Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[BillsFanNC]

 

[LDD]

19 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

It was the U.S.

 

This tact is just part of the "proxy war"

 

P.S.  I love The Blacklist.

 

 

prox·y war

/ˈpräksē wôr/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence

 

So, based on the definition, if it is a "proxy war" then the US would have to have started it.  Is that your position?

[Demongyz]

5 minutes ago, LDD said:

prox·y war

/ˈpräksē wôr/

Learn to pronounce

noun

a war instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved.

"the end of the Cold War brought an end to many of the proxy wars through which the two sides struggled to exert their influence

 

So, based on the definition, if it is a "proxy war" then the US would have to have started it.  Is that your position?

When Russia invaded Afghanistan and the US funded the Mujahadeen was that a proxy war?

[LDD]

1 hour ago, Demongyz said:

When Russia invaded Afghanistan and the US funded the Mujahadeen was that a proxy war?

Yes, I think that was a proxy war and I think this is also a proxy war although there are some big differences.  I was wondering if B-man, based on the definition, believed the US was complicit in "starting" the war.  

[Demongyz]

16 minutes ago, LDD said:

Yes, I think that was a proxy war and I think this is also a proxy war although there are some big differences.  I was wondering if B-man, based on the definition, believed the US was complicit in "starting" the war.  

Ah I see.

[sherpa]

14 minutes ago, LDD said:

Yes, I think that was a proxy war and I think this is also a proxy war although there are some big differences.  I was wondering if B-man, based on the definition, believed the US was complicit in "starting" the war.  

 

Come on.

In no way does the US support for Muslim rebels against the unprovoked Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan reach the level of a proxy war.

[All_Pro_Bills]

23 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Come on.

In no way does the US support for Muslim rebels against the unprovoked Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan reach the level of a proxy war.

In my view its more about motivation than fitting some classic definition of the term.  Why did the US provide assistance to the Afghan rebels?  Out of love for the cause (which wasn't the democracy pitch no matter which side prevailed) or to mess with the Soviets?  I'd argue the same motivation exists in Ukraine to a small or large degree depending on your perspective.  To mess with the Russians.  Because excluding the supporting democracy position (which I never bought into) I can't identify a single strategic interest.  Some might want to cite some half baked European domino theory about stopping Russia from taking over Western Europe but if they can't beat Ukraine one on one in over a year then somebody please explain and articulate a realistic path to prevailing over the US, NATO, and the armed forces of all of Europe in a combined military alliance?  Its just not possible.  

Edited March 8, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[LDD]

24 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Come on.

In no way does the US support for Muslim rebels against the unprovoked Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan reach the level of a proxy war.

Eh, CIA involvement, Donald Rumsfeld hugs, stinger missiles...it's close.  Considering the actual definition of a proxy war, I would agree that it doesn't, but it seems to be a "working term" on this thread and I was trying to ask whether the actual definition applied or whether the term was being thrown around loosely to capture US involvement in the Ukraine conflict.  

Defniition - No, Afghan/Soviet war doesn't meet the definition

Use on this thread - Yes, it was a proxy war. 

[sherpa]

29 minutes ago, LDD said:

Eh, CIA involvement, Donald Rumsfeld hugs, stinger missiles...it's close.  Considering the actual definition of a proxy war, I would agree that it doesn't, but it seems to be a "working term" on this thread and I was trying to ask whether the actual definition applied or whether the term was being thrown around loosely to capture US involvement in the Ukraine conflict.  

Defniition - No, Afghan/Soviet war doesn't meet the definition

Use on this thread - Yes, it was a proxy war. 

 

I get what you and All Pro Bills are saying, and the point is valid.

But, in my view, it takes a bit more than what we did re the mujahedeen to constitute a proxy war.

Simply supplying arms doesn't puncture that threshold if you ask me. 

 

If it did, the Six Day War, Yom Kippur and the scores of South/Central America actions, would, and they do not approach what went on in Korea and Vietnam.

 

Just a judgement re definition I suppose, but..........this thing in the Ukraine is getting really, really close to a definition of war, and if China arms Putin, we are in for interesting times.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

Just a judgement re definition I suppose, but..........this thing in the Ukraine is getting really, really close to a definition of war, and if China arms Putin, we are in for interesting times.

