On 11/28/2024 at 1:46 AM, 0ffshore360 said:

You are of course ignoring the policy of  British PM Neville Chamberlain in 1938 that ignored/allowed  Hitler's expansionist quest and signed a "non aggression pact ?

 

I doubt Chamberlain had any other option. Britain's military had been run down to the point the Germans would easily have defeated them. Even after Churchill led the rearmanent of the military, the German machine easily overcame them in France and it was only a miracle that prevented the army being captured by Hitler. It was even more of a miracle that Hitler decided to stop attacking airbases and bomb London that saved Britain from invasion.

Chamberlain bought time for Britain to re arm, and build up the airforce.

On 11/28/2024 at 1:51 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

I'm hoping for WW3.

This is really the ONLY way to save the planet.

 

The planet yes, not so much the human species. So long and thanks for all the fish.

On 11/28/2024 at 2:53 AM, jacob29 said:

If Taiwan is invaded, is that going to be the fault of the west as well?

If the west ( US ) doesn't arm Taiwan to the point China will think better of invading, then yes, it's the fault of the west.

On 11/28/2024 at 2:57 AM, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Perhaps.

 

But....IMHO....not very likely.

 

Feel for you, Sir.

 

My dad was a drunkard.

 

My dad had a stone instead of a heart. As to why is the cause of conjecture, but the result was the same.

His line stops with me. If he cared, he never spoke of it.

15 hours ago, jas007 said:

And for a long time, diplomats have been a necessary part of maintaining peace within a framework of international law, treaties, and negotiated settlements. 

Your comments thus far have been incongruent with diplomacy, given the absence of criticism for Russia. Russia started this war, they could have negotiated an agreement without invading, that didn't even involve the US (or the UK). If your understanding of diplomacy is that threatening nuclear strikes is effective, then I don't see how anyone can take you seriously on matters of diplomacy.

1 minute ago, jacob29 said:

Your comments thus far have been incongruent with diplomacy, given the absence of criticism for Russia. Russia started this war, they could have negotiated an agreement without invading, that didn't even involve the US (or the UK). If your understanding of diplomacy is that threatening nuclear strikes is effective, then I don't see how anyone can take you seriously on matters of diplomacy.

Again, either you don't understand what I've already explained, you don't understand international relations and geopolitics, or you don't understand the real world.  Repeating Neocon nonsense is not helping you win any argument if that's all you have. Or else you're just a troll.  Anyway, I can't provide you with an education on a Thailand message board.  

 

If you want to try to grasp how it all works, try reading up on Western hegemony and its current fading influence.  Try to understand why that's a problem for some, and then read up on the implications of a multi-polar world. Read up on BRICS and that emerging legal framework to establish some order among the member nations. Much of the world, in case you don't realize that.

 

Read about the various treaties and international organizations that were created in an effort to establish and maintain a rule based order in the world.  For example, the UN was established by way of a treaty.  All of the international organizations were established by way of a treaty.  There are a lot of those.  The WHO, the World Bank, the International Labor Organization, etc.  A very long list. 

 

Once you grasp all that, you will see that, through diplomacy, countries have attempted to piece together a framework for existence.  The "rules based international order." It exists today.  It's a real thing. 

 

Once you begin to understand that basic concept, then look into how countries don't always act in accordance with international law.  Instead, they go to war if they feels that's necessary to defend one of their core national interests. They use their military and have a "so what" attitude on the international understandings.  This happens all too frequently.  The US has been a flagrant violator in recent times, although the US isn't alone. 

 

The Iraq war. Grenada in 1983.  Panama, 1989.  I could go on. 

 

Anyway, countries don't always comply with the established international order. If they did, we wouldn't have all the military conflicts that are currently raging around the world. The" territorial nation state" still exists.  If wars start and escalate, the sensible solution is to use diplomacy to settle the differences so that both parties can once again exist within a recognized framework.  

 

Today, the fighting in Ukraine needs to stop before the war escalates into WWIII and the annihilation of the human species. Diplomacy is the established way to achieve that. 

 

 

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

Again, either you don't understand what I've already explained, you don't understand international relations and geopolitics, or you don't understand the real world.

