No, I'm not going to indulge because you're a pathetic little concern troll who wants people to play to your pet hypothetical bullshit and tries to manipulate the framing of debates with said bullshit.
Russia-Ukraine War Politics Thread Mk. 2
- Thread starter Emperor Tippy
- Start date
King Arts
Well-known member
No I'm not a concern troll. You are just such an unlikeable prick with your Bush Jr. style mannerisms and "If your not with us you are against us." that I end up arguing with your bullheaded takes even though I am against Russia and want them to lose this fight.
No, you are concern troll who follows me around in threads trying to use bullshit hypotheticals and false framing of events/narratives to try to 'gotcha' me on multiple subjects/topics.
Also, the neo-cons like Bush Jr. weren't wrong about Russia, Iran, or Hamas, nor are they wrong that on some issues there is no third option, either you support Ukraine or you support what Russia is doing to them.
King Arts
Well-known member
Don't flatter yourself Bacle. I go to interesting threads and speak in them. It just happens you go to these threads also and say the most idiotic things.
And no the hypotheticals are there to show how your framing of events is stupid. Bush was an idiot who is responsible for the left being so strong. I don't give a shit about Iran or Hamas those are Israel's problems not ours. Russia is our problem however because they are threatening Europe.
Again no there is a third option, you just are too much of a coward to engage with it. Are you saying there is no differance if the US stayed out of it vs actually used military force on Ukraine to help Russia? No differance in the world stage? Europeans wouldn't shit themselves in fear at a crazy US? Even @Marduk is smart and honest enough to know that there is more than two options. He might argue that neutrality is a stupid position that gives the initiative to others, but he would understand there is a differance between doing nothing and helping the other side.
Sink it. No more velvet gloves. They want war give them one.
Nope, capture it. Then interrogate all those on board. If it turns out they didn't do anything. Give it back AFTER Russia leaves Ukraine.
And if they did do it, sink it, claim the sailors as POWs and that article 4 will be invoked woth a potential article 5
You interrogate the surviving crew.
No, Bacle. Bush's "if you're not with us, you're against us," stance has been widely recognized by both sides as being fucking retarded, because it is fucking retarded. Yet here you are saying he was right.
Neutrality is far different than taking sides, and Amos' hypothetical is not crazy, outlandish, or anything of the sort. It's literally "this is what not being neutral looks like if they took the other side." It's a perfectly good hypothetical, and it's completely relevant because it's directly related to the topic. You refuse to engage with it, because it requires you to use some critical thinking. You're afraid of utilizing independent thought, instead of spouting the propaganda you've let take over and rot your brain. You'd much rather this be a black and white, line drawn in the sand, and it's not.
This hypothetical? It's literally "what if the US took the other side?" And it demonstrates that there's a huge difference between being neutral and actively taking a side.
You know, I've agreed with you on a lot of topics, and I've considered you a friend over the years. I still do, even though we disagree on Ukraine. On this topic, though?This shit has made you stupid. Your argument that Neutrality is taking sides with Russia is just as fucking retarded as when Bush said it, and Amos just showed you why. I think deep down, you actually know it's fucking stupid and that's why you won't engage with it. Independent thought is a threat to the carefully curated narrative you're clinging to.
Wake the fuck up.
Yeah this "either you support the one side or you're supporting the other side" stuff is completely silly. It's on the same level as the "when you say A you really mean B" game the cultural Marxists play.
One might as well claim that if you don't support Russia defending its sphere of influence and its people, then you are fully in support of Secular Globalism conquering the world and imposing its LGBTP-etc agenda on everyone. It's that sort of False Dichotomy.
One might as well claim that if you don't support Russia defending its sphere of influence and its people, then you are fully in support of Secular Globalism conquering the world and imposing its LGBTP-etc agenda on everyone. It's that sort of False Dichotomy.
Where did AmosTrask put forward a hypothetical?
It was King Arts who decided to try the same rhetorical BS that makes my eyes glaze over as I realize he's trying more hypothetical BS to try to play gotcha games.
Also, assistance to Ukraine is not the same as invading Iraq; context matters, and this is not some American adventurism, this is a war for Ukraine's national survival.
No, I've just recognized the concern trolling and BS hypothetical spinning for what it is, and won't legitimize it by playing his game.
It's detached from reality and a dumb move at a 'reverse Uno-card' argument that ignores the wider context.
I don't need to waste time playing into the false premise laid before me, instead of mocking it.
You mean King Arts, right? Because AmosTrask isn't the one who put forward the ridiculous hypothetical.
And no, this isn't a case where I need to wake up; I'm very awake, I just don't let people like Tucker Carlson and known Russian shills or Tard-Right grifters decide what my foreign policy views are.
The GOP and Right had an easy W in supporting Ukraine against Russia, in pushing Biden for more aid faster, but instead the grifters and open Russian shills have caused part of the GOP to prove the horseshoe theory of politics yet again.
This isn't about 'independent thought' being a threat to anyone's narrative, it's called understanding the blindspots and bias of domestic vs international reporting and politics of people. Just because someone is on the ball calling out the stolen election or Wu Flu vax's does not mean their foreign policy or military takes are worth listening too.
I mixed names up.
But this isn't a two sided situation as you insist. Over here in reality, people recognize that there is an entire spectrum of support, Neutrality and being outright against, aiding Ukraine.
One could be for sending just money. Or for money and weapons. Or boots on the ground. Or staying out entirely. Or aiding Russia, or even putting boots on the ground in Russia. This isn't black and white.
This isn't "you're with us or against us." Remaining neutral is not pro Russia. Many people were for supporting Ukrain up to a point. This isn't pro Russia. Many people were for supporting Ukraine until we started sending weapons. This is not pro Russia. Many people feel this is Europe's fight and that European countries should pitch in more, because the US has contributed more than the rest of them combined. This is not pro Russia.
