I can’t support the Ukrainian Government any longer, even though Putin was wrong to invade

[Valletta]

That would have been quite a feat ...

Wasn't Republican George Bush Sr. in power when the USSR fell ?

Yes, someone recently showed me a letter that was published in the newspaper that I wrote bashing Bush. Much of the nation ended up going crazy with "Gorby fever" and I believe it was in 1992 the Congress voted to give aid to Russia. Republican President, Congress was controlled by the Democrats. So it was the establishment that had the opportunity and failed. Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Joe Biden, those guys were also failing our country back then and for a long, long time.

 

[Andrewn]

So ... a sovereign state decides to change its national alliances ... and that justifies an attack by a former ally ?

I didn't say it justifies. I said it provides context.

And this takes us back to the question in post #88, "Would the US be the evil one if it invaded Texas?"

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't say it justifies. I said it provides context.

And this takes us back to the question in post #88, "Would the US be the evil one if it invaded Texas?"

Texas *did* (sort of) get invaded by the US. Texas declared itself independent from Mexico then after winning their independence war asked (successfully) to join the US. The US-Mexico war broke out after that.

 

[A_Thinker]

Yes, someone recently showed me a letter that was published in the newspaper that I wrote bashing Bush. Much of the nation ended up going crazy with "Gorby fever" and I believe it was in 1992 the Congress voted to give aid to Russia. Republican President, Congress was controlled by the Democrats. So it was the establishment that had the opportunity and failed. Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Joe Biden, those guys were also failing our country back then and for a long, long time.

I think that we may be able to agree that much depends upon WHO is leading Russia.

Under Gorbachev and, later, Yeltsin, ... there was a HOPE ... for more harmonious relationship with Russia. But all of that changed with Putin ... who was, clearly, an old school Russian.

Nothing wrong with a little hope ... but I don't think that Russia was ready to give up its nuclear weaponry ...

 

[Valletta]

I think that we may be able to agree that much depends upon WHO is leading Russia.

Under Gorbachev and, later, Yeltsin, ... there was a HOPE ... for more harmonious relationship with Russia. But all of that changed with Putin ... who was, clearly, an old school Russian.

Nothing wrong with a little hope ... but I don't think that Russia was ready to give up its nuclear weaponry ...

It was time to use leverage on the Russians, tough negotiations on the nuclear weapons because someday a Putin or worse might show up. Likewise factions in Russia may have sold weapons to terrorists or terrorist countries.

 

[A_Thinker]

I didn't say it justifies. I said it provides context.

And this takes us back to the question in post #88, "Would the US be the evil one if it invaded Texas?"

The relationship between the US and Texas has been of a different flavor than that between Russia and Ukraine. The US hasn't starved 3 million Texan citizens ... and Texas has entered into an commitment to remain a part of the Union ...

 

[A_Thinker]

It was time to use leverage on the Russians, tough negotiations on the nuclear weapons because someday a Putin or worse might show up. Likewise factions in Russia may have sold weapons to terrorists or terrorist countries.

I would agree .... to an extent, ... but these things take time.

Crushing Russia was never the intent of the US. We come from different points of reference ...

 

[Valletta]

I would agree .... to an extent, ... but these things take time.

Crushing Russia was never the intent of the US. We come from different points of reference ...

A nuclear arms agreement is not crushing a country.

 

[A_Thinker]

A nuclear arms agreement is not crushing a country.

We have had nuclear arms agreements with Russia (SALT agreements) ... and both Russia and the US have reduced their arsenals.

P.S. SALT stands for Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ...

Milestones: 1969–1976 - Office of the Historian

There were also the START (Strategic Arms Reduction) talks that lasted until the mid 1990's ...

Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) | Hiroshima for Global Peace

 

[Bradskii]

... because the continuation of this hopeless conflict is morally unjustifiable.

You simply must be kidding...

 

[Hans Blaster]

You simply must be kidding...

Alas, this is not the case.

 

[Bradskii]

Alas, this is not the case.

'We shall fight them on the seas and oceans. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. Unless someone gets really hurt. In which case we'll surrender. I mean, it would be morally unjustifiable'.

'December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. I have therefore formally surrendered to the Emperor of Japan. To continue would be morally unjustifiable'.

 

[The Liturgist]

'We shall fight them on the seas and oceans. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. Unless someone gets really hurt. In which case we'll surrender. I mean, it would be morally unjustifiable'.

'December 7, 1941 a date which will live in infamy the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. I have therefore formally surrendered to the Emperor of Japan. To continue would be morally unjustifiable'.

