United States Corrupt Twattery

[Gwadien]

Watching Starmer is like watching a live video of Milliband eating bacon butties on repeat isn't it @Raven

Anyway:

What like then? Specifically.

Sucking a dick that you don't want to suck is always going to be unpleasant. This is exactly what it was always going to feel like.


So you think Putin's going to invade NATO countries do you?

I mean, he's been there for more than two and a half decades, but because Trump has decided to end a war that's caused a million casualties Putin's going to invade us?

Why now?

You're clearly not paying attention or being ignorant

 

[Scouse]

You're clearly not paying attention or being ignorant

You clearly don't like answering direct questions.

 

[DaGaffer]

Maybe try to answer the questions @Tom?

How many people need to die? Is there a line or a number where you go "OK that's enough"? Do you honestly think America was ever going to bottom-lessly fund a war?

I mean I've got no kids, but a million casualties sounds like a fuck of a lot of people killed and injured to me. That's a lot of parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters crying into the soil. When is enough?

Going to throw your kids into the grinder @DaGaffer? Same questions to you...

Pure whataboutery. If NATO actually fought the Russians there would be no kids getting callups (because we don't fight with human waves and haven't since 1918) and there would be a lot less dead Russians as well as Ukrainians in the long run.

Russia will only be actually stopped if they're booted out of Ukraine and Ukraine is given NATO and EU membership. Anything else is window dressing until the next round. This isn't a story since 2022, it's a story that's been going on for a century. Read your history about Russia's ongoing efforts to get it's empire back, which has never gone away, just takes a breather now and then.

 

[Deebs]

<snip>
Sucking a dick that you don't want to suck is always going to be unpleasant.
<snip>

Is that what Miss Scouse said?

 

[Lamp]

Slightly off topic here, but why does Musk jump around everywhere like a kid ?
There are plenty of wealthy people who are able to stand still.

Does he literally have ants in his pants ?

 

[Scouse]

Pure whataboutery. If NATO actually fought the Russians there would be no kids getting callups (because we don't fight with human waves and haven't since 1918) and there would be a lot less dead Russians as well as Ukrainians in the long run.

Russia will only be actually stopped if they're booted out of Ukraine and Ukraine is given NATO and EU membership. Anything else is window dressing until the next round. This isn't a story since 2022, it's a story that's been going on for a century. Read your history about Russia's ongoing efforts to get it's empire back, which has never gone away, just takes a breather now and then.

You're defining a million casualties as "whataboutery"?

Well what about the million casualties then @DaGaffer?

Your argument is bollocks. If NATO fought Russia it would turn nuclear and end us all.



So in the actual real, not rabid fantasist, world - what is important now is stopping the killing.

There seems to be a real desire to keep pushing Ukranians at Russia until there's no Ukranians left. It's callous and it's unthinking. But you won't say it out loud will you - by answering my question.

How many casualties is enough? Two million? Five million?

 

[Raven]

I think we should invade mainland Europe, then say to them, guys, guys, if you don't let us just take over there will be deaths, move along now.

It doesn't work like that.

 

[Scouse]

On this tho:

Read your history about Russia's ongoing efforts to get it's empire back, which has never gone away, just takes a breather now and then.

Yep. Monkeys will fight. Borders continue to change, constantly. War is more or less inevitable over long periods of time.

Minimise death should be the objective.

 

[Scouse]

It doesn't work like that.

Nothing works like people think it works when nuclear weapons sit in the background just aching for the first monkey to break the taboo.

 

[DaGaffer]

You're defining a million casualties as "whataboutery"?

Well what about the million casualties then @DaGaffer?

Your argument is bollocks. If NATO fought Russia it would turn nuclear and end us all.



So in the actual real, not rabid fantasist, world - what is important now is stopping the killing.

There seems to be a real desire to keep pushing Ukranians at Russia until there's no Ukranians left. It's callous and it's unthinking. But you won't say it out loud will you - by answering my question.

How many casualties is enough? Two million? Five million?

NATO isn't going to fight Russia. NATO is dead. European allies will need to fight Russia, and if Ukrainians are willing to fight for their country and professional soldiers from Europe are willing to fight for Ukraine, what's your problem? And please don't say "but the nuuuuukes". Russians don't want to die in fire any more than the rest of us.

 

[Scouse]

NATO isn't going to fight Russia. NATO is dead. European allies will need to fight Russia, and if Ukrainians are willing to fight for their country and professional soldiers from Europe are willing to fight for Ukraine, what's your problem? And please don't say "but the nuuuuukes". Russians don't want to die in fire any more than the rest of us.

So, two things:

If NATO actually fought the Russians there would be no kids getting callups

and:

what's your problem

The million casualties is my problem. I've been banging on about these (not-all-voluntary) casualties for a few posts now and nobody wants to give a straight answer.