Interesting times indeed.  Monitoring the rhetoric out of China lately I'm convinced they're planning on providing support in material, arms, and intelligence.  Or may already be doing so.  And when I hear US officials support the commitment to the point of "whatever it takes", one I wonder what that quantifiably means and two, whatever it takes for what? 

 

Does whatever it takes mean an endless escalation of steps up to and including tactical nuclear weapons until total victory?  If F-16's are sent, then what's the next step if that doesn't produce "whatever it takes"?  Does "whatever it takes" include commitment of US forces to combat missions?

 

And what is the objective of whatever it takes?  To reach some peaceful conclusion via a treaty or agreement or unconditional victory defined as a return to Ukraine's 2014 before the seizing of Crimea or something else.  What do the Ukrainians think are acceptable terms vs. the US vs. the Europeans?  What is Russia looking for or willing to negotiate?  

 

In any endeavor it's hard to measure success or failure or something in between when you have no objective goals.  

[SoCal Deek]

Is the small incursion over yet? I think I dosed off. 

[B-Man]

 

 

Well it took the Russians about half a year to take this city, so the "war" will be going on for quite a while still.

 

If only someone would try to bring about a cease-fire.

 

🤔

[Coffeesforclosers]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Well it took the Russians about half a year to take this city, so the "war" will be going on for quite a while still.

 

If only someone would try to bring about a cease-fire.

 

🤔

 

Eh, this is where Tayyep Erdogan would step in. Were he not fighting for his political life because his political party took bribes and kickbacks instead of enforcing building codes. Or doing disaster relief.  And 60,000 Turks died. 

 

Israel too, except they're drowning in domestic turmoil.

 

Or China, but Xi's leadership has been so weak and so milquetoast on the Ukraine issue it's been a year and they still don't know what to do. Also ditto the turmoil.

 

India just hosted a diplomatic summit where Russia's foreign minister was laughed out of the room on camera. And they're still getting bribed by everyone to not help anyone else. Ka-ching! Well played, India. 

 

Russia, for some reason, can't just take an L and live to fight another day.  Because they're  Really, Totally, For Real Guys, fighting a Nazi Satanist Globalist Warmongering American Hegemony or some other gibberish that comes with a useless liberal arts masters degree. 

 

We're happy to dump money and weapons into Ukraine for as long as Ukraine is willing to turn our support into dead Russians.  

 

Europe is split between countries who were occupied by Russia and justly hate them. And countries that are now scared of Russia but would really like this all to go away so they can get back to making money. 

 

It's an odd world. 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Coffeesforclosers

[Tiberius]

13 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Interesting times indeed.  Monitoring the rhetoric out of China lately I'm convinced they're planning on providing support in material, arms, and intelligence.  Or may already be doing so.  And when I hear US officials support the commitment to the point of "whatever it takes", one I wonder what that quantifiably means and two, whatever it takes for what? 

 

Does whatever it takes mean an endless escalation of steps up to and including tactical nuclear weapons until total victory?  If F-16's are sent, then what's the next step if that doesn't produce "whatever it takes"?  Does "whatever it takes" include commitment of US forces to combat missions?

 

And what is the objective of whatever it takes?  To reach some peaceful conclusion via a treaty or agreement or unconditional victory defined as a return to Ukraine's 2014 before the seizing of Crimea or something else.  What do the Ukrainians think are acceptable terms vs. the US vs. the Europeans?  What is Russia looking for or willing to negotiate?  

 

In any endeavor it's hard to measure success or failure or something in between when you have no objective goals.  

Putin's war machine again bombarding civilians with missiles again. 81 missiles rained down on men, women and children last night. Just another terror attack. Yet you think these terrorists will negotiate? You do consider Putin a terrorist, right? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Putin's war machine again bombarding civilians with missiles again. 81 missiles rained down on men, women and children last night. Just another terror attack. Yet you think these terrorists will negotiate? You do consider Putin a terrorist, right? 

