The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[ralfy]

Perhaps not rational, but civil.   

You're not being civil when you post memes repeatedly and then make fun of the forum members you're addressing.

[ralfy]

TL:DR. Looked at the first lines then just jumped to the last paragraph. I can see why you'd think I am not seeing the big picture, but the irony is that you are concentrating so hard on just one part of it that you really aren't seeing the full thing yourself.

The definition of WMDs doesn't clearly include explosives. There is no definition of WMDs so you are incorrect here. In military circles, they are used though to refer to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as I pointed out before. I was not just going on about technicalities and semantics though. What I am meaning here however is how you'd believe they would be used, their effectiveness and so on. If they had been used in Ukraine the way you suggested earlier in a theoretical American invasion, you'd have violated LOAC, specifically the section on Proportionality and much of your military force would be guilty of war crimes. Bit hard to fight a war when your commanders and pilots are all behind bars. I suspect the general you quoted was very well aware of this and was more speaking to the home crowd (for example if anyone asks me what I think is the best-trained military in the world, I always tell them theirs is. I don't really mean that though, I am just being nice). Gulf War One, by the way, took weeks of psychological warfare and special forces operations to allow it to go down the way it did (oh, I did nearly wet myself laughing when you said I should study how that went). The use of explosives helped, but I think you'll find if you study it yourself, you'll find the outflanking attack was what made it so successful with the other parts being contributory factors. The Iraqi command system simply couldn't react fast enough because of their poor communications (an example of this is that Saddam did not let most of his forces have radio communications in case they used it to plot against him. The Iraqi forces found themselves cut off, and attacked from unexpected directions. Even then, the fight was not over in a day.

I look for ground commanders as experts in the previous situation because we were talking about a battlefield situation. We were not discussing a geopolitical event. Your reply to comments about the battlefield were to bring in quotes from people who study foreign affairs. If you don't understand why that is important, then yeah I can see why you'd post up entirely the wrong class of experts and that is why I am not reading all your posts or watching your videos. I consider my time too precious to waste on that. Maybe if you focused your points a bit more and made things more concise it might help. Then again, several people have commented on that, and you've denied it (American exceptionalism in action I guess?). I use experts relevant to the situation. If I want to know about a ground fight, then I'll speak to the army, if I want to know about naval operations, I'll chat with the navy. If I want to know about air operations, well that is my speciality. If I want to do research, then I know that takes more than simply watching a few youtube videos.

As to why Putin wanted to join NATO, I would guess that he was looking to establish Russia's place in the world order. Ultimately though this is the problem I see with much of what you post. You seem to think that everything that happens in the world is a reaction to America and what it has done, rather than seeing it as a much more complex and intertwined thing. Expand your sources a bit. Use ones that are actually relevant to that part of the discussion. While the US is very important to the world order, the world itself does not revolve around it. Is the west entirely innocent in this situation? Hell no. Have they done things to provoke the east? Absolutely. If you think Putin is just reacting to what happening around him though, rather than instigating events and using things to his own advantage though, you are very, very, very much mistaken.

I think you're referring to yourself. Notice how you keep talking about WMDs and not about the claim that Saddam was funding terrorists.

The definition is given here:

https://www.dhs.gov/topics/weapons-mass-destruction

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/

So it's clear that it can consist of any material that "can harm a large number of people." Hence, "mass destruction." I think it's safe to say that MOABs are included.

https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2001732840/

I think you're trying to limit it to biological and chemical so that you can argue that the U.S. has no WMDs.

Relying on ground commanders is ridiculous as this topic is essentially about a geopolitical event. Why did the "crazy SOB" do it? Why is he referred to as a "crazy SOB"? I've been trying to answer that. You seem to be interested in such only if you like the answers.

As for Russia's place, I think that's already known, but I think your ground-commanding experts will not understand that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

TL-DR - Russia is part of emerging economies, including Brazil, India, China, South Africa, and over forty countries (including Ukraine!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_market

and they are taking over the global economy not militarily but economically. That's why "the world itself does not revolve around [the U.S.]".