How can I understand when you refuse to answer questions on what you write? I have asked clear questions, which you won't answer. Is it a surprise someone doesn't understand what you wrote, if you refuse to address their questions or provide clarification?

 

I did not ask about geopolitics and international relations, I asked why Russia appears to be given a free pass. You have all the Kremlin talking points memorized, so one assumes that is the reason, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. US being a bad actor in no way excuses Russia for being a bad actor.

 

 

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

Read about the various treaties and international organizations that were created in an effort to establish and maintain a rule based order in the world.  For example, the UN was established by way of a treaty.  All of the international organizations were established by way of a treaty.  There are a lot of those.  The WHO, the World Bank, the International Labor Organization, etc.  A very long list. 

Why the essay on a question that wasn't asked? You're welcome to speak your mind, but it's not what I'm asking about.

 

If I blamed Palestine squarely for the war going on there, and made an effort to play down Israel's role in escalation - and you asked me why I wasn't critical of Israel.. do you think it would be appropriate for me to start talking about general history of international relations and diplomacy? No it would not, so please cut it out and stay on topic. Or don't, up to you, just know you can't be taken seriously while you play this game.

Edited November 29, 20241 yr by jacob29

25 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

How can I understand when you refuse to answer questions on what you write? I have asked clear questions, which you won't answer. Is it a surprise someone doesn't understand what you wrote, if you refuse to address their questions or provide clarification?

 

I did not ask about geopolitics and international relations, I asked why Russia appears to be given a free pass. You have all the Kremlin talking points memorized, so one assumes that is the reason, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. US being a bad actor in no way excuses Russia for being a bad actor.

 

 

Why the essay on a question that wasn't asked? You're welcome to speak your mind, but it's not what I'm asking about.

 

If I blamed Palestine squarely for the war going on there, and made an effort to play down Israel's role in escalation - and you asked me why I wasn't critical of Israel.. do you think it would be appropriate for me to start talking about general history of international relations and diplomacy? No it would not, so please cut it out and stay on topic. Or don't, up to you, just know you can't be taken seriously while you play this game.

 

I already explained this several times.  I don't give Russia "a pass."  My point is now and always has been that, at this point, that's all history and doesn't matter. The parties are at a point where the war is escalating, nuclear threats are being made, and if there isn't some agreement reached, matters could escalate terribly.  And one fine morning you'll roll out of bed, turn on the news, if your electric grid is still up and some news is available, and see that several European cities have been reduced to ashes.  Millions and millions of people dead. Millions more dead in the coming weeks.  And if things go global, the end of life as we know it. 

 

So tell me, how does trying to place "blame" matter to the resolution of this mess?  It doesn't.  It may play some part in determinging  whatever settlement is negotiated, along with the bargaining powers of the participants, but to get to that point you have to have diplomacy.  Escalating threats and launching rockets is the wrong way to go.  Of course, you may think that destroying the lives of millions or billions of people is just fine, so long as you can prove your point, that it's all Russia's fault.  I disagree.  Humanity is too valuable to end it based on a delusional Neocon fantasy that's responsible for failure after failure after failure.  

 

You lost this argument a long time ago and just don't know it.  I guess that's because you have no argument. 

Just now, jas007 said:

 

I already explained this several times.  I don't give Russia "a pass."  My point is now and always has been that, at this point, that's all history and doesn't matter. The parties are at a point where the war is escalating, nuclear threats are being made, and if there isn't some agreement reached, matters could escalate terribly.  And one fine morning you'll roll out of bed, turn on the news, if your electric grid is still up and some news is available, and see that several European cities have been reduced to ashes.  Millions and millions of people dead. Millions more dead in the coming weeks.  And if things go global, the end of life as we know it. 

 

So tell me, how does trying to place "blame" matter to the resolution of this mess?  It doesn't.  It may play some part in determinging  whatever settlement is negotiated, along with the bargaining powers of the participants, but to get to that point you have to have diplomacy.  Escalating threats and launching rockets is the wrong way to go.  Of course, you may think that destroying the lives of millions or billions of people is just fine, so long as you can prove your point, that it's all Russia's fault.  I disagree.  Humanity is too valuable to end it based on a delusional Neocon fantasy that's responsible for failure after failure after failure.  

