Auto correct. A few words I spell consistly incorrect cause to lazy to keep going back and changing it on my danm phone. Also use speech to text a lot. So don't notice.
-
Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.
UA-RU-NATO War & Ukraine Peace Talks | DISCUSSIONS
- Thread starter Irag8er
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
The existence of a theoretical red line that isn't even on the table for any involved party to test to begin with doesn't really have much baring on whether the threats they actually make, especially regarding the actions that are actually in the question, are empty.
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
I think it's plausible that Russia accepts and keeps the ceasefire going for maybe 20-ish days, then either commits a false flag attack or a staged video of ""Ukranian"" soldiers commiting some war crime, ta da, Trump is convinced and stops support and intelligence sharing and Russia can keep going as long as they want.
- Joined
- May 22, 2023
because the conversation keeps slipping into far right or far left BS and not any factual postings or clippings about leaders making choices that made the world slip into this situation .
- Joined
- May 22, 2023
peace is met on both ends by coming to a agreement to end the conflict with mutual terms. read a civics book.
- Joined
- May 22, 2023
there is no advantage but it also means one thing the fight for resources and nothing else. russia may be the USA's ally but there is something deeper and darker in the works ( can't put my finger on it ). i honestly don't think a agreement will be met cause russia wants resources and they will get it and then other nations will get flustered and it may get really out of hand.
- Joined
- May 22, 2023
what are you talking about? he used the oreshnik missile that had a non nuclear payload on a city in ukraine! you have any idea what this means? a missle- hypersonic missile that touched down on ukraine and sent shock waves in many groups. now just think a missile that can't be intercepted and very hard to detect and if putin uses just ONE with a loaded warhead and there are 32 of them from what i counted he can wipe out ukraine with no problem and take poland and half of Europe with it!
- Joined
- May 22, 2023
A costly pointless move meant to scare and manipulate gullable people in the west into not supporting Ukraine. Still empty threats.
Also real world testing value was probably great for Russia as it's a new missile. Probably main reason it was used. Besides to scare gullable westerners.
Two birds one stone?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
You said a lot, made a lot of claims but still provided no sources or reasoning.
Just proclamations based upon personal perspective.
Edited by DEFCON Warning System - Non-productive
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
Of course people were concerned, but wipe out Ukraine? Hypersonics feel like they should be saved for actual military targets, moreso with tactical warheads. Just showing them off like that doesn't change anything, it's kind of the equivalent of shooting ducks with a bazooka. Will it do the trick and scare off birds? Yep. Expensive and not really worth it? Yep.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
You like to use this line a lot, but without much substance at all.
There is reasoning, and there is also not really much of a specific claim to source, as it is obviously a reasoned observation.
If you'd like, point out what specific claim you need a source for, and I will provide it.
Hell, perhaps point out which claims are made without any reasoning, and I'll provide it, but as far as I can see, the entire post is reasoning for one claim that is made as an observation: that the GOP functions like a cult based on faith, and that the users here flipping like a dime fluidly based on whatever the rhetoric is as reflective of this as anyone else being able to fluidly shift their worldview based on what their leader says.
Otherwise, this is nonsense. It's simply being used as a thought terminating cliche, repeated like a broken record but with no actual productive direction to take the conversation, only to end it.
Lots of people like to do this "SOURCE? SOURCE? SOURCE?" stuff without ever specifying what they are looking to source when they disagree with someone, but then conveniently never do when they agree: because it's not about the source, or making sure the information on the table is backed up and accurate, but about shutting up the "enemy" and "winning".
Intellectual honesty is what I care about and tbh this seems to not be a place where it is common. There is a reason nobody conducts debates like this, because it is completely unproductive not conducive in the slightest to effective flow of conversation & 99% of the time the person will only look at the headline anyway, and now take into account that it's more casual than that.
Again - be specific and commit to good-faith discussion of the sources and I will happily take the time to provide them, though in this case, please be specific about what you need me to source.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2022
So then there’s really no need in talking is their
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
So you still won't specify what you need sources for, what the claims are, etc., or even accept at all when they are offered to you like in the other thread where I put no onus to specify on you at all, just more of this which makes it pretty clear this isn't about rigorously verifying the truth but shutting up the opponent.
I'm saying talk in good faith. If having to talk in good faith and actually engage with the ideas for an intellectually honest discussion about the issues means to you there is no need in talking at all, then that's... okay I guess, I know I can just ignore your posts.
"They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
-Sartre, though he specifies antisemites in the full quote, this generally applies to all fascist or proto-fascist political movements (just the prevalent one at the time was particularly focused on antisemitism).
(full quote for any who haven't seen:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
If any of you see yourself in this, beyond the disgust reflex at being compared to an antisemite, perhaps look in a mirror; as the relevant ideology here is the fascism, not the antisemitism manifested from it - and keep in mind you are not being called an anti-semite here, that would be absurd - just that the behavior echoes through history's fascist movements, including the particularly antisemitic ones, but that detail is like not a relevant or key point).
Last edited:
Well, it can also be written in blood from the tip of your Bayonet thrust in your enemies chest and pinning them to the floor in their government building.
Thats in the history books covering WW2 Germany and definitely WW2 Japan. Not much since though.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2024
Please stop asking everyone for sources. I'm thinking of mailing you my brain, but you'll have to pay $1 billion. My brain is precious, especially to me.
Can you tell the difference between a discussion and a report?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
Here's the thing - I've also offered up those sources a number of times, on this thread if he can point out what claim he actually wants sourced since the post in question was an observation, and on the other just if he can commit to reading and discussing them in good faith, and he won't bite for either. It's not about verifying the truth, it's just a "gotcha". A rhetorical weapon in the context of discussion. I don't think it's about not understanding the difference between a discussion and a report.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
It's not what you say; it's how you say it. You don't have to be so aggressive with your points. To quote Mr. Spock: "Doctor, you must learn to control your passions. They will be your undoing."
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2016
- Location
- Indiana, US
It's important to make the distinction between an "opinion" and a "report." For instance; I think we're a lot closer to the use of nuclear weapons in combat than most do. I don't have anything to base that on besides the deteriorating global geopolitical situation and my gut. That's an "opinion," which is fine to offer up in discussion, just be clear that it's a personal opinion and not being construed as fact.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2022
"Sign this ceasefire that doesn't benefit you at all, and we'll make sure there's a loaded gun to your head for the next few years to keep you in line."
Something tells me this isn't going to pan out given that Russia is not exactly fighting a losing battle right now. Unless I guess the consequences for not signing are much worse, but I expect Russia would simply take that kind of coercion as an act of aggression, that's their playbook lol.
- Status