Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[Rewulf]

34 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

With the passage of time, the Iraq war is and will become increasingly irrelevant

It's not irrelevant to those who lost family, reports suggest that there isn't a single person in Iraq that didn't lose a family member to the conflict, a conflict I would respectfully suggest, didn't 'end' a long time ago, and in many ways, because of the destabilised situation, isn't actually over? 

 

39 minutes ago, Mungler said:

For me, there’s an immediate sniff test to this and Russia is and has been on the wrong side of just about everything for a long time now. A country rich in industrial resource, plundered by an ex KGB mafia who murder or imprison any form of dissent or opposition

Interesting viewpoint, in Western eyes, Russia has been the bad guy, and ostracised by western oligarchs/elites, ever since they decided they didn't want to be ruled by feudal overlords. 

Putin actually kicked the mafia out, replaced with his own men, and tried to open up Russia to the west. The west wasn't interested in anything but Russian oil and gas at knock down prices. So they continue to view them as the 'enemy' a concept you have fully embraced. 

And here we are, cold War 2, crippling costs of living, recession, inflation skyrocketing, resurgent pandemics and politicians who are inept, crooked, and all following a linear path toward totalitarianism. 

Welcome to the great reset. 

[Mungler]

That’s waffle. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/269729/documented-civilian-deaths-in-iraq-war-since-2003/

Civilian deaths in Iraq were remarkably low due to weapon technology. Yes there civilian casualties but nowhere near a million or everyone being affected as you say. And again, so what? That conflict was decades ago and one wrong doesn’t somehow justify another - that’s madness not logical by any stretch.

The suggestion that Putin replaced one corrupt regime for his corrupt regime still results in a corrupt regime where opposition is routinely assassinated or locked up on phoney charges.

If you want to back Putin on needlessly invading Ukraine and committing the most awful war crimes, fill your boots but it’s not for me. 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

And again, so what? That conflict was decades ago and one wrong doesn’t somehow justify another - that’s madness not logical by any stretch.

I'm really struggling to understand this logic, how can someone be so horrified by what's going on now, but say if it happened 20 years ago it doesn't matter?

By that logic in 20 years non of this will matter either?

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

The suggestion that Putin replaced one corrupt regime for his corrupt regime still results in a corrupt regime where opposition is routinely assassinated or locked up on phoney charges.

Russia and the Ukraine both have corrupt regimes, that was one of the reasons the Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO. 

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

If you want to back Putin on needlessly invading Ukraine and committing the most awful war crimes, fill your boots but it’s not for me. 

Same line again,  no one is backing Putin, no one wants anything other than this to be over, except Putin obviously but there will have been things done by both sides over the last 8 years, it's not just Russia bad, West good.

 

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

And again, so what

And again, I'm sure there are many Russians saying "so what" to your's and the 'west's' condemnation of the war.

[Rewulf]

50 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I'm really struggling to understand this logic, how can someone be so horrified by what's going on now, but say if it happened 20 years ago it doesn't matter?

By that logic in 20 years non of this will matter either?

I've given up trying to explain it to him, might be a racial thing? 

The main thing, is he keeps saying 'it' happened 20 years ago? 

The US pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan last year, but hardly anyone remembers that conflict apparently? 

[Mungler]

2 hours ago, Mice! said:

I'm really struggling to understand this logic, how can someone be so horrified by what's going on now, but say if it happened 20 years ago it doesn't matter?

By that logic in 20 years non of this will matter either?

Russia and the Ukraine both have corrupt regimes, that was one of the reasons the Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to join NATO. 

Same line again,  no one is backing Putin, no one wants anything other than this to be over, except Putin obviously but there will have been things done by both sides over the last 8 years, it's not just Russia bad, West good.

 

So, to recap:

1. Ukraine is a dreadfully corrupt and not a nice place; and,

2. Look what Blair and Bush did 20 years ago 

is somehow justification or a backdrop to excuse or rationalise the Russian invasion of Ukraine, mass murder and torture, together with the displacement of millions of civilians.

My point is that the invasion of Ukraine has its own set of circumstances with its own set of facts and which need to considered first and foremost.

Indeed, my bottom line is rolling tanks over a border and invading a neighbour cannot be justified in the circumstances to hand and certainly cannot be justified (to the point of being internationally acceptable) because of (1) what Blair and Bush got up to 20 years ago and (2) because Ukraine may well be a corrupt and unpleasant place.   