So, back to the question again. Assuming America will fund your fantasy forever war - how many deaths is OK Gaff? Two million? Five million? Unlimited?

 

[Gwadien]

So, two things:

and:

The million casualties is my problem. I've been banging on about these (not-all-voluntary) casualties for a few posts now and nobody wants to give a straight answer.

So, back to the question again. Assuming America will fund your fantasy forever war - how many deaths is OK Gaff? Two million? Five million? Unlimited?

How far west should Russia expand before you're concerned and do something about it? Hypothetically, of course.

 

[caLLous]

Awkward.

Elon Musk's AI chatbot says a 'Russian asset' delivered the State of the Union | Opinion

The chatbot Grok scoured available public data and found a '75-85% likelihood' that Donald Trump more or less works for Vladimir Putin.

eu.usatoday.com

 

[Raven]

So, two things:

and:

The million casualties is my problem. I've been banging on about these (not-all-voluntary) casualties for a few posts now and nobody wants to give a straight answer.

So, back to the question again. Assuming America will fund your fantasy forever war - how many deaths is OK Gaff? Two million? Five million? Unlimited?

You still seem incapable of coming up with an alternative. If an invading country attacks another country, you want the victim to just roll over?

Let's look at Ireland, if the British were to say, do you know what? We quite liked owning all of Ireland, let's roll in and take it back again. The Irish should just allow it, to avoid deaths? After all, we have nukes, they don't.

I know what avoids causing deaths, not invading other countries. Likewise, ceasing invasions, stops it.

 

[Scouse]

How far west should Russia expand before you're concerned and do something about it? Hypothetically, of course.

When people answer my question, then I'll answer yours, directly, no problem. I actually do have an answer to that.

But given people here are currently going through a denial of reality, and refuse to openly admit (but have tacitly done so) 'we don't actually care, because we don't have to care, because it's not happening to US' - I think it'll be a bit of time.

 

[DaGaffer]

So, two things:

and:

The million casualties is my problem. I've been banging on about these (not-all-voluntary) casualties for a few posts now and nobody wants to give a straight answer.

So, back to the question again. Assuming America will fund your fantasy forever war - how many deaths is OK Gaff? Two million? Five million? Unlimited?

1. Things are moving rather fast in case you didn't notice

2. As many as it takes. Because here's the thing, Russia killed a fuckton more Ukrainians when they last ran the place than are being lost making sure they don't get another go.

Holodomor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So up to 5 million and the Ukrainians are still ahead. So please shut the fuck up now because if I hear the fatuous "monkeys/borders" bullshit again I might throw up.

 

[Ormorof]

The only ones that can give the kind of peace you are after Scouse is Russia, while they want to keep killing people during their invasion then it won't end, if Ukraine falls expect a vicious reset of reprisals against anyone found to have resisted, just like we have seen in eastern Ukraine

 

[Embattle]

Long, medium and short term history has proven Scouse wrong, as we all tried in the Russia thread when he took the same stance.

 

[Scouse]

I hear the fatuous "monkeys/borders" bullshit again I might throw up.

Throw up then. There's only one guarantee - that at some point we'll have at it again. There is NO solution that "ends war".

Or is there? Am I missing something? As far as I can see life isn't a Joe Haldeman novel. Enlighten me, because this:

2. As many as it takes.

pean to death ad-infinitum - is only worth it if we get to a point where we win and war stops permanently, no?

So as many as it takes to WHAT exactly, please? Force Putin back in his box? That'd be lovely. It really would.

I'm making an assumption that's what you want, so lets go with this fantasy for a bit. So we force back Putin's troops into Russia. For argument's sake, it costs 5 million lives, 8 more years and three trillion dollars (and the opportunity cost that comes with that) - and with the big caveat is that at no point does this massive mad wanker start throwing a few of the world's biggest nuclear stockpile at the Ukraine when he realises he's losing.

And that's the end of it, forever? Russia wouldn't lick their wounds and regroup? Work hand in hand with China and/or North Korea. Build up troops? Are you saying we in the West are getting to a point where we can make war so expensive for antagonists that border changes become impossible?

Define the endpoint you want to buy with your unlimited life cost please. (Not your kids lives, of course, just other families lives). Because I don't understand it - genuinely. < I'm not taking the piss here. I look at what I consider being rabidly proposed and in the context of evolutionary biology, proven by history, I don't see that cost you're so eager for other people to pay as being worth it. I don't understand why you, clearly a highly intelligent guy, aren't thinking forward.



So, on your history fun:

2. As many as it takes. Because here's the thing, Russia killed a fuckton more Ukrainians when they last ran the place than are being lost making sure they don't get another go.