"[T]he [U.S.] is very important to the world order" because it's part of G7, and its main rival is BRICS and emerging markets: around forty countries. In addition, the U.S. dollar is the main reserve currency of the same "world order." Therefore, the U.S. must use over 700 military bases and installations on a global scale to preserve that "order." I think that's what you mean, and something your ground commanders will understand. Here's the part that you won't mention:

When countries become stronger economically, then they start moving away from the dollar. Instead, they use their own currencies or a basket of currencies from which they can have special drawing rights from multinational lending institutions. They can also have bilateral trade, form their own economic blocs, and even form their own, i.e., away from the IMF-WB, which is controlled by the U.S.

That goes against the U.S. because it decreases the country's ability to continue borrowing and spending indefinitely. Recall that it's been doing this on an incredible scale since the early 1980s, which is why its total debt levels have now reached around $70 trillion, with around $170 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I'm told that the debt is mathematically impossible to pay, and that the U.S. has to keep borrowing just to pay for part of the interest.

That's why the U.S. has to spend heavily on its military and use it on a global scale, with at least 400 military installations needed to encircle China. And it's part of foreign policies needed to coerce, weaken, destabilize, and even attack other countries perceived as a threat to "freedom and democracy." This includes not only what happened in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014 but also NATO enlargement as seen in countries near Russia plus U.S. and NATO "police action" in various parts of the world.

So, you see, I'm only completing your argument.

[Rev. Powell]

Perhaps not rational, but civil.   

You're not being civil when you post memes repeatedly and then make fun of the forum members you're addressing.

I think ralfy may have a case here. He's made it clear that posting pictures without comment when quoting him bothers him, so no reason to do it except to try to get under his skin. That said, I have no idea what the kitten chewing its paw is meant to convey. It doesn't seem insulting on its face.

[ralfy]

^ And THAT is why civilians should not argue this topic with a soldier! 

How did you know that I and others aren't ex-military? And how does one prove anything about oneself in forums where verification of identification and bios aren't required?

Meanwhile, is anyone reminded of von Clausewitz? There's an entertaining discussion on that from movies like Crimson Tide:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

But Ramsey himself lays it straight: he's just a simple-minded SOB. He's ordered to push a button, and does so.

[ralfy]

One sign for optimism I have discovered is that young people in Russia are connected online to the world and know what their leadership is, know how out of step their society is with the rights people in the west have, and have shown bravery in taking a stand to change things. I wish the protests against Putin were better known, because they definitely are happening inside Russia. I know it's said Russia will never be free, and mostly a change in leadership has traditionally brought more of the same oppression, but just maybe there might finally be a tipping point in sight and a reason to hope that things will get better there so that Russians will someday enjoy those freedoms we take for granted.

The tipping point involves young people going against their leaders, including not just Putin but also Biden, and even former ones, like Obama and Bush, and not just for Ukraine but also for Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries. And not just those attacked but even those manipulated, from several in South America and Africa to countries like the Philippines:

http://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1587524826729631744

[ralfy]

"US Empire Views Ukrainians And Russians As Lab Rats For Weapons Testing"

https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/us-empire-views-ukrainians-and-russians

News that the west is using Ukraine to test weapons systems for future wars aligns with recent comments by the commander of the US nuclear arsenal that the proxy war is a test run for a much bigger conflict that's on its way.

“This Ukraine crisis that we’re in right now, this is just the warmup,” said US STRATCOM head Charles Richard at a naval conference earlier this month. “The big one is coming. And it isn’t going to be very long before we’re going to get tested in ways that we haven’t been tested [in] a long time.”

The artile using the old title:

"Western Allies Look to Ukraine as a Testing Ground for Weapons"

https://archive.md/ynKrL#selection-391.0-391.62

Using the new title:

"For Western Weapons, the Ukraine War Is a Beta Test"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/world/europe/ukraine-weapons.html

[Allhallowsday]

Perhaps not rational, but civil.    

You're not being civil when you post memes repeatedly and then make fun of the forum members you're addressing.

I think ralfy may have a case here. He's made it clear that posting pictures without comment when quoting him bothers him, so no reason to do it except to try to get under his skin. That said, I have no idea what the kitten chewing its paw is meant to convey. It doesn't seem insulting on its face.

