The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[ralfy]

I hope that's true, I hope whoever replaces him isn't as bad or WORSE than pooty.

I am reminded if a little known ww2 factoid: At a certain point in ww2 the British suspended all efforts to whack Hitler after making many failed attempts to punch uncle dolf's ticket.

The British military intelligence community decided that Hitler was so incompetent as a strategic leader killing him could be counter productive as a more competent leader may have taken over abd made things worse for the allies.

Maybe if pooty falls out a window or starts glowing in the dark his replacement will be as bad but more competent. Who knows what he might do? (And yes I'm saying 'he' as the odds of Russia having a female leader are about the same as the  Kremlin picking ME to be Russia's next leader. Russia is not a fan of woke.)

Another issue I keep hearing about is the 'inevitable' collapse of 'Russia's economy'. What happens then? What if Russia's economy does utterly collapse? Do we want utter chaos in a country with countless nukes laying around? What could do wrong with that?

It could be like killing Godzilla. Sure it's dead, now what do you do with a 400' radioactive decomposing corpse?

Honestly I think whatever happened with russia it will be one big fecal fest no matter what.

In addition, various countries in the West were working with the Nazis. Before that, they were profiting from the Germans through reparations, which ironically triggered economic collapse and the subsequent rise of the Nazis. What made matters worse is that the Soviets made the Nazis look like amateurs thanks to Stalin, but the West needed the Russians to defeat the Axis.

That's why by the end, it was the Russians, who bought weapons from the U.S., which suffered horribly, with incredible casualties. The U.S. then took advantage of support from Nazi scientists and even intelligence officers to counter the new Iron Curtain, which was not only creating a domino effect by spreading Communism to the "free world" but also allowing the same world to gain independence from Western colonizers.

The rest of your points are notable, as they remind me of that NATO advisor on Russia:

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

That is, Russians are not Europeans (read: they're "oriental") and are only about violence and death (read: they're uncivilized and barbarians). That's not only what makes them "hardened" (read: they are used to death and violence, and are thus savages) but also doesn't allow them to value "a liberal, post-modern life" (read: they're not "woke," i.e., people who believe that a woman leader is better, that there should be dozens of genders, that white lives don't matter, etc.). They're like Godzilla, a necessary antagonist in B-movie franchises but also expendable, to be killed over and over like Voltes V kills beast fighters.

[ralfy]

We can only hope.  

Done.

Hadn't you already announced that?  

Scroll up for details...

Not likely.  

I'm done with explaining the background of the conflict because you and others can't counter them. In which case, I move on to other points.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

I hope that's true, I hope whoever replaces him isn't as bad or WORSE than pooty.

I am reminded if a little known ww2 factoid: At a certain point in ww2 the British suspended all efforts to whack Hitler after making many failed attempts to punch uncle dolf's ticket.

The British military intelligence community decided that Hitler was so incompetent as a strategic leader killing him could be counter productive as a more competent leader may have taken over and made things worse for the allies.

Maybe if pooty falls out a window or starts glowing in the dark his replacement will be as bad but more competent. Who knows what he might do? (And yes I'm saying 'he' as the odds of Russia having a female leader are about the same as the  Kremlin picking ME to be Russia's next leader. Russia is not a fan of woke.)

Another issue I keep hearing about is the 'inevitable' collapse of 'Russia's economy'. What happens then? What if Russia's economy does utterly collapse? Do we want utter chaos in a country with countless nukes laying around? What could do wrong with that?

It could be like killing Godzilla. Sure it's dead, now what do you do with a 400' radioactive decomposing corpse?

Honestly I think whatever happened with russia it will be one big fecal fest no matter what.

In addition, various countries in the West were working with the Nazis. Before that, they were profiting from the Germans through reparations, which ironically triggered economic collapse and the subsequent rise of the Nazis. What made matters worse is that the Soviets made the Nazis look like amateurs thanks to Stalin, but the West needed the Russians to defeat the Axis.

That's why by the end, it was the Russians, who bought weapons from the U.S., which suffered horribly, with incredible casualties. The U.S. then took advantage of support from Nazi scientists and even intelligence officers to counter the new Iron Curtain, which was not only creating a domino effect by spreading Communism to the "free world" but also allowing the same world to gain independence from Western colonizers.

