their business donors. The Dems right now are desperately trying to get the current GOP congress to do something stupid along those lines, and at least so far McCarthy isn't biting.
>>
>> Not on that, maybe, but they are nonetheless pursuing stupidity with
>> great enthusiasm. And not just in Congress.
>
>We, the USA, are headed towards a financial apocalypse in a 100 alarm
>fire and some various elected officials are using 10 lb fire
>extinguishers trying to control it. The dems just threw a little more
>gasoline on the fire over the last two years (more borrowed spending).
>But, I don't think the fire is fightable without severe hurt to many
>people in the USA.
>
>One thing that you have to remember is that the dems and the reps are
>the two sides of the war party. When things get tough, they join
>together and go to war. War is coming !
>
>Lynn

There's no question that the pandemic was one of the largest crises
faced in the last 50 years (certainly more than the 2008 financial
crisis) and that government action was required - but one doesn't have
to have great intellect to know that temporary supports can't be
permanent since if the economy could support these long term their
predecessors would have already put them in place.

In my opinion neither Biden nor Trudeau have figured this out - the
Brits are doing a bit better but their government is too much in flux
to have really done a good job of it.

My bottom line is that the ONLY reason Biden's administration isn't
considered a dumpster fire is the record of his predecessor.....

On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 03:21:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:

>>Plus, of course, even if Putin settled for part of Ukraine now, he wants _all_ of Ukraine down the road, for a
>>variety of emotional and pragmatic reasons.

My personal view of Putin is that the only thing unclear on his
intentions is whether he wants a new Soviet Union made up of 12
republics or 15 (e.g. whether he wants the Baltic states).

And that that will remain his goal as long as he has breath or is
otherwise removed from office.

>Misquoting Mel Brooks:
>
>"A little piece of Ukraine
>A little piece of Estonia
>A little piece of Kazakhstan..."
>
>(Dang, can't make that scan with names of countries liberated
>from the Evil Empire(TM) three decades ago.)

Good try with the rhyme. If you can't get it to work try the old
Gilbert + Sullivan tune "I am the very model of a modern major
general" - it seems to be more frequently parodied!

(I'm assuming you were trying to parody "A little bit of Monica" which
I never EVER sang at home since that was my late wife's name and would
certainly make me a battered husband)