 

You lost this argument a long time ago and just don't know it.  I guess that's because you have no argument. 

"BLAME", Putin's bloody invasion, what on earth is the matter with you.............GOOD GRIEF.......😤

40 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I don't give Russia "a pass."  

 

You very clearly have been. I would  like to know why.

 

40 minutes ago, jas007 said:

So tell me, how does trying to place "blame" matter to the resolution of this mess?  It doesn't.  

 

You tell me, as it's you keep putting a fine point on who is to blame. Explain how that's helps diplomacy, how making out Russia to be the victim will help any negotiated settlement?

40 minutes ago, jas007 said:

You lost this argument a long time ago and just don't know it.  I guess that's because you have no argument. 

Very astute of you to notice I have no argument - as I'm asking a question, not trying to prove a point. Only took half a dozen replies to get there. Keep pretending you're not giving a Russia a free pass if you like, while hammering out all the Kremlin favorites like Nuland and Johnson.

1 hour ago, jacob29 said:

 

You very clearly have been. I would  like to know why.

 

 

You tell me, as it's you keep putting a fine point on who is to blame. Explain how that's helps diplomacy, how making out Russia to be the victim will help any negotiated settlement?

Very astute of you to notice I have no argument - as I'm asking a question, not trying to prove a point. Only took half a dozen replies to get there. Keep pretending you're not giving a Russia a free pass if you like, while hammering out all the Kremlin favorites like Nuland and Johnson.

Take a moment and look at the title of this thread: 

 

Europe Braces for Escalation: Germany Mobilizes NATO Troops Amid Putin's Nuclear Threats

The war is at the point of escalation.  We're past the point of playing the blame game.  That''s counterproductive but apparently a necessary element of the Neocon fantasy of Western hegemony and domination for forever. I suggest that if you want to start a thread about  culpability and who is to "blame" for the conflict, you should do so.  

 

22 hours ago, jas007 said:

 That''s counterproductive but apparently a necessary element of the Neocon fantasy of Western hegemony and domination for forever.

Don't use that language if you don't want to be seen as assigning blame.

 

22 hours ago, jas007 said:

I suggest that if you want to start a thread about  culpability and who is to "blame" for the conflict, you should do so.  

I don't want to know who is to blame, I want to know why you keep going out of your way to blame the west. I have enough information to divine the answer by this stage.

On 11/29/2024 at 11:05 PM, jacob29 said:

I did not ask about geopolitics and international relations, I asked why Russia appears to be given a free pass. You have all the Kremlin talking points memorized, so one assumes that is the reason, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. US being a bad actor in no way excuses Russia for being a bad actor.

It's quite simple really. Most people with a brain cell know that a nation does not invade another nation ( that can fight back, unlike one we know well ) without a good reason. It's not being given a free pass, as that is the sort of thing people that don't understand that the real world is complicated say.

That the US is a bad actor is pretty obvious given Bush the younger's abuses against certain M E countries, but it's a reason, not an excuse.

 

You have all the Kremlin talking points memorized,

One should be careful when saying things like that, when one can be accused of having all the US talking points memorized.

15 hours ago, jacob29 said:

I want to know why you keep going out of your way to blame the west. I have enough information to divine the answer by this stage.

Try adding up all the wars since the early 1960s involving the US, and then add up all the major wars in the same period by Russia ( can include the Soviet Union if desired ). Include proxy wars and overthrowing legitimate democratic governments to replace them with dictators.

 

It's pretty obvious which is run by warmongers.

Given that it's not possible to keep an army on high alert indefinitely ( costs too much and makes the troops angry ), unless Germany decides to join in the fun, one wonders how long they will maintain the high alert situation before quietly de mobilising the troops and sending the reservists back to their real lives?

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try adding up all the wars since the early 1960s involving the US, and then add up all the major wars in the same period by Russia ( can include the Soviet Union if desired ). Include proxy wars and overthrowing legitimate democratic governments to replace them with dictators.

 

It's pretty obvious which is run by warmongers.