First, there was a comment: "Perhaps not rational, but civil."    
Second, fyi, the meme posted is not a repeat.
Third, as an attorney, you might look at all of the exchange between Ralfy and I before picking up any case.

EDIT: Oh! Ralfy, you're the member this buffoon is making fun of, nobody else, but the sweet kitty meme was intended as an olive branch of civility.  

[Alex]

TL:DR. Looked at the first lines then just jumped to the last paragraph. I can see why you'd think I am not seeing the big picture, but the irony is that you are concentrating so hard on just one part of it that you really aren't seeing the full thing yourself.

The definition of WMDs doesn't clearly include explosives. There is no definition of WMDs so you are incorrect here. In military circles, they are used though to refer to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as I pointed out before. I was not just going on about technicalities and semantics though. What I am meaning here however is how you'd believe they would be used, their effectiveness and so on. If they had been used in Ukraine the way you suggested earlier in a theoretical American invasion, you'd have violated LOAC, specifically the section on Proportionality and much of your military force would be guilty of war crimes. Bit hard to fight a war when your commanders and pilots are all behind bars. I suspect the general you quoted was very well aware of this and was more speaking to the home crowd (for example if anyone asks me what I think is the best-trained military in the world, I always tell them theirs is. I don't really mean that though, I am just being nice). Gulf War One, by the way, took weeks of psychological warfare and special forces operations to allow it to go down the way it did (oh, I did nearly wet myself laughing when you said I should study how that went). The use of explosives helped, but I think you'll find if you study it yourself, you'll find the outflanking attack was what made it so successful with the other parts being contributory factors. The Iraqi command system simply couldn't react fast enough because of their poor communications (an example of this is that Saddam did not let most of his forces have radio communications in case they used it to plot against him. The Iraqi forces found themselves cut off, and attacked from unexpected directions. Even then, the fight was not over in a day.

I look for ground commanders as experts in the previous situation because we were talking about a battlefield situation. We were not discussing a geopolitical event. Your reply to comments about the battlefield were to bring in quotes from people who study foreign affairs. If you don't understand why that is important, then yeah I can see why you'd post up entirely the wrong class of experts and that is why I am not reading all your posts or watching your videos. I consider my time too precious to waste on that. Maybe if you focused your points a bit more and made things more concise it might help. Then again, several people have commented on that, and you've denied it (American exceptionalism in action I guess?). I use experts relevant to the situation. If I want to know about a ground fight, then I'll speak to the army, if I want to know about naval operations, I'll chat with the navy. If I want to know about air operations, well that is my speciality. If I want to do research, then I know that takes more than simply watching a few youtube videos.

As to why Putin wanted to join NATO, I would guess that he was looking to establish Russia's place in the world order. Ultimately though this is the problem I see with much of what you post. You seem to think that everything that happens in the world is a reaction to America and what it has done, rather than seeing it as a much more complex and intertwined thing. Expand your sources a bit. Use ones that are actually relevant to that part of the discussion. While the US is very important to the world order, the world itself does not revolve around it. Is the west entirely innocent in this situation? Hell no. Have they done things to provoke the east? Absolutely. If you think Putin is just reacting to what happening around him though, rather than instigating events and using things to his own advantage though, you are very, very, very much mistaken.

I think you're referring to yourself. Notice how you keep talking about WMDs and not about the claim that Saddam was funding terrorists.

The definition is given here:

https://www.dhs.gov/topics/weapons-mass-destruction

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/

So it's clear that it can consist of any material that "can harm a large number of people." Hence, "mass destruction." I think it's safe to say that MOABs are included.

https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2001732840/

I think you're trying to limit it to biological and chemical so that you can argue that the U.S. has no WMDs.

Relying on ground commanders is ridiculous as this topic is essentially about a geopolitical event. Why did the "crazy SOB" do it? Why is he referred to as a "crazy SOB"? I've been trying to answer that. You seem to be interested in such only if you like the answers.

As for Russia's place, I think that's already known, but I think your ground-commanding experts will not understand that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

TL-DR - Russia is part of emerging economies, including Brazil, India, China, South Africa, and over forty countries (including Ukraine!):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_market

and they are taking over the global economy not militarily but economically. That's why "the world itself does not revolve around [the U.S.]".