The rest of your points are notable, as they remind me of that NATO advisor on Russia:

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

That is, Russians are not Europeans (read: they're "oriental") and are only about violence and death (read: they're uncivilized and barbarians). That's not only what makes them "hardened" (read: they are used to death and violence, and are thus savages) but also doesn't allow them to value "a liberal, post-modern life" (read: they're not "woke," i.e., people who believe that a woman leader is better, that there should be dozens of genders, that white lives don't matter, etc.). They're like Godzilla, a necessary antagonist in B-movie franchises but also expendable, to be killed over and over like Voltes V kills beast fighters.

Ralfy, I made a simple point, that Putin's replacement couikd be worse than he is.

You instantly went 70 years back to ww2 and then went into complex international issues over decades.

So what?  Whiskey tango foxtrot does the points you raise have to do with Putin's possible successor being worse than he is? I just speculated that killing poots could possibly make thing worse and you're like ''Well 70 years ago America did bad things and the west did bad things wordwall tldr yadda yadda. ''

It seems that someone raises a simple basic point and you have to come in with this massive barrage of things from decades ago, multiple major international issues going on across the world and back a long way. And of course you almost always have to add in how America/the west is somehow to blame because of stuff from a lifetime ago. In fact this post went back to the end of ww1, OVER 100 YEARS AGO!

Your barrage had almost nothing to do with my post and I'm not commenting on it, just your posting habits.

Frankly it comes off as annoying and pretentious. Try sticking to a point someone raised once in a while instead of going back 70-100 years ago and bringing in some vast international conspiracy! I'm amazed you never mention the Illuminati...

[Alex]

I hope that's true, I hope whoever replaces him isn't as bad or WORSE than pooty.

I am reminded if a little known ww2 factoid: At a certain point in ww2 the British suspended all efforts to whack Hitler after making many failed attempts to punch uncle dolf's ticket.

The British military intelligence community decided that Hitler was so incompetent as a strategic leader killing him could be counter productive as a more competent leader may have taken over and made things worse for the allies.

Maybe if pooty falls out a window or starts glowing in the dark his replacement will be as bad but more competent. Who knows what he might do? (And yes I'm saying 'he' as the odds of Russia having a female leader are about the same as the  Kremlin picking ME to be Russia's next leader. Russia is not a fan of woke.)

Another issue I keep hearing about is the 'inevitable' collapse of 'Russia's economy'. What happens then? What if Russia's economy does utterly collapse? Do we want utter chaos in a country with countless nukes laying around? What could do wrong with that?

It could be like killing Godzilla. Sure it's dead, now what do you do with a 400' radioactive decomposing corpse?

Honestly I think whatever happened with russia it will be one big fecal fest no matter what.

In addition, various countries in the West were working with the Nazis. Before that, they were profiting from the Germans through reparations, which ironically triggered economic collapse and the subsequent rise of the Nazis. What made matters worse is that the Soviets made the Nazis look like amateurs thanks to Stalin, but the West needed the Russians to defeat the Axis.

That's why by the end, it was the Russians, who bought weapons from the U.S., which suffered horribly, with incredible casualties. The U.S. then took advantage of support from Nazi scientists and even intelligence officers to counter the new Iron Curtain, which was not only creating a domino effect by spreading Communism to the "free world" but also allowing the same world to gain independence from Western colonizers.

The rest of your points are notable, as they remind me of that NATO advisor on Russia:

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

That is, Russians are not Europeans (read: they're "oriental") and are only about violence and death (read: they're uncivilized and barbarians). That's not only what makes them "hardened" (read: they are used to death and violence, and are thus savages) but also doesn't allow them to value "a liberal, post-modern life" (read: they're not "woke," i.e., people who believe that a woman leader is better, that there should be dozens of genders, that white lives don't matter, etc.). They're like Godzilla, a necessary antagonist in B-movie franchises but also expendable, to be killed over and over like Voltes V kills beast fighters.

Ralfy, I made a simple point, that Putin's replacement couikd be worse than he is.