The "with us or against us" stance is stupid. This is not a two sided coin no matter how badly you want it to be. You only make yourself look stupid, even to many who support Ukraine aid, by insisting this is the case.
This situation has nuance and a wide array of positions that can be held. By your logic, someone who has been all for funding Ukraine but thinks it's time for Europe to up their game, is pro Russia. That's stupid.
Let me ask you, bacle, and this isn't a hypothetical question: do you support the US deploying troops in Ukraine?
Last edited:
First, so we do not play any word games, do you consider the current US footprint in Ukraine, as in Embassy Guards and people overseeing the logistics transfers of weapons aid, to be 'deployed troops'?
I do not consider them as such, but have seen people disingenuously argue they could as 'boots on the ground already'.
Now if you mean actual formal troop deployments to combat the Russians in Ukraine, that is a separate issue. I think the US and Ukraine benefit more from the US keeping aid up and not deploying directly into Ukraine, for a few reasons:
1) Dead US soldiers, formally sent to Ukraine to fight on the front would only hurt US public support, due to the influence of Russian info ops and the US public's aversion to 'normal' causality figures for large scale combined arms warfare. People from the US volunteering as private individuals with the international legion or the like makes more of a difference than formal US troops, in terms of morale for Ukraine and casualty aversion from the west.
2) It keeps the Russian simps in some NATO nations (Hungary, Germany, Turkey to a degree) from being able to use NATO rules from holding up aid or actions more than they already have. Trying to put NATO troops in Ukraine, at least US NATO troops, would only make it harder to break the simps of their ties to Russia, and may fracture NATO.
3) I don't think US troops on the field would necessarily make things happen faster for Ukraine than they are now, with the mess of DC politics as is and the nature of the ground war as is. If we had a semi-united situation in DC, and less successful Russian, Iranian, and CCP influence ops affecting the west, maybe this would be different.
If any NATO/Western military goes into Ukraine, I actually expect it would be the UK or Poland that would be the best options. Brits don't have the same issues with Russian influence ops, have looser Rules of Engagement, and don't have to report to Congress. As for Poland, well, they as a nation know better than most what it means to be under the Russian thumb, and have better grasp on the realities of living/working/fighting in eastern Europe against the Russians.
However the idea that there is a 'neutral position' on what Russia has done to Ukraine, and been doing not just since 2022 but 2014, and frankly going all the way back to the Holomodor and earlier...no.
I understand he desire for a third position, I even remember thinking myself back then the way you currently are thinking now, back before the invasion actually kicked off, because I thought Russia would roll Ukraine in a few days in a serious fight.
Then Zelensky came out with his 'I need ammo, not a ride' quote, the bubushka's telling Russian soldiers to take sunflower seeds so something would sprout where they died began happening, Russian rolled tanks/troops into Chernobyl without even giving them maps/telling them where they were, and the Russian's proved they are not the vaunted Red Army that would roll to the Polish border in a few days. Putin and Russia also proved they could not be trusted to hold to any agreement, and that any negotiation was just buying time for them to rearm and rebuild or spin propaganda. The neo-cons were proven right about Russia, Iran, and the CCP in what happened, though. I wish Bush Jr. hadn't wasted so much US blood and international good will on invading/propping up Iraq, we might have avoided this if not for that bit of stupidity and weakening of the US position as a moral actor. Biden's fuck up in A-stan didn't help either.
My positions and views changed because the world changed (or more like reverted to the pre-WW2 norm), and proved the old illusions about US isolationism as nonviable in the modern day, and that Putin/Russia as a rational actors were hollow lies, like so many of the ideals/views pushed on the kids of the 90s by overly optimistic Boomer parents. Old world blood and feuds don't disappear because the US public is in a semi-delusional bubble about 'the end of history', and the US is part of that world now to a degree we cannot just ignore it to focus on domestic issues.
I mean do you support the US deploying armed soldiers to actively fight against Russia in Ukraine? Not referring to the logistical support that is already there.
Further, the US being isolationist is perfectly viable. Letting go Europe sort out its own business while we take care of matters at home and bolster our own military is viable. If Russia completely took Ukraine, our lives would not change. I don't want, nor support that, but it would make literally no difference to us here in the US is Russia owned Ukraine.
I already listed three reasons I don't think sending US troops into Ukraine to directly fight the Russians is in Ukraine or the US's best interest.
This is just a complete misunderstanding of how international logistics chains work, and how global markets work. This war has proven that more than most, as the ripple effects from it are already damaging economies including the US economy. A lot of US steel of certain types relied on raw materials that we didn't really make anymore, but Ukraine still did, like the precursor steel for certain types or industrial ballbearings for heavy equipment. Then there is the issue with Ukraine's ag sector getting gutted, which didn't help food prices around the world, including in the US because it increased the cost of basic grains.
You also don't really seem to understand or internalize that Russia would not stop at Ukraine, and have already been willing to fire on NATO aircraft over the Black Sea. The only reason the Brits haven't activated Article 5 for Russia firing on their ELINT plane is because one Russian missile missed, and the other never had it's engine ignite.
I mean shit, there is now evidence of Russia cutting undersea pipe-lines and cables between Estonia and Finland, both NATO members.
If Ukraine loses, Russia won't be deterred simply by a nation's membership in NATO, and this is what you don't seem to understand.
No, it's not perfectly viable, it would have titanic consequences for US international relations, and generally negative ones, forget about having alliances anymore for a generation at least.
But of course absolutely everything can be viable in your imagination if you ignore everything beyond the tip of your nose hard enough.
Ukraine isn’t
NATO and Russian imperial ambitions are though, and Ukraine is in the middle.