"[T]he [U.S.] is very important to the world order" because it's part of G7, and its main rival is BRICS and emerging markets: around forty countries. In addition, the U.S. dollar is the main reserve currency of the same "world order." Therefore, the U.S. must use over 700 military bases and installations on a global scale to preserve that "order." I think that's what you mean, and something your ground commanders will understand. Here's the part that you won't mention:

When countries become stronger economically, then they start moving away from the dollar. Instead, they use their own currencies or a basket of currencies from which they can have special drawing rights from multinational lending institutions. They can also have bilateral trade, form their own economic blocs, and even form their own, i.e., away from the IMF-WB, which is controlled by the U.S.

That goes against the U.S. because it decreases the country's ability to continue borrowing and spending indefinitely. Recall that it's been doing this on an incredible scale since the early 1980s, which is why its total debt levels have now reached around $70 trillion, with around $170 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I'm told that the debt is mathematically impossible to pay, and that the U.S. has to keep borrowing just to pay for part of the interest.

That's why the U.S. has to spend heavily on its military and use it on a global scale, with at least 400 military installations needed to encircle China. And it's part of foreign policies needed to coerce, weaken, destabilize, and even attack other countries perceived as a threat to "freedom and democracy." This includes not only what happened in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014 but also NATO enlargement as seen in countries near Russia plus U.S. and NATO "police action" in various parts of the world.

So, you see, I'm only completing your argument.

Ah, I comment about how the US isn't the centre of the world and you respond by posting up how the US defines WMDs. Alas for you, the world is bigger. There is no legal definition of WMDs. You are still wrong. I haven't really mentioned anything about Saddam and WMDs as I don't see that particular argument as being relevant. Your bringing it up is merely a distraction technique and not a very good one, just as you commenting on me not mentioning something is simply to distract from you yourself not replying to certain elements. I could talk a lot about Saddam and WMDs (if you want to know more is good place to start is what weapons were used during the Iran/Iraq war and who supplied them) but it would just be further going off-topic. I will quote this though in relation to WMDs.

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.

As to arguing that the US doesn't have WMDs, are you not aware you have the world's second-largest supply of nuclear weapons? I have mentioned nuclear weapons under WMDs so you while you are free to think that I am building up to claiming that the US has no WMDs is ultimately a conceit purely of your own invention and has no relevance to what I've said and not is backed up by anything I've mentioned.

For Russia's place in the world when it wanted to join NATO, well Russia was a mess. Putin believes it should be a major world power and was looking at ways of restoring that. Your attempt to jump topics and link it to the separate debate on ground commanders doesn't again really have any relevance in this context.

Yes, the BRIC economies are moving away from the dollar. This is a natural thing and is all part of a capitalist system. It happened before to other empires and their economies. it will happen again. My point is that you were trying to link it to as a reaction to what the US does rather than what those countries plan for themselves.

By continually mentioning ground commanders in irrelevant contexts you are showing that you still haven't figured out the using the right experts for the right situation thing. As I said before:

I look for ground commanders as experts in the previous situation because we were talking about a battlefield situation. We were not discussing a geopolitical event. Your reply to comments about the battlefield were to bring in quotes from people who study foreign affairs.

My ground commanders may or may not understand certain events. I wouldn't presume to judge them all the way you have. Some of them doubtless will, others won't, but they would understand the battlefield situation we were discussing when I mentioned them. I could be wrong, but I believe the technique of trying to link things I've mentioned to something unrelated in a seperate part of the argument to present your own argument as more rational would come under gaslighting. I've noticed throughout your posts, it is a technique you've used repeatedly when people directly refer to your posts. It isn't an uncommon thing for people with weak arguments to try and shore them up that way, although I haven't quite figured out if it is something you are doing accidentally or deliberately.

I could chat about the BRIC economies quite a lot, but I will limit it to saying that they have a long way to go. In many ways, they are still trying to recover from the banks crash. While they represent over 40% of the world's population and around a third of its land mass they account for slightly less than a quarter of global GDP and only 16% of international trade. I wish them luck in their growth and hope they manage not to get caught up clashing with each other. This however is way off-topic.