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

And again, I'm sure there are many Russians saying "so what" to your's and the 'west's' condemnation of the war.

That still makes no sense.

It might make sense if we were 2 decades on from now and the UK had just rolled tanks into France with the justification that we could because of what Putin did to Ukraine 20 years before. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Mungler

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

I've given up trying to explain it to him, might be a racial thing? 

The main thing, is he keeps saying 'it' happened 20 years ago? 

The US pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan last year, but hardly anyone remembers that conflict apparently? 

Its not relevant. In its most basic terms two wrongs don’t make a right.

[Newbie to this]

58 minutes ago, Mungler said:

That still makes no sense.

It might make sense if we were 2 decades on from now and the UK had just rolled tanks into France with the justification that we could because of what Putin did to Ukraine 20 years before. 

OK

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Its not relevant. In its most basic terms two wrongs don’t make a right.

Literally no one is saying that , no one is saying it's right, no one is saying it's justified , you're completely missing the point again !

Let me give you a simple scenario. 

20 years ago , you broke into someone's house , without provocation,  you murdered the owners family , then tried to make out it was self defence , you are found guilty,  serve your time, and have just got out the slammer.

You see on the news that a man has just been convicted of an almost identical crime, and feel outraged to the point that you make your way to the court , to join the baying mob calling for his head, whilst telling anyone who will listen,  how disgusting that person is,  and you're nothing like that? 

Can you see the problem?

[Mungler]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Literally no one is saying that , no one is saying it's right, no one is saying it's justified , you're completely missing the point again !

Let me give you a simple scenario. 

20 years ago , you broke into someone's house , without provocation,  you murdered the owners family , then tried to make out it was self defence , you are found guilty,  serve your time, and have just got out the slammer.

You see on the news that a man has just been convicted of an almost identical crime, and feel outraged to the point that you make your way to the court , to join the baying mob calling for his head, whilst telling anyone who will listen,  how disgusting that person is,  and you're nothing like that? 

Can you see the problem?

But there is no singular ‘you’ where we are now. That’s the whole point. No one in power now is connected to those who were in power 20 years ago. Indeed, there’s no chance Boris voted for Blair or Biden voted for Bush. 

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

But there is no singular ‘you’ where we are now. That’s the whole point. No one in power now is connected to those who were in power 20 years ago. Indeed, there’s no chance Boris voted for Blair or Biden voted for Bush. 

I'm sorry, but you're dodging the question. 

Do our leaders only speak for themselves? No. They speak for the country they lead. You have world leaders constantly apologising for their nations transgressions, sometimes going back 100s of years. 

Biden has been in US politics for 50 years, and was wholly supportive of the Iraq war, so your argument lacks weight. I will go further, and say he is heavily supported by US arms companies, who have, and will continue to do very well out of his support for the Ukraine {war} 

[Mungler]

8 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I'm sorry, but you're dodging the question. 

Do our leaders only speak for themselves? No. They speak for the country they lead. You have world leaders constantly apologising for their nations transgressions, sometimes going back 100s of years. 

Biden has been in US politics for 50 years, and was wholly supportive of the Iraq war, so your argument lacks weight. I will go further, and say he is heavily supported by US arms companies, who have, and will continue to do very well out of his support for the Ukraine {war} 

I’m ducking the question? You’re reaching back 2 decades to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of some justification or rationalisation of Putin rolling tanks in an invasion of Ukraine and all the truly dreadful atrocities that have followed.

We should of course just be looking at the current facts as they present and that’s the “rolling tanks in an invasion of Ukraine and all the truly dreadful atrocities that have followed”.

Fill you boots with Iraq, Blair and Bush though if that’s all you’ve got. Well that and the whiff that this is a western plot, sponsored by the arms industry, part of the great reset or whatever. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

You’re reaching back 2 decades to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of some justification or rationalisation of Putin rolling tanks in an invasion of Ukraine and all the truly dreadful atrocities that have followed.

You're not doing a very good job of reading what I've put.

Last time. I'm not interested in justifying what Russia has done in this context, my point , that you constantly fail to address,  is how can the west condemn Russia for Ukraine,  when we did exactly the same to Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years?

Answer one question, do you not find it a tad hypocritical? 

[Mungler]

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

You're not doing a very good job of reading what I've put.

Last time. I'm not interested in justifying what Russia has done in this context, my point , that you constantly fail to address,  is how can the west condemn Russia for Ukraine,  when we did exactly the same to Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years?

