How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[barbos]

Nato didn't invade Cuba, Syria or China.

NATO=USA and USA did invade all these countries.
I am not counting countries you simply bombed.
And illegally interfered with (that would be absolutely all countries in the world)

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nato didn't invade Cuba, Syria or China.

NATO=USA and USA did invade all these countries.
I am not counting countries you simply bombed.
And illegally interfered with (that would be absolutely all countries in the world)

Pot = Kettle = Black!!!

Nato did not invade cuba, Iraq, or Syria. But whatever. You can argue with the hand all you like. However, the big difference between you and I is that I have no problem criticizing my own government. I think that we should stay out of Syria and Iraq and the other countries. I say if Cuba wants to run it's country into the ground, let them. I'm an anti-imperialist. I do not think that sovereign countries should be invaded. I favor international law. You do not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

During the Cold War, the US and USSR meddled and most places where they meddled, the people there weren't the better for it.

 

[barbos]

Nato didn't invade Cuba, Syria or China.

NATO=USA and USA did invade all these countries.
I am not counting countries you simply bombed.
And illegally interfered with (that would be absolutely all countries in the world)

Pot = Kettle = Black!!!

Nato did not invade cuba, Iraq, or Syria.

NATO=USA and you did illegally (international law be damned) invade and still illegally occupy parts of their territory.

But whatever. You can argue with the hand all you like. However, the big difference between you and I is that I have no problem criticizing my own government. I think that we should stay out of Syria and Iraq and the other countries. I say if Cuba wants to run it's country into the ground, let them.

That's not what was and is happening,

I'm an anti-imperialist. I do not think that sovereign countries should be invaded. I favor international law. You do not.

You must be joking.

 

[Harry Bosch]

rd

Nato didn't invade Cuba, Syria or China.

NATO=USA and USA did invade all these countries.
I am not counting countries you simply bombed.
And illegally interfered with (that would be absolutely all countries in the world)

Pot = Kettle = Black!!!

Nato did not invade cuba, Iraq, or Syria.

NATO=USA and you did illegally (international law be damned) invade and still illegally occupy parts of their territory.

But whatever. You can argue with the hand all you like. However, the big difference between you and I is that I have no problem criticizing my own government. I think that we should stay out of Syria and Iraq and the other countries. I say if Cuba wants to run it's country into the ground, let them.

That's not what was and is happening,

I'm an anti-imperialist. I do not think that sovereign countries should be invaded. I favor international law. You do not.

You must be joking.

Your side has illegally invaded a sovereign country, attacked its civilian infrastructure, kidnapped its children, tortured Pows, tortured civilians, raped civilians, impeded its access to international waters, and looted its goods. These are all violations of international law.

 

[barbos]

During the Cold War, the US and USSR meddled and most places where they meddled, the people there weren't the better for it.

We were not the same during Cold War. Socialism had large popular support everywhere except the Western World.
USSR was usually invited, whereas you were trying to stop it by any (mostly illegal and criminal) means necessary
In the end, Socialist System proved to be inefficient and lost economically.
China may prove that this loss may have been accidental.

 

[barbos]

Your side has illegally invaded a sovereign country

That's patently false. My side had legal justification for "invasion"

attacked its civilian infrastructure, kidnapped its children, tortured Pows, tortured civilians, raped civilians, impeded its access to international waters, and looted its goods.

That's complete and utter BS.

 

[ZiprHead]

Meanwhile, US defence minister Lloyd Austin during US Senate hearing admitted that if he was a russian he would view NATO as a threat . So much for NATO is not threatening anybody.

Bullshit. He said "CERTAINLY, IF I WAS RUSSIA, I WOULD NOT WANT THAT. I WOULD ALSO NOT WANT ENGLAND AND SWEDEN TO BE A PART OF NATO AND THEY ARE. THE REASON THAT THEY ARE BECAUSE PUTIN. WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. THAT IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE." C-SPAN transcript.

 

[barbos]

Meanwhile, US defence minister Lloyd Austin during US Senate hearing admitted that if he was a russian he would view NATO as a threat . So much for NATO is not threatening anybody.

Bullshit. He said "CERTAINLY, IF I WAS RUSSIA, I WOULD NOT WANT THAT. I WOULD ALSO NOT WANT ENGLAND AND SWEDEN TO BE A PART OF NATO AND THEY ARE. THE REASON THAT THEY ARE BECAUSE PUTIN. WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. THAT IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE." C-SPAN transcript.

Yes, that's what I wrote. Thank you for agreeing with me.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Meanwhile, US defence minister Lloyd Austin during US Senate hearing admitted that if he was a russian he would view NATO as a threat . So much for NATO is not threatening anybody.

Bullshit. He said "CERTAINLY, IF I WAS RUSSIA, I WOULD NOT WANT THAT. I WOULD ALSO NOT WANT ENGLAND AND SWEDEN TO BE A PART OF NATO AND THEY ARE. THE REASON THAT THEY ARE BECAUSE PUTIN. WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. THAT IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE." C-SPAN transcript.