You instantly went 70 years back to ww2 and then went into complex international issues over decades.

So what?  Whiskey tango foxtrot does the points you raise have to do with Putin's possible successor being worse than he is? I just speculated that killing poots could possibly make thing worse and you're like ''Well 70 years ago America did bad things and the west did bad things wordwall tldr yadda yadda. ''

It seems that someone raises a simple basic point and you have to come in with this massive barrage of things from decades ago, multiple major international issues going on across the world and back a long way. And of course you almost always have to add in how America/the west is somehow to blame because of stuff from a lifetime ago. In fact this post went back to the end of ww1, OVER 100 YEARS AGO!

Your barrage had almost nothing to do with my post and I'm not commenting on it, just your posting habits.

Frankly it comes off as annoying and pretentious. Try sticking to a point someone raised once in a while instead of going back 70-100 years ago and bringing in some vast international conspiracy! I'm amazed you never mention the Illuminati...

Morpheus, I'd suggest doing what I am doing and not bothering to read his posts.

[ER]

I'm done with explaining the background of the conflict because you and others can't counter them. In which case, I move on to other points.

That statement shows arrogance to the point of delusion. Not only do you believe a distortion of reality in the outer world, you apparently see it in here as well.

[Alex]

I'm done with explaining the background of the conflict because you and others can't counter them. In which case, I move on to other points.

That statement shows arrogance to the point of delusion. Not only do you believe a distortion of reality in the outer world, you apparently see it in here as well.

Lol, he is still going on then? (Rhetorical question).

[ralfy]

Ralfy, I made a simple point, that Putin's replacement couikd be worse than he is.

You instantly went 70 years back to ww2 and then went into complex international issues over decades.

So what?  Whiskey tango foxtrot does the points you raise have to do with Putin's possible successor being worse than he is? I just speculated that killing poots could possibly make thing worse and you're like ''Well 70 years ago America did bad things and the west did bad things wordwall tldr yadda yadda. ''

It seems that someone raises a simple basic point and you have to come in with this massive barrage of things from decades ago, multiple major international issues going on across the world and back a long way. And of course you almost always have to add in how America/the west is somehow to blame because of stuff from a lifetime ago. In fact this post went back to the end of ww1, OVER 100 YEARS AGO!

Your barrage had almost nothing to do with my post and I'm not commenting on it, just your posting habits.

Frankly it comes off as annoying and pretentious. Try sticking to a point someone raised once in a while instead of going back 70-100 years ago and bringing in some vast international conspiracy! I'm amazed you never mention the Illuminati...

Actually, I've been talking about your point: why do you believe that Putin's replacement (and he'll be Russian, too, right?) could be worse than he is? Do you believe in what this NATO adviser says about Russian culture?

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

So, you see, the problem isn't that I come off as "annoying and pretentious." Rather, you don't understand the repercussions of your statements. And I think you will be more than just annoyed if I tell you.

[ralfy]

Morpheus, I'd suggest doing what I am doing and not bothering to read his posts.

I think that's what you've been doing from the start. You can't move away from the dominant narrative that all we're dealing here is a "crazy SOB" who wants a new "Soviet Empire," and we need the "good guys" to stop him. And once he's stopped, we'll do fine once more.

What happened is a lot murkier than that, but you don't want to think about it.

[ralfy]

That statement shows arrogance to the point of delusion. Not only do you believe a distortion of reality in the outer world, you apparently see it in here as well.

What did I distort?

[ralfy]

Lol, he is still going on then? (Rhetorical question).

Previously, I asked you what sources should I consider. I also asked you what's the logic in relying on military experts to deal with geopolitical issues, etc. Similarly, I asked Powell what are the weak elements in my argument. Finally, I'm asking ER to explain what I distorted.

So far, it's 0 for 2. Will it be 0 for 3?

[ER]

"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"

[Alex]

Lol, he is still going on then? (Rhetorical question).

Previously, I asked you what sources should I consider. I also asked you what's the logic in relying on military experts to deal with geopolitical issues, etc. Similarly, I asked Powell what are the weak elements in my argument. Finally, I'm asking ER to explain what I distorted.

