Europe at War

[Karl Henning]

Get That Money Zelenskyy!

[LKB]

Sayeth Time's Puppet of the Year: Your money is not charity, it's an investment in global security

One corrupt man's "investment in global security" is another man's continued expansion of the military-industrial complex.

Maybe the puppet can swing by Brussels on his way home.  You know, hit the real power center in this whole mess.

It was nice of Zelensky to quote Phil Collins.  Classy.

Having advocated Ukraine's enslavement, l should think few here will continue to assign much weight to anything you care to post.

Just as Zelenskyy will undoubtedly continue to do as he should for his country, hopefully our government will see that our support continues unabated.

[Todd]

Having advocated Ukraine's enslavement, l should think few here will continue to assign much weight to anything you care to post.

You care enough to respond.

Note that I don't advocate for Ukraine's enslavement.  I am indifferent to it.  There is a difference.

[LKB]

You posted:

" Meh.  Churchill said something along those lines.  Late middle age and elderly posters cowering behind their keyboards carry no weight.  Ukraine ain't worth shit.  It's OK if Ukraine is in enslaved. "

https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php?msg=1486006

Doesn't look like " indifference " to me.

[Karl Henning]

Same trolling, different day.

[Todd]

Doesn't look like " indifference " to me.

It is.

And you continue to care enough to respond.

[71 dB]

I sing the praises of Finland frequently. I excuse your remark on the grounds that you have no familiarity with my expressed beliefs here. As for 71dB, he's upset about the state of the world and not inclined to appreciate inappropriate humor.

Sorry, if my sense of humour is in a bad shape. 2022 was an awful year and 2020-21 weren't good either thanks to a damn virus! We all needed a good year, but we didn't get it. We got this mess of a year.

The appeal of "soccer" is microscopic to me.

Same here, because I am not big on sports in general and as a soccer nation Finland indeed is microscopic. Ice-hockey attracts most physically talented individuals in Finland.

I used to watch soccer with my dad in my childhood and I was a fan of the team Brazil, but later realized the type of entertainment that works best for me is different.

   

 

[71 dB]

Finland is not buying the Swedish fighter. Now we know it's not just a matter of buying a superior plane. The technological and economic advances are important factors.

The F-35 deal offered to Finland was too good to pass.

[drogulus]

    The Admiral Kuznetsov, notorious piece of shit Russian carrier, has caught fire again. Maybe it will be useful if the Spanish Armada attacks.

The F-35 deal offered to Finland was too good to pass.

     It can see into Russia without being seen. Much as I love the Gripen, it's your basic multirole fighter. It's like the difference between a PC and the internet, the "thing that gets you to the thing".

     One should learn a hard truth, that much of history is driven by technology, and much of tech is driven by the military. Russia and China will continue to wither because of this. Russia can only build new smart missiles as long as there are enough dishwashers and microwave ovens to source the larval chips they contain. China can't make a chip anyone would use in a $600 laptop from Best Buy to play games or transcode a movie like I do all the time.

     

[BasilValentine]

Having advocated Ukraine's enslavement, l should think few here will continue to assign much weight to anything you care to post.

Ah, but it's all priceless for students of newspeak, where:

negotiation = capitulation
threat = self defense
puppet = freedom fighter
power center = mire of rot and corruption

[Florestan]

Just stop feeding the troll, gentlemen, once and for all, for God's sake!

[Todd]

puppet = freedom fighter

The standard quip is "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."  I guess it's ripe for a change for some people.

[milk]

Just stop feeding the troll, gentlemen, once and for all, for God's sake!

I continue to think the argument is worth having. Well, more than that: we need it. Maybe it's just the style that's objected to: fine. But there is hardly anyone else making an argument and the the pro-war camp needs testing now more than ever. Even the emotional content has taught me something and I'm not just talking about Todd but one or two others here who insist on ad hominem-s in their posts. But it seems valid to define and question and reevaluate the aims and costs of this conflict. I would have hated to see the Ukraine beaten in the first month as Russia planned and I wonder if the whole thing could have been prevented if policies on both sides had just been different to begin with (I mean the U.S. side as well)? I think we should keep debating the goal of this and (Americans should keep in play) how American foreign policy is going to be redefined in the future. There's a reasonable difference of opinion here about what American policy should be and about what the goal of this thing is. America and Europe own this no matter what happens and the U.S. doesn't have a stellar history when it comes to underwriting conflicts around the world. I'm not necessarily for or against the U.S. supporting this but I do feel like there's too much media taking a particular side. I tend to think that all parties have to be ready to accept less than what they want. I would hope that progressives would be asking a lot of questions about any war machine of the U.S.         

[Madiel]

I continue to think the argument is worth having. Well, more than that: we need it. Maybe it's just the style that's objected to: fine. But there is hardly anyone else making an argument and the the pro-war camp needs testing now more than ever. Even the emotional content has taught me something and I'm not just talking about Todd but one or two others here who insist on ad hominem-s in their posts. But it seems valid to define and question and reevaluate the aims and costs of this conflict. I would have hated to see the Ukraine beaten in the first month as Russia planned and I wonder if the whole thing could have been prevented if policies on both sides had just been different to begin with (I mean the U.S. side as well)? I think we should keep debating the goal of this and (Americans should keep in play) how American foreign policy is going to be redefined in the future. There's a reasonable difference of opinion here about what American policy should be and about what the goal of this thing is. America and Europe own this no matter what happens and the U.S. doesn't have a stellar history when it comes to underwriting conflicts around the world. I'm not necessarily for or against the U.S. supporting this but I do feel like there's too much media taking a particular side. I tend to think that all parties have to be ready to accept less than what they want. I would hope that progressives would be asking a lot of questions about any war machine of the U.S.         