It has been suggested by a couple of people that it is time to shut down much of this thread, so in future I'll do my best to only respond to comments that are on topic. Well done on the moving away from just posting Youtube links that just make your post too long and that no one seems to be watching. I actually read your post this time and clicked on one of the links. Nice to see that you are learning. Congratulations.

Now to head in a direction that is actually more back on topic, I see India which has previously limited it condemnation of the Russian invasion seems to be hardening its stance. While still short of outright denouncing it (thanks to the trade links between both countries), it does show that the ground is shifting. Their stance is being reflected in other Asian states which had also previously stuck to a more neutral ground with the language India is using being repeated. How much of a difference this will make in the long term remains to be seen though.

[Rev. Powell]

Third, as an attorney, you might look at all of the exchange between Ralfy and I before picking up any case.

I just said he has a case, not that he necessarily has a winning case. Nevertheless, I trust that the issue has been resolved by the parties outside of badmovies court. Back to discussion of Ukraine.

[Allhallowsday]

Third, as an attorney, you might look at all of the exchange between Ralfy and I before picking up any case.

I just said he has a case, not that he necessarily has a winning case. Nevertheless, I trust that the issue has been resolved by the parties outside of badmovies court. Back to discussion of Ukraine.

You said he MAY have a case. 
Look at the exchanges from the last few pages and you will see I responded when I was quoted and have since done the same.  Some may be taking themselves too seriously, particularly for a Bad movies forum. 

[ralfy]

First, there was a comment: "Perhaps not rational, but civil."    
Second, fyi, the meme posted is not a repeat.
Third, as an attorney, you might look at all of the exchange between Ralfy and I before picking up any case.

EDIT: Oh! Ralfy, you're the member this buffoon is making fun of, nobody else, but the sweet kitty meme was intended as an olive branch of civility.  

You posted the dancing meme several times, and then laughed when you were asked to explain it. There is nothing civil about such behavior.

[ralfy]

Ah, I comment about how the US isn't the centre of the world and you respond by posting up how the US defines WMDs. Alas for you, the world is bigger. There is no legal definition of WMDs. You are still wrong. I haven't really mentioned anything about Saddam and WMDs as I don't see that particular argument as being relevant. Your bringing it up is merely a distraction technique and not a very good one, just as you commenting on me not mentioning something is simply to distract from you yourself not replying to certain elements. I could talk a lot about Saddam and WMDs (if you want to know more is good place to start is what weapons were used during the Iran/Iraq war and who supplied them) but it would just be further going off-topic. I will quote this though in relation to WMDs.

No, my response concerning how the U.S. defines WMDs is in response to your claim that WMDs don't involve explosives. According to the U.S., it's anything that causes great harm to masses of people. An example of that would be MOABs.

My response to the claim that the U.S. isn't the center of the world is that the meaning of your phrase that the U.S. is "very important to the world order" shows that it is. That's why it's been attacking, coercing, and destabilizing many countries that are far away from it and pose no threat to it.

Finally, how are those two points connected? By showing that WMDs don't involve explosives, you can show that U.S. use of MOABs isn't part of that, and therefore what it does isn't criminal.

The problem is that your definition is countered by the U.S. itself.

As for Saddam and WMDs, don't waste your time. The U.S. didn't prove anything then, and hasn't until now. That's why even Bush made a joke of it:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

And then there's bit about Saddam supporting terrorists: terrorists who support Islamic fundamentalism, which is the opposite of what Saddam promoted, and the reason why the U.S. itself supported him in the past:

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.

Right, which is why the U.S. used MOABs. And yet they commit mass destruction, too.

You remind me of McNamara with his bean-counting during the Vietnam War: just focus on body counts. Never mind what the bodies are, as long as you reach your target goals, then, as Bush would say, "mission accomplished."

As to arguing that the US doesn't have WMDs, are you not aware you have the world's second-largest supply of nuclear weapons? I have mentioned nuclear weapons under WMDs so you while you are free to think that I am building up to claiming that the US has no WMDs is ultimately a conceit purely of your own invention and has no relevance to what I've said and not is backed up by anything I've mentioned.

You? Where did you get the idea that I'm Russian?

Russia and the U.S. are neck and neck:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/09/03/country-with-most-nuclear-weapons/7845467001/

Would you like to look at numbers of military bases and installations next, plus what's deployed for each of them?