My questions were about Washington's stated position of support to do "whatever it takes".  And other than a slogan there's little meaning to it unless you define some goals and objectives.   What are the administrations goals and objectives?  First it was defending democracy, then it was to weaken Russia.  Which is it?   I don't recall hearing anyone, including the President, address the American public with a clear and specific statement other than a few one liners.  If I missed it please point it out to me. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

42 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

My questions were about Washington's stated position of support to do "whatever it takes".  And other than a slogan there's little meaning to it unless you define some goals and objectives.   What are the administrations goals and objectives?  First it was defending democracy, then it was to weaken Russia.  Which is it?   I don't recall hearing anyone, including the President, address the American public with a clear and specific statement other than a few one liners.  If I missed it please point it out to me. 

 

 

Is Putin a terrorist? 

[All_Pro_Bills]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Is Putin a terrorist? 

If I said yes would it make you happy and would you address my questions? 

[SoCal Deek]

46 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Is Putin a terrorist? 

Honest Question: What is it that makes him a “terrorist” in your eyes?  I’m not saying I disagree with you Tibs, but we need to share a common language if we’re all going to have a conversation. 

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Honest Question: What is it that makes him a “terrorist” in your eyes?  I’m not saying I disagree with you Tibs, but we need to share a common language if we’re all going to have a conversation. 

Terrorising people with missiles

[Niagara Bill]

15 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Honest Question: What is it that makes him a “terrorist” in your eyes?  I’m not saying I disagree with you Tibs, but we need to share a common language if we’re all going to have a conversation. 

Me thinks a rose by any name is still a rose.

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

 

16 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Honest Question: What is it that makes him a “terrorist” in your eyes?  I’m not saying I disagree with you Tibs, but we need to share a common language if we’re all going to have a conversation. 

I think it boils down to one thing, perspective. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Terrorising people with missiles

Thanks Tibs. Missiles are fired in all modern conflicts…as you obviously know. Is it the pictures of shelled apartment buildings that makes the distinction for you? (Again, I’m not disagreeing. Just trying to see if you’ll clarify your position.)

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks Tibs. Missiles are fired in all modern conflicts…as you obviously know. Is it the pictures of shelled apartment buildings that makes the distinction for you? (Again, I’m not disagreeing. Just trying to see if you’ll clarify your position.)

No, it's just terrorism, period 

[Niagara Bill]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Terrorising people with missiles

What is the point. Was Hitler a terrorist.

He invaded Georgia 2014? Still kept part of that country and nobody cared. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

14 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Is the small incursion over yet? I think I dosed off. 

i certainly hope you didn't dose off.  I enjoy debating with you.  If you did, get some Narcan, quickly!😄

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

I think it boils down to one thing, perspective. 

And what perspective do you have on Putin being a terrorist, which he obviously is? 

1 minute ago, Niagara Bill said:

What is the point. Was Hitler a terrorist.

He invaded Georgia 2014? Still kept part of that country and nobody cared. 

The point is they are blaming people for not doing enough to appease Putin, and I'm saying you really can't negotiate with a guy raining terror down on people. You want to negotiate with a terrorist like that? 

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

Just now, Tiberius said:

No, it's just terrorism, period 

Putin is a war mongering ass, intent on recreating USSR in his own image. 

His hatred of certain cultures is obvious. He is far more than a terrorist, he is far more than Osama bin, 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, redtail hawk said:

i certainly hope you didn't dose off.  I enjoy debating with you.  If you did, get some Narcan, quickly!😄

Just kidding, as usual, Hawk. (This place needs a serious dose of levity.) But I do marvel at how the current administration brushed away this entire conflict just a year ago…and we somehow went from overlooking a ‘small incursion’ to ‘as long as it takes’  (their words not mine) in that same span. There simply has to be a better way to run a civilized world.

 

To quote George Costanza: “We’re trying to have a society here!”

[Niagara Bill]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

And what perspective do you have on Putin being a terrorist, which he obviously is? 

The point is they are blaming people for not doing enough to appease Putin, and I'm saying you really can't negotiate with a guy raining terror down on people. You want to negotiate with a terrorist like that? 