If you wish to mount the argument, feel free.

But if you dislike ad hominems I suggest you take a closer look at the way Todd talks about other members of the forum.

[Fëanor]

I continue to think the argument is worth having. Well, more than that: we need it. Maybe it's just the style that's objected to: fine. But there is hardly anyone else making an argument and the the pro-war camp needs testing now more than ever. Even the emotional content has taught me something and I'm not just talking about Todd but one or two others here who insist on ad hominem-s in their posts. But it seems valid to define and question and reevaluate the aims and costs of this conflict. I would have hated to see the Ukraine beaten in the first month as Russia planned and I wonder if the whole thing could have been prevented if policies on both sides had just been different to begin with (I mean the U.S. side as well)? I think we should keep debating the goal of this and (Americans should keep in play) how American foreign policy is going to be redefined in the future. There's a reasonable difference of opinion here about what American policy should be and about what the goal of this thing is. America and Europe own this no matter what happens and the U.S. doesn't have a stellar history when it comes to underwriting conflicts around the world. I'm not necessarily for or against the U.S. supporting this but I do feel like there's too much media taking a particular side. I tend to think that all parties have to be ready to accept less than what they want. I would hope that progressives would be asking a lot of questions about any war machine of the U.S.       

It seems in a degree that you and Todd have this in common:  you both over emphasize the role of the USA in regard to the Ukraine conflict.

Fear on account of the Russian invasion is felt by all eastern European countries, especially those previously in or controlled by the Soviet Union. Why do you think they flocked to joint NATO in the first place?  It wasn't to placate the USA but on account of the historic imperialist ambitions of Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union, and Russian Federation under Putin as now manifest.

Sure, the USA is the most powerful member of NATO and (accordingly) its largest financial and military contributor.  Hence as a NATO member USA is doing little more than proportionally fulfilling its NATO obligations.

The proposal that the Russia is only defending itself and its "brother" Ukraine against American and NATO aggressions is a lot of malicious, stupid guff.  The "threat" to Russia exists only in the perverted reasoning of Putin and his lackeys and dupes.

[drogulus]

There's a reasonable difference of opinion here about what American policy should be and about what the goal of this thing is. America and Europe own this no matter what happens and the U.S. doesn't have a stellar history when it comes to underwriting conflicts around the world.

    There are no unowned wars. The primary owners are Russia as aggressor and Ukraine defending itself. The US is trying to keep NATO on the Ukraine side while displaying strong indicators of flexibility by moving the center of gravity east. As Germany flounders Poland rises. NATO evolves or it loses functionality, and that could happen in the actual no-shit world and not just in the minds of TrumPutinists and assorted cranks. I find it more likely that the alliance morphs in the direction of its more dedicated members than gives up because some of the legacy tentpoles lose their way, or their economic pizazz.

    Here's a thing. Maritime superpowers fight border wars along fault lines between blocs. They often lose, but it's often the case that no one else could even mount the effort. The US fought in Vietnam and Kissenger won the war in China while losing in Saigon. Then the Vietnamese kicked Chinese ass in 1979 and now are friends with the Americans.

    I judge that the problem of managing the decline of of the 2 most furious defector states involves some pretty fancy footwork. The US will be the only quasi-autarkic economic bloc. N. America is "belong to us". The US, Canada and Mexico have food and energy, and the bloc economy is internally driven.

    The goal in Ukraine is not to confine the damage to Ukraine so much as prevent the war from spreading into NATOland. Just because we don't want NATO countries to be destroyed doesn't mean we chose Ukraine instead. That's a shallow "one mans" reading. Even many people who suspect US motives have trouble with it. The world can't be robbed of agency to that degree even if the secret US plot to rule the world was as credible as the actual world plot to have the US rule it.

     I got my classic smilies back!!!

     

[Florestan]

continue to think the argument is worth having. Well, more than that: we need it. Maybe it's just the style that's objected to: fine.

If you think that a goodwill, meaningful, rational and reasonable argument can be had with someone whose style of argumentation consists of (1) repetitive, snide one-liners, (2) provocative formulations calculated to trigger the ire of the opponent, and (3) "Incorrect.", be my guest. In my book it's called feeding the troll.

[prémont]

If you think that a goodwill, meaningful, rational and reasonable argument can be had with someone whose style of argumentation consists of (1) repetitive, snide one-liners, (2) provocative formulations calculated to trigger the ire of the opponent, and (3) "Incorrect.", be my guest. In my book it's called feeding the troll.

I recommend the ignore list for that kind of posters. Then one isn't tempted to feed the troll.

[Florestan]

I recommend the ignore list for that kind of posters.

Doesn't work for me. I personally think the best way to deal with that kind of posters* is to put them on a read-only mode. I mean, read their posts, get angry, don't reply. 

* Actually, I am not aware of any other poster of this kind save Todd.

[Madiel]

I recommend the ignore list for that kind of posters. Then one isn't tempted to feed the troll.

One of the benefits of the new forum design is that, somehow, scrolling past ignored posts is smoother and easier than before.