 

Ergo Russia is justified in invading Ukraine.

 

It would be funny if the circumstances weren't so sad.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's quite simple really. Most people with a brain cell know that a nation does not invade another nation ( that can fight back, unlike one we know well ) without a good reason. It's not being given a free pass, as that is the sort of thing people that don't understand that the real world is complicated say.

That the US is a bad actor is pretty obvious given Bush the younger's abuses against certain M E countries, but it's a reason, not an excuse.

 

You have all the Kremlin talking points memorized,

One should be careful when saying things like that, when one can be accused of having all the US talking points memorized.

More Kremlin talking points, as usual...

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try adding up all the wars since the early 1960s involving the US, and then add up all the major wars in the same period by Russia ( can include the Soviet Union if desired ). Include proxy wars and overthrowing legitimate democratic governments to replace them with dictators.

 

It's pretty obvious which is run by warmongers.

Ridiculous argument! What the U.S. may or may not have done is irrelevant and is no excuse for Russia.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's quite simple really. Most people with a brain cell know that a nation does not invade another nation ( that can fight back, unlike one we know well ) without a good reason.

I never asked for the reason Russia invaded, nor even insinuated they had no reason. 

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not being given a free pass, as that is the sort of thing people that don't understand that the real world is complicated say.

Plenty of people give US and Israel a free pass, and here you are saying if anyone calls them out for it, it's because they don't understand the world is complicated. Truly idiotic thing to say.

 

US had no business being in Iraq or Vietnam, and Israel rightly copping a lot of heat for their recent actions. Easy for me to say, as I'm not trying to make excuses for their poor behaviour. I don't have to make mind bending leaps of logic and try to defend them. Perhaps I should blame Russia for making the US feel insecure, and forcing them to embark on adventures of regime change. If 'communists' didn't keep provoking US, they wouldn't have to change the regime right? This is how you sound.

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You have all the Kremlin talking points memorized,

One should be careful when saying things like that, when one can be accused of having all the US talking points memorized.

I would like you to highlight the US talking points I've raised on this thread. 

9 hours ago, jacob29 said:

I never asked for the reason Russia invaded, nor even insinuated they had no reason. 

I wasn't talking about that. I answered your question "I asked why Russia appears to be given a free pass."

 

9 hours ago, jacob29 said:

I would like you to highlight the US talking points I've raised on this thread. 

Oh dear.

It's a bit of opinion between people that don't know each other about a topic none of us know a lot about, not a treatise on international relations in the UN security council.

 

Unless I actually insult you I don't know why you are getting exercised about it.

 

On 12/1/2024 at 12:20 AM, jacob29 said:

I want to know why you keep going out of your way to blame the west.

I don't know why he does, but I do because the west should behave better. Nobody expects the other side to have morals or play fair, but when the side of "democracy, liberty, justice and freedom" behaves like a bunch of barbarians with better weapons it's disillusioning and very, very sad.

 

I've pretty much given up on the west having morality when it comes to other countries. As I see it not much difference between the west and the other side- behaving as badly as the enemy.

On 11/29/2024 at 5:24 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt Chamberlain had any other option. Britain's military had been run down to the point the Germans would easily have defeated them. Even after Churchill led the rearmanent of the military, the German machine easily overcame them in France and it was only a miracle that prevented the army being captured by Hitler. It was even more of a miracle that Hitler decided to stop attacking airbases and bomb London that saved Britain from invasion.

Chamberlain bought time for Britain to re arm, and build up the airforce.

I'd love to know why 2 people thought that post was funny. I doubt I'll get an explanation though as they will be hiding behind emojis as usual.

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unless I actually insult you I don't know why you are getting exercised about it.

 

Getting exercised? I wanted to see examples of these US talking points, as I don't recall mentioning any.

 

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know why he does, but I do because the west should behave better.

Which is a fair response, and I even asked them if that was specifically the angle they were coming from. I don't want to discourage anyone from holding western countries to higher standards (or any country), and criticism should flow in order for that to happen.

 

To the extent it's leveraged to diminish or distract from the accountability of other states seems counter productive, as lowering the bar for other states will help to lower the bar for all.