Holodomor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So up to 5 million and the Ukrainians are still ahead.

Counting deaths from the holomdor against some bizarre "Ukraine vs Russia" tally is madness. Barely any of the people alive today were alive when Stalin starved the shit out of a Soviet Communist Russia - that no longer exists. Certainly Putin wasn't alive so I don't see how you can hold him culpable. Russia didn't exist in it's current form. Ukraine wasn't a 'country'. But if History of countries that don't actually exist any more / didn't exist at the time is the hill you want to die on, when the Mongols invaded Russia they killed approximately half of the population. So maybe Russia should be turning around and fucking over China/Central Asia as long as we're being all bitter about shit that happened hundreds of years ago?

Or should we be looking closer to our timeline - maybe after the holomdor (which happened in Communist USSR). The Soviets took a fucking big bullet helping us during World War 2 - as one of our Allies ridding the Western World of the Nazi scourge.

• Soviet Union: 8,800,000–10,700,000 military deaths
• United Kingdom: 384,000 military deaths
• United States: 416,800 military deaths
• Yugoslavia: 446,000 military deaths
• Germany: 3.5 million military deaths
• Japan: 1.25 million military deaths

Are we counting that in your tally of non-existent countries against Russia today? I mean, some of them would be "Ukranian" in today's money, so take 17% (lets be generous, 20%) off that. How's your pointless death tally now?


The whole method of thought that's being expressed in this thread looks like some self ego-protecting denialism of the painful reality of the situation we are now in.


This is a situation that was predicted, telegraphed. We knew - and people stated clearly - when this kicked off we'd all feel like shit when it ended. That Putin would likely get some of the land to the east of the dnipro. That Putin would NOT be able to achieve his objectives - which included toppling the Ukranian government and getting a lot more control over the whole country. We pushed the fantasy that we were going to be able to put him back in his box - but that was always a lie.

As predicted - nobody won, everybody lost.

Pragmatically, and palpably that unlimited life cost to put Putin back in the fantasy box isn't worth paying. It never was - and we were never going to pay it.

Maybe in a few years we'll look back and still feel a sting. Maybe some shame. But I tell you what - at least a lot more people will be alive to feel shitty about it than if we tried to continue.

 

[Scouse]

@Ormorof, @Embattle, @Gwadien:

Ukraine isn't "going to fall". I was one of the ones at the beginning of the war - as I 100% agreed with the US analysts - who said that the outcome we're getting now was always the outcome we were going to get.


Putin will get some more land and Ukraine will end their claims over the Crimea. We'll whine for ages about it and feel like we lost. He'll sell his "victory" to Russia, but it hurt him.

I've no idea what it means for any of the other eastern european countries - and neither do you - but he's taken a pretty big fucking bloody nose from this. And that was always the whole point of this war - outcome already known.

How far west should Russia expand before you're concerned and do something about it? Hypothetically, of course.

To answer your question, directly:

It's a bullshit question. I've always supported the actions taken against Russia in defence of Ukraine. But pragmatically, a million casualties and 13 million displaced people < those are the important things. But also, %GDP losses, energy prices, real things that acutally hurt populations globally - in terms of actual deaths, but also civil unrest due to cost of living, poorer outcomes, money spent on war that could have been spent on health, or education, or pretty much anything else. This could never go on for ever. It was a fantasy to think it could.

The objective of this war was to make sure Russia knew that it would be expensive to expand their borders. The objective was never to "win". We've achieved that objective. Now it's time for the killing to stop.

There are no guarantees in the future. Why? As much as you seem to hate science: Human nature.

It'll be over soon. Deal with it.

 

[Raven]

Absolutely not.

 

[Bodhi]

I'm still a little bemused that the Orange Man is bad for trying to end a war that Ukraine has little chance of winning without provoking WW3.

 

[Ormorof]

 

[Lamp]

( Christopher Lee was perfect for Saruman. )

 

[Scouse]

I mean, Christopher Lee was just perfect.

 

[Gwadien]

To be fair they were both pretty perfect, it's two wizards having a chat, not a film.

 

[Tom]

"War is not the answer"

So what is then, when you're faced with a ruthless maniac who wants your land to enrich himself?

 

[Gwadien]

@Scouse go check the consequences of the US leaving NATO and then Russia attacking a NATO country, it goes from an ez game to a umm could probably go bad?

We rely on the US, Trump wants to end it.

 

[Tom]

I'm firmly of the opinion that Putin has proof of Trump abusing children.

 

[Gwadien]

I'm firmly of the opinion that Putin has proof of Trump abusing children.

I think it's more on the lines of if the US money pumped into Russian mining and took a chunk of it it would turbo charge the US economy but have a lesser effect on the Russian economy, so what does Putin want in return? Legacy.