Answer one question, do you not find it a tad hypocritical? 

For the sake of argument, let us say it is hypocritical. So what? And by that I mean so what actually flows from that, precisely?

Does that mean because of the failures of a coalition of governments of two decades ago and which are no longer in power (and where the key proponents have since died) we are somehow obliged to say nothing, to do nothing, lend no support or perhaps even roll out the red carpet for the Russian forces? Indeed, how does what happened 20 years ago bear upon war crimes being enacted now by invading Russian troops on sovereign Ukrainian land?

Genuinely interested in your reply.

[Rewulf]

7 minutes ago, Mungler said:

For the sake of argument, let us say it is hypocritical. So what? And by that I mean so what actually flows from that, precisely?

I could be extremely pedantic, and say 'So Russia invades one of its old vassal states, that no one used to care a jot about, and has absolutely nothing to do with us strategically or economically, so what?'

Let's be honest, the west isn't 'defending' Ukraine because they care about Ukraine,  they are just a pawn , a piece of cannon fodder on the chessboard,  they are after the big pieces.

14 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Does that mean because of the failures of a coalition of governments of two decades ago and which are no longer in power (and where the key proponents have since died) we are somehow obliged to say nothing, to do nothing, lend no support or perhaps even roll out the red carpet for the Russian forces?

No one has said that. Certainly not me. But what is the point of defending Ukraine until there is no Ukraine left?

The only winner in that eventuality will be NATO and arms companies.

18 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Indeed, how does what happened 20 years ago bear upon war crimes being enacted now by invading Russian troops on sovereign Ukrainian land?

Again , this 20 year thing ? IT STARTED 20 years ago , it finished last year , trying to make it historical, does not diminish the hypocrisy !

Again , it's not about justification,  it's the corrupt moral attitude of 'Don't you dare do that abhorrent thing that I do all the time'

[Mungler]

I repeat:

‘For the sake of argument, let us say it is hypocritical. So what? And by that I mean so what actually flows from that, precisely?’

What flows from being hypocritical? How does being hypocritical tie our hands or predetermine what happens next?

And as for the so what, why should we care if Russia invades Ukraine? Blimey that’s a long list - I type this on the toilet and will revert shortly when in better comfort.

In the meantime let’s say we’re big fat Western hypocrites, how does that determine what has to happen next as to our response / involvement? And what about the other EU nations who are supporting the Ukraine and took no part in Iraq? 

[Rem260]

18 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Literally no one is saying that , no one is saying it's right, no one is saying it's justified , you're completely missing the point again !

Let me give you a simple scenario. 

20 years ago , you broke into someone's house , without provocation,  you murdered the owners family , then tried to make out it was self defence , you are found guilty,  serve your time, and have just got out the slammer.

You see on the news that a man has just been convicted of an almost identical crime, and feel outraged to the point that you make your way to the court , to join the baying mob calling for his head, whilst telling anyone who will listen,  how disgusting that person is,  and you're nothing like that? 

Can you see the problem?

Let's give another scenario

Your an imperial country in say 1939 and another large country invades a smaller country with aim of expanding their empire to the whole continent. You should then do nothing militarily and politically until your country is directly attacked. As according to your logic  'He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone"

If so I wonder how that would have worked out.

 

[Rewulf]

51 minutes ago, Mungler said:

What flows from being hypocritical? How does being hypocritical tie our hands or predetermine what happens next?

It doesn't tie your hands , that's not what I'm saying, our governments are free, allegedly with our consent , to embroiled us to their hearts content !

It's the preaching from the pulpit of righteousness,  when your heart is blacker than the dried blood on your hands.

55 minutes ago, Mungler said:

In the meantime let’s say we’re big fat Western hypocrites, how does that determine what has to happen next as to our response / involvement? And what about the other EU nations who are supporting the Ukraine and took no part in Iraq? 

Have you not noticed these other nations, mostly NATO  members too, reluctance ?

You don't think there's at least some coercion? 

14 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Your an imperial country in say 1939 and another large country invades a smaller country with aim of expanding their empire to the whole continent. You should then do nothing militarily and politically until your country is directly attacked. As according to your logic  'He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone

Germany invaded 3 countries before anyone did Jack, the UK and France then very reluctantly declared war, they sat for 6 months doing nothing , hoping it would all go away, until Hitler,  impatient to get on with his invasion plan for the ussr, attacked, and routed both armies in 2 months.