It must be stressed Nazi Germany was not a nuclear power, and the Empire of Japan was defeated with strategic nuclear bombardment. Hitler, thankfully, was too deranged to focus on a nuclear weapons program and instead gave the world ballistic missiles.

It was because of the threat of nuclear provocation with the Soviet Union that President Truman fired General MacArthur, leading to the famed “in war, there is no substitute for victory!” speech. And at the time MacArthur was probably right for at the time Stalin’s nuclear abilities, while very real, were also not well developed, in contrast to our interception and retaliation abilities, but the Soviet Union quickly narrowed the bomb gap and now, even if we assume that Russian nuclear forces are not as good as advertised, there is still no doubt that they could, in combination with ours, lead to the nuclear nightmare that correctly preoccupied people in prior decades. This is why Ukraine is not worth it; they are not a NATO member and there is no obligation to protect them against a nuclear enemy. Our status as a nuclear power grants us the same freedom that Russia is excercing; if you want war so much as to quote Roosevelt and Churchill, invade somewhere the Russians aren’t likely to nuke us over.

 

[Bradskii]

This is why Ukraine is not worth it; they are not a NATO member and there is no obligation to protect them against a nuclear enemy.

Nobody wants war. And moving the goalposts by suggesting that it has proposed that anyone but Ukraine should be fighting Russia is noted. But your defeatist attitude and the outright statement that fighting for one's own country against a tyranical oppresor is 'immoral' is disgraceful.

 

[Robban]

Nobody wants war. And moving the goalposts by suggesting that it has proposed that anyone but Ukraine should be fighting Russia is noted. But your defeatist attitude and the outright statement that fighting for one's own country against a tyranical oppresor is 'immoral' is disgraceful.

"Son, it's time to stop rambling there is work to be done,

so thay gave me a tin hat and they gave me a gun,

and they sent me off to the war."

From "Waltzing Matilda."

When the ship left the pier the crowds were cheering.

When the ship returned no one was cheering, they looked the other way.

Muhamed Ali did time for refusing to fight in Vietnam,

He reasoned, no vietnamese has ever called me a "N" so why should I kill them?



Edit,
from "The band played waltzing Matilda"
Liam Clancy.

 

[Andrewn]

The Azov Battalion: Extremists defending Mariupol | DW | 16.03.2022

 

[Bradskii]

"Son, it's time to stop rambling there is work to be done,

so thay gave me a tin hat and they gave me a gun,

and they sent me off to the war."

From "Waltzing Matilda."

When the ship left the pier the crowds were cheering.

When the ship returned no one was cheering, they looked the other way.

Muhamed Ali did time for refusing to fight in Vietnam,

He reasoned, no vietnamese has ever called me a "N" so why should I kill them?



Edit,
from "The band played waltzing Matilda"
Liam Clancy.

I'm glad you edited the title...saved me doing it. But the song refers to the waste of so many lives that was World War I. And specifically Gallipoli when Australians were sent to the Dardenelles to be slaughtered by the Turkish forces. Many of whom were also killed. All for no meaningful reason. Close to 200,000 casualties on both sides. And the line 'they looked the other way' was more from a sense of shame at the senselessness of it all. It's hard to look a man in the eye when he returns home broken after you've sent him on a fool's errand.

We'll actually be celebrating Anzac Day in a month's time (April 25). A day that commemorates Australian and New Zealand losses in all wars. It's an extremely important day down here. But with specific thoughts on Gallipoli. Which was the bright idea of the British First Lord of The Admiralty. A man I quoted in a post above: Winston Churchill.

Isn't is strange that the same man can be used as an example of heroism in the time of great national danger in his call to arms against Nazi Germany in the Second World War and also as a man who sent so many to be killed in a senseless campaign that served no purpose in the First.

Incidently, he also called on Australia in that Second World War speech as well.

“And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle...'

But Ukraine is different in all possible ways. Which I won't waste my time or yours in listing.

 

[A_Thinker]

This is why Ukraine is not worth it; they are not a NATO member and there is no obligation to protect them against a nuclear enemy.

I believe that we can defeat Russia economically ... as we did the Soviets.

It is time for a new type of war ...

 

[o_mlly]

A nuclear arms agreement is not crushing a country.

Ask Zelensky how his country's nuclear arms agreement is going:

The Massandra Accords set the stage for the ultimately successful trilateral talks. As the United States mediated between Russia and Ukraine, the three countries signed the Trilateral Statement on January 14, 1994. Ukraine committed to full disarmament, including strategic weapons, in exchange for economic support and security assurances from the United States and Russia.​

 

[o_mlly]

This is why Ukraine is not worth it; they are not a NATO member and there is no obligation to protect them against a nuclear enemy.

Au contraire . See above.