For Russia's place in the world when it wanted to join NATO, well Russia was a mess. Putin believes it should be a major world power and was looking at ways of restoring that. Your attempt to jump topics and link it to the separate debate on ground commanders doesn't again really have any relevance in this context.

Why would Russia want to be a major world power? It will just end up like the U.S., i.e., affected by the Triffin dilemma. Why do you think none of the members of BRICS want to use their currencies as a reserve and instead want SDRs?

And how on earth do ground commanders become experts on geopolitical events? You're not making any sense.

Yes, the BRIC economies are moving away from the dollar. This is a natural thing and is all part of a capitalist system. It happened before to other empires and their economies. it will happen again. My point is that you were trying to link it to as a reaction to what the US does rather than what those countries plan for themselves.

What else is the reason why the U.S. would have such a large military budget, set up over 700 military bases and installations worldwide, and commit so much mayhem that its own former President refers to it as the most warlike in modern history?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/04/19/jimmy-carter-us-most-warlike-nation-in-history-of-the-world/

And if you're going to give some Reagan "evil empire" speech or Dubya's "either you are with us, or you are for the terrorists," then I'll be very disappointed.

By continually mentioning ground commanders in irrelevant contexts you are showing that you still haven't figured out the using the right experts for the right situation thing. As I said before:

Don't get confused: I wasn't referring to ground commanders. You were.

I look for ground commanders as experts in the previous situation because we were talking about a battlefield situation. We were not discussing a geopolitical event. Your reply to comments about the battlefield were to bring in quotes from people who study foreign affairs.

The decision to attack Iraq was not "a battlefield situation"!

My ground commanders may or may not understand certain events. I wouldn't presume to judge them all the way you have. Some of them doubtless will, others won't, but they would understand the battlefield situation we were discussing when I mentioned them. I could be wrong, but I believe the technique of trying to link things I've mentioned to something unrelated in a seperate part of the argument to present your own argument as more rational would come under gaslighting. I've noticed throughout your posts, it is a technique you've used repeatedly when people directly refer to your posts. It isn't an uncommon thing for people with weak arguments to try and shore them up that way, although I haven't quite figured out if it is something you are doing accidentally or deliberately.

Who are these "ground commanders"?

I could chat about the BRIC economies quite a lot, but I will limit it to saying that they have a long way to go. In many ways, they are still trying to recover from the banks crash. While they represent over 40% of the world's population and around a third of its land mass they account for slightly less than a quarter of global GDP and only 16% of international trade. I wish them luck in their growth and hope they manage not to get caught up clashing with each other. This however is way off-topic.

Yes, they will be responsible for half of the world output by 2050, but problems for G7 don't start only in 2049, especially when they're now deep in debt and face both demand destruction and even population aging.

I can't think of any other reason why the U.S. has been spending heavily on its military, especially in light of Ukraine:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-military-industrial-complexs-big-break-in-ukraine/

https://www.wionews.com/the-military-industrial-complex-the-ultimate-beneficiaries-of-ukraine-conflict-arms-supply-500972

https://quincyinst.org/2022/04/29/the-ukraine-war-is-ballooning-americas-military-industrial-complex/

https://newrepublic.com/article/166233/ukraine-war-us-military-spending-biden

It has been suggested by a couple of people that it is time to shut down much of this thread, so in future I'll do my best to only respond to comments that are on topic. Well done on the moving away from just posting Youtube links that just make your post too long and that no one seems to be watching. I actually read your post this time and clicked on one of the links. Nice to see that you are learning. Congratulations.

FWIW, those "Youtube links" consist of interviews with Chomsky, Sachs, and others, as well as lectures from political scientists and full-length documentaries from Pilger. They've also written articles, reports, and books on the same, so there's no need to congratulate me for going beyond certain sources. I've been there from the start.

Now to head in a direction that is actually more back on topic, I see India which has previously limited it condemnation of the Russian invasion seems to be hardening its stance. While still short of outright denouncing it (thanks to the trade links between both countries), it does show that the ground is shifting. Their stance is being reflected in other Asian states which had also previously stuck to a more neutral ground with the language India is using being repeated. How much of a difference this will make in the long term remains to be seen though.