If he had waited till the UK was taken , before going to Russia, the outcome of WW2 may well have been very different, so if you think the Yanks saved Europe, spare a thought for the 25 million dead  Russians who saved it too.

[oowee]

There is simply no comparison between the raping and pillaging by Russia and the surgical (flawed as it may be) warfare conducted by the west. 

There is no comparison between the corruption in Ukraine and the threat that was posed by Sadam. 

I know which side I want to be on. As for propaganda I am sure we have some but we also have a press that will call it out sooner or later. Case in point BJ and his bj. You won't read that in Russia about Putin. 

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

There is simply no comparison between the raping and pillaging by Russia and the surgical (flawed as it may be) warfare conducted by the west. 

There is no comparison between the corruption in Ukraine and the threat that was posed by Sadam. 

I wasn't looking for like for like comparisons TBH.

But surgical? Really.?

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

I know which side I want to be on.

Is there a choice?

I'd be happy to go and fight some Russians if I thought they posed me or this country a threat. And if you think there is a threat,  why are we not doing just that ?

[Dave-G]

My simple blokes take on the 'special operation' is its basically protective shielding and positioning with each side trying to outsmart the other but it got messy and war is a seriously ugly business. We,the public didn't have mobile comms or footage on social media in the past so saw little of the nastiness it entails.

US was slowly getting a foot into (Russia's) Ukraine. Russia saw an opportunity to turn it around and get in amongst the encroaching NATO countries and break up any potential future joining up at their western borders and didn't imagine NATO would support Ukraine to the extent it has.

Nobody is going to invade a nuclear armed country so NATO massively assists Ukraine to defend itself - giving it time to further solidify its borders - and for UK, bolster the countries around the Baltic sea improving the North Sea safety as a buffer which is I feel why BJ did the deal with Finland and Sweden to hurry it along.

Dare I say its possibly feasible to put submarine detectors along facing coastlines?

Edited July 3, 2022 by Dave-G

[oowee]

16 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

My simple blokes take on the 'special operation' is its basically protective shielding and positioning with each side trying to outsmart the other but it got messy and war is a seriously ugly business. We,the public didn't have mobile comms or footage on social media in the past so saw little of the nastiness it entails.

US was slowly getting a foot into (Russia's) Ukraine. Russia saw an opportunity to turn it around and get in amongst the encroaching NATO countries and break up any potential future joining up at their western borders and didn't imagine NATO would support Ukraine to the extent it has.

 

Not even sure there is as much logic to it as that.

Following popularity rise and subsequent decline post Crimea. Ukraine gave Putin a chance to repeat the glory with a swift win. Failing that now turns it to be Russia against the rest and to reinvigorate patriotism. What better at a time of threat than to have Putin at the front.

Gives him a way out in the forthcoming depression to blame the West for the ills to come. 

 

[Mungler]

And in other news, Slovakia has today just asked NATO to patrol its skies from now on and so they can ground their fleet of Migs and ship them over to Ukraine.

I hope Slovakia hasn’t done anything wrong or questionable in say the last 50 years that should otherwise prevent them from helping out an invaded neighbour 😁

[Rem260]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

It doesn't tie your hands , that's not what I'm saying, our governments are free, allegedly with our consent , to embroiled us to their hearts content !

It's the preaching from the pulpit of righteousness,  when your heart is blacker than the dried blood on your hands.

Have you not noticed these other nations, mostly NATO  members too, reluctance ?

You don't think there's at least some coercion? 

Germany invaded 3 countries before anyone did Jack, the UK and France then very reluctantly declared war, they sat for 6 months doing nothing , hoping it would all go away, until Hitler,  impatient to get on with his invasion plan for the ussr, attacked, and routed both armies in 2 months.

If he had waited till the UK was taken , before going to Russia, the outcome of WW2 may well have been very different, so if you think the Yanks saved Europe, spare a thought for the 25 million dead  Russians who saved it too.

Don't know why you think the Yanks were an imperial country. Or are you just diverting from answering the question posed by my scenario. As it doesn't fit your agenda?

[Mice!]

52 minutes ago, Mungler said:

hope Slovakia hasn’t done anything wrong or questionable in say the last 50 years that should otherwise prevent them from helping out an invaded neighbour

Would that be Slovakia who have been in NATO since 2004, so they're happy to let someone else take the responsibility and aren't wanting to join because Russia is banging on the door.

And must have been paying their way.