 

 

You cannot negotiate until he is ready. He will gladly kill millions of his own people, it is cultural, it is historic, the Russian people do not care until the opera is interrupted. He is not Kruschev? In 1962, he is Stalin

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Niagara Bill said:

You cannot negotiate until he is ready. He will gladly kill millions of his own people, it is cultural, it is historic, the Russian people do not care until the opera is interrupted. He is not Kruschev? In 1962, he is Stalin

I’m not going to disagree with here, but didn’t the world know all of that BEFORE he amassed troops and tanks at the Ukrainian border? (rhetorical question) 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Putin is a war mongering ass, intent on recreating USSR in his own image. 

His hatred of certain cultures is obvious. He is far more than a terrorist, he is far more than Osama bin, 

Super terrorist and menace to world order 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Super terrorist and menace to world order 

World order? There’s an order? Since when exactly? There’s been a nonstop armed conflict going on somewhere in the world throughout my considerable lifetime. I’d love to see what disorder looks like. 😉

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

World order? There’s an order? Since when exactly? There’s been a nonstop armed conflict going on somewhere in the world throughout my considerable lifetime. I’d love to see what disorder looks like. 😉

Violence of all kinds has been steadily decreasing the world over for centuries. No going backwards 

[LDD]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

World order? There’s an order? Since when exactly? There’s been a nonstop armed conflict going on somewhere in the world throughout my considerable lifetime. I’d love to see what disorder looks like. 😉

Unfortunately I think that is the order and it is established by those that carry the biggest sticks. 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Violence of all kinds has been steadily decreasing the world over for centuries. No going backwards 

That’s a good thing if true, but we’re far, far from there yet. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

Just now, Tiberius said:

And what perspective do you have on Putin being a terrorist, which he obviously is? 

You seem to think our enemies are immoral and merciless savages bent on destruction while we on the other hand are noble and principled civilized people acting to uphold peace and tranquility while the objective truth is the major difference in the two is where you stand.  Perspective. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s a good thing if true, but we’re far, far from there yet. 

Way better than just three decades ago and way way better than 100 years ago 

Just now, All_Pro_Bills said:

You seem to think our enemies are immoral and merciless savages bent on destruction while we on the other hand are noble and principled civilized people acting to uphold peace and tranquility while the objective truth is the major difference in the two is where you stand.  Perspective. 

Yes 

 

You don't see a difference between Putin and our leaders? 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Way better than just three decades ago and way way better than 100 years ago 

 

I’m not so sure I agree. It’s all in just how you measure it I guess. Sure, we haven’t seen a third World War, but instead we have these proxy wars being fought in second and third world countries all over the planet. Seems to me that the people in charge have just decided it’s better to hash things out in countries that no one has ever heard of or had plans to visit on summer vacation. 😉

[All_Pro_Bills]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You don't see a difference between Putin and our leaders? 

When it comes to war?  No, I see no difference. Lots of people die, mostly for nothing. 

 

Just a couple:

Do you think Bush a terrorists for killing over 400,000 Iraqi civilians in the course of pursing the war in Iraq? 

Do you think Obama a terrorist for killing civilians in drone strikes into Pakistan? 

Do you think Churchill was terrorist for authorizing the firebombing of Dresden? 

Do you think Truman was a terrorist for dropping the H-Bomb on Hiroshima?  

 

Leaders make decisions that can be debated to be either good or bad that lead to terrible consequences. 

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

When it comes to war?  No, I see no difference. Lots of people die, mostly for nothing. 

 

Just a couple:

Do you think Bush a terrorists for killing over 400,000 Iraqi civilians in the course of pursing the war in Iraq? (Could make a good argument, especially with the torture taking place) 

Do you think Obama a terrorist for killing civilians in drone strikes into Pakistan? (Not deliberatly targeting them, so that's way different than Putin targeting civilians) 

Do you think Churchill was terrorist for authorizing the firebombing of Dresden? (Ya, terrorism to stop German war production, so probably more excusable)

Do you think Truman was a terrorist for dropping the H-Bomb on Hiroshima?  (Saved lives in the long run, the war and it's trade disruptions were starving millions, so a bomb that killed thousands was "humane" in its own way. ) 

 

Leaders make decisions that can be debated to be either good or bad that lead to terrible consequences. 

You think Putin's killing for conquest is in the same category? I think that's just plain bull 

Oh, I answered inside your quote