See, that's what I mean. This is not a black-and-white issue about one "crazy SOB" and being condemned by non-crazy, non-SOBs. Rather, we are looking at multiple military and economic powers engaged in shifting as part of realpolitik.

That's why India and others are neutral, might shift from that, or might be neutral for some policies but not for others.

And the U.S. can do the same, right? After all, that's the same country that armed Saddam to counter forces that went against its man, the Shah, and then went against him, and then used his former men to work with Iraqis who don't support the U.S., and then that all fell apart. It also worked with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to arm mujahedeen, who eventually broke up into terrorists that went against it and drug lords and rapists who didn't but gained from the drug trade after the U.S. invaded. And then left after things fell apart, too.

That's the same U.S. that made peace with China to counter the Soviets, then accorded China MFN status, then started countering it after BRIC gained prominence, etc.

And all that are part of Bush's attempt to pivot to the Middle East followed by Obama's attempt to pivot to Asia, while NATO enlargement was taking place. That enlargement also involved color revolutions funded by the U.S., including in Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

See also Karatnycky for Foreign Affairs.

At this point, I hope that you realize that I've been on-topic from the start: I've been trying to explain what made the "crazy SOB" do it, and the answer lies way beyond the simpleton narrative that Putin simply wants to bring back the Soviet Empire.

[ralfy]

I just said he has a case, not that he necessarily has a winning case. Nevertheless, I trust that the issue has been resolved by the parties outside of badmovies court. Back to discussion of Ukraine.

To recap, my point is that Putin attacked Ukraine not because he wants to revive some Soviet Empire but because he's countering NATO enlargement. That enlargement is part of a U.S. grand chessboard strategy of using a very expensive military, with over 700 military bases and installations, to encircle both Russia and China and coerce other countries to remain part of the U.S. orbit. That strategy is needed because by controlling other countries the latter will continue using the dollar as a reserve currency; also, oil will be priced in dollars. That usage and pricing keeps demands for dollars high, which in turn allows the U.S. to continue borrowing dollars and spending them, especially for a very expensive military. At the same time, that military is provided for by a military industrial complex, which earns heavily from arms sales, and with costs passed on to public debt.

The problem is that many of those countries became richer, and have been answering back at the U.S. They want to maintain trade with both Ukraine and Russia and remain neutral. Given that, the U.S. has to find out ways to break that neutrality. Meanwhile, it has to keep sending money to Ukraine even though more Americans are complaining that they are suffering economically and that the money should be going to help them.

Given that, I am told that there are some flaws in my argument (BTW, Pilger, Chomsky, Greenwald, Snowden, Sachs, Mearshiemer, and more, including right- and left-wing individuals and groups have similar, if not the same, argument). What are those flaws? Here are the elements:

1. the military industrial complex

2. the use of the dollar as a reserve currency and the Triffin dilemma

3. petrodollars

4. decades of coercion, destabilization, and attacks on other countries, plus support for all sorts of groups, regimes, and individuals, from Saddam to Pinochet

5. Reaganomics (neoliberalism) coupled with neoconservatism, from Reagan to the present

6. the color revolutions as part of No. 4, and events in Ukraine in 2004, 2014, etc.

[ralfy]

You said he MAY have a case. 
Look at the exchanges from the last few pages and you will see I responded when I was quoted and have since done the same.  Some may be taking themselves too seriously, particularly for a Bad movies forum. 

If I'm not mistaken, this is part of an off-topic discussion section, and thus not part of banter that is natural for topics on bad movies.

Also, the event described is a very serious one, as some believe that it may lead to a third world war. Right now, it is leading to high inflation, and although offset by what might be revenge shopping (hence, a 5+ pct world GDP bounce) I don't know if the latter will last.

I get this feeling that you are not aware of either, which is why you choose to post memes and smiley icons.

[ralfy]

From Florence Gaub: "We must not forget that Russians look like Europeans, but they are not Europeans. They are completely different in a cultural sense, they have a different attitude towards violence and death."

https://twitter.com/CanadianKitty1/status/1593530108543135744

Longer clip:

https://twitter.com/zoolooy/status/1514283686786736143