So far, it's 0 for 2. Will it be 0 for 3?

Accidentally read this one. I'll assume you still haven't figured out what I meant when I said I use the right experts for the right situation, military ones for military issues and so forth and yet again I will point out that while we were discussing ground military matters, you quoted foreign policy experts. That is why I said you should look at the right experts for the right situation. It seems a very simple matter and you'd have saved yourself much later confusion.

As to what you've distorted, well the entire discussion. My suspicion is that you've started with your conclusion and then went looking for evidence to back it up. Not an uncommon fallacy, but confirmational bias is not the same as proof.

Whatever you think you are scoring on, I have no idea. I'd have to be paying more attention to you. I am sure that in your head, it is right, even if nowhere else. If you really want some sort of analagy, imagine you are in a race. You think you are winning because everyone is behind you, but the truth is, they've already been around the track and are about to lap you. I do believe self-belief is one of the keys to a happy life, even if in some cases it does seem to be more self-delusion. Just go back to making up things people have said, attributing things they don't believe in to them and all the other stuff you have done. I am sure that when you do that, yes indeed you are winning.

Just not in the real world.

And now, back to not reading your posts.




I can't help feeling like I should give him a friendly little pat on the head and send him on his way now.

[Alex]

"O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"

As much as I enjoy a bit of Burns, let me say in my native language, "Dinnae let him fash ye none lass". His one-sided arguments are victorious only in his own mind. You (and almost everyone else), understand more about what is really going on here. No matter what is said, he'll always be convinced of his righteousness, seemingly at a delusional level where he imagines arguments that have not been made (I guess because in his mind at least he can win them that way?). I know you have access to experts on this matter who can go into things more deeply than he can imagine and I appreciate your insight into things. 

[ralfy]

Accidentally read this one. I'll assume you still haven't figured out what I meant when I said I use the right experts for the right situation, military ones for military issues and so forth and yet again I will point out that while we were discussing ground military matters, you quoted foreign policy experts. That is why I said you should look at the right experts for the right situation. It seems a very simple matter and you'd have saved yourself much later confusion.

As to what you've distorted, well the entire discussion. My suspicion is that you've started with your conclusion and then went looking for evidence to back it up. Not an uncommon fallacy, but confirmational bias is not the same as proof.

Whatever you think you are scoring on, I have no idea. I'd have to be paying more attention to you. I am sure that in your head, it is right, even if nowhere else. If you really want some sort of analagy, imagine you are in a race. You think you are winning because everyone is behind you, but the truth is, they've already been around the track and are about to lap you. I do believe self-belief is one of the keys to a happy life, even if in some cases it does seem to be more self-delusion. Just go back to making up things people have said, attributing things they don't believe in to them and all the other stuff you have done. I am sure that when you do that, yes indeed you are winning.

Just not in the real world.

And now, back to not reading your posts.

I can't help feeling like I should give him a friendly little pat on the head and send him on his way now.

Why do you keep talking about me? Why not stick to the topic and answer questions directly:

You mentioned that I should expand my sources. What sources do you have in mind? By that, I mean at least author names.

Next, you thought that my references are ground commanders. Where did you get that idea?

Last, you stated that there are errors in my argument. Powell said the same. Can you specify those errors? Here's the gist of the points:

1. Kennan's view of containment and the claim that Russia is nationalist;

2. NATO expansion and the color revolutions;

3. Sachs and the military industrial complex;

4. the military industrial complex and the dollar used as a global reserve currency;

5. the connection between those two points and NATO expansion coupled with the color revolutions;

6. Putin's retaliation.

[ralfy]

As much as I enjoy a bit of Burns, let me say in my native language, "Dinnae let him fash ye none lass". His one-sided arguments are victorious only in his own mind. You (and almost everyone else), understand more about what is really going on here. No matter what is said, he'll always be convinced of his righteousness, seemingly at a delusional level where he imagines arguments that have not been made (I guess because in his mind at least he can win them that way?). I know you have access to experts on this matter who can go into things more deeply than he can imagine and I appreciate your insight into things. 

Let's hear those experts.