Yes, that's what I wrote. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Bullshit. You always whine about the meanies at Nato. It would be incredibly easy for Russia to completely destroy NATO. All that you'd have to do is to be nice to your neighbors! Countries join nato because they don't want to be invaded by your storm troopers.

 

[barbos]

Bullshit. You always whine about the meanies at Nato. It would be incredibly easy for Russia to completely destroy NATO. All that you'd have to do is to be nice to your neighbors!

Russia had been extra nice to Ukraine until US decided that they want it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

During the Cold War, the US and USSR meddled and most places where they meddled, the people there weren't the better for it.

We were not the same during Cold War. Socialism had large popular support everywhere except the Western World.

That is funny, because in general it wasn't actually socialism, but tyranny that was being supported.

USSR was usually invited, whereas you were trying to stop it by any (mostly illegal and criminal) means necessary
In the end, Socialist System proved to be inefficient and lost economically.

Socialism was successfully set forth in Europe and in the US. The largest spending programs in the US are very much socialist. In fact, a great deal of the Socialist Party platform back in the late 19th century has been adopted in America, universal suffrage, public utilities, unemployment insurance, retirement insurance, disability insurance, OSHA, etc...

We lack the poverty and long lines. It isn't perfect, but the US is a lot more socialist than most Americans understand... and apparently Russians (who live in a oligarchal dictatorship that is no where near socialist or capitalist).

 

[barbos]

That is funny, because in general it wasn't actually socialism, but tyranny that was being supported.

Well, in that case most of the world was preferring socialist "tyranny" over capitalist "freedom"

We lack the poverty and long lines.

you most definitely do have poverty.

Socialism was successfully set forth in Europe and in the US.

Well, capitalism was successfully set forth in Russia.

 

[barbos]

The largest spending programs in the US are very much socialist. In fact, a great deal of the Socialist Party platform back in the late 19th century has been adopted in America, universal suffrage, public utilities, unemployment insurance, retirement insurance, disability insurance, OSHA, etc...

That's not Socialism. Socialism is a lack of capitalism (as you understand it)

 

[Elixir]

Your side has illegally invaded a sovereign country

That's patently false. My side had legal justification for "invasion"

Bullshit. Before it happened you were talking out of the other side of your mouth.
Pretty embarrassing, eh?

attacked its civilian infrastructure, kidnapped its children, tortured Pows, tortured civilians, raped civilians, impeded its access to international waters, and looted its goods.

That's complete and utter BS.

Complete and utter truth.
Your idiotic denials find no purchase around here, any more than your invented Nazis.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Barbos should be worried that Ukraine can make a drone that small that can fly 1100km.

That looked like a fairly large drone to me. It was an attack on their oil refinery, but I don't think it caused serious damage. I suspect it was launched from inside of Russia--much closer to the target location.

Looks like a small plane. Maybe it’s one of those converted old Cessna 150 kind of rigs?

Yeah, if you're not going up against air defenses rigging a light plane for remote control is a lot cheaper than any missile. There's a reason small planes are propeller-driven: you can make one much cheaper than the cheapest jets. You can make the whole system for less than the cost of a single engine for a cruise missile.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Barbos should be worried that Ukraine can make a drone that small that can fly 1100km.

I am extra 2000km from that. Russia is a fairly large country, will be larger soon too

Nice job admitting this is a war of conquest and thus unjust.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

During the Cold War, the US and USSR meddled and most places where they meddled, the people there weren't the better for it.

Of course not--Russia kept propping up trouble.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

During the Cold War, the US and USSR meddled and most places where they meddled, the people there weren't the better for it.

We were not the same during Cold War. Socialism had large popular support everywhere except the Western World.
USSR was usually invited, whereas you were trying to stop it by any (mostly illegal and criminal) means necessary
In the end, Socialist System proved to be inefficient and lost economically.
China may prove that this loss may have been accidental.

If socialism was so popular why hasn't it survived?

The Russia/China flavor of "socialism" has always been about putting a strongman in control. Never about the people.

I have been in quite a few countries. There are a few things that one can easily note that say a lot about a country.

1) Currency. Free floating or fixed exchange rate?

2) Border security. Is it pointed in or out? What is needed to exit the country?

3) Customs inspections. If they exist, what sort of prohibited items are they looking for? Is it about words (and other media, but that was not much of an issue for most of my time traveling) or is it about pathogens? (The latter shows up as an interest in food and natural materials.)

Why has every Russia-aligned country I have ever been in had fixed (and very bad) exchange rates? Why were we generally required to spend $x/day while there? Why does exit control often take longer than entry control? Why have they looked shabby compared to their neighbors?

 

[TomC]

During the Cold War, the US and USSR meddled and most places where they meddled, the people there weren't the better for it.

Of course not--Russia kept propping up trouble.

It wasn't just Russia. Or even mostly Russia.
US international behavior was abominable.

From Southeast Asia to Central and South America to Africa, to the Middle East, we've got plenty of blood on our hands.

There's a damned good reason we are known as The Great Satan. We earned it.
Tom