It looks like some folks have their heads so deep in NATO propaganda, they forget that detailed info on Finland and Sweden’s collaboration with Hitler is all over the Internet. — Apollodorus

It looks like you have your head so deep in... somewhere... that you've forgotten the Nazi-Soviet pact.



Now that's collboration, baby.

Finland was aligned with Hitler at the time. — Apollodorus

But:

this was not intended to show allegiance to Nazi Germany

And:

"Finland participated in the Second World War initially in a defensive war against the Soviet Union, followed by another battle against the Soviet Union acting in concert with Germany and then finally fighting alongside the Allies against Germany."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland_in_World_War_II#:~:text=During%20World%20War%20II%2C%20Finland,refugees%20were%20safe%20from%20persecution.

So:

You have nothing.

And of course Finland is up to its neck in it:

"Finland's air force has been using a swastika ever since it was founded in 1918, shortly after the country became an independent nation and long before Nazism devastated Europe." — Apollodorus

In what? Do you read your own sources? The symbol had nothing to do with Hitler or Nazism.

@frank

Democracy doesn't unequivocally equal majority rule. E.g. Northern Ireland is a democracy, but the majority (as in majority community) is specifically forbidden to rule. Power sharing is enforced. When you have a state that's significantly split, subverting majority rule may in fact be necessary for democracy (as in representative rule) to function.

"Properly understood, democracy should not even be "rule of the majority", if that means that minorities' interests are ignored completely. A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their "will"."

https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy

For the people, of the people, not for the majority, of the majority, which is more like majoritarianism.

"Majoritarianism is often referred to as majority rule, which may refer to a majority class ruling over a minority class, while not referring to the decision process called majority rule. It is a belief that the majority community should be able to rule a country in whichever way it wants."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism#:~:text=Majoritarianism%20is%20a%20traditional%20political,decisions%20that%20affect%20the%20society.

Having said that, @Michael has some work to do to demonstrate restrictions on abortion constitute repression of a minority. It probably depends on the strictness of the restrictions, and the other side will counter-claim that abortion is repression of the unborn.

Are there any other innocent old people we can wish hindsight cancer on for ethical reasons? You never know what harm granny might cause if we don't kill her off. *Cackle*

Anyway, the Christian Taliban and the Dems are the two big winners here, so let's call it a draw.

Americans now get to vote on the issue, like most other countries. The end.

Oh look pretty girl sing funny song. I no fall for disinformation anymore. :lol:

They were spewing American intelligence about it early in the war. Do you care enough for me to look it up? If you looked it up yourself would you believe it? — frank

Depends on the source. I've seen news reports to that effect but nothing convincing as yet. I don't think we're going to get reliable intelligence on exactly what was said and then it's down to speculation to fit pro or anti Chinese bias. But I'm open to being wrong on that.

I thought you were all about it ending with negotiations. I realized a couple of weeks ago that this could actually lead to WW3. You're catching up! — frank

Unfortunately, I am. I still don't think it will lead to WW III, but with every escalation, my confidence wanes.

I also think it's misleading to claim they gave him the thumbs up. Unless you have sources to back that up, they might just as well have tried to talk him out of it but failed.

Anyhow, I think we should all ask ourselves the simple question, 'Will delivering an additional $20 billion of weapons into that region end well?' If you can honestly say you believe 'yes', then fine. I doubt many here can say that though. And 'maybe' isn't good enough, considering the dramatic tail risks of such escalation.

If you accept the premise of Chinese influence being a factor in the war being started then it makes sense to accept they could be influential in finding a way to end it.

Our immediate reaction to this war should have been the realization that we fucked up and misjudged Russia's determination to get Ukraine to bend to its will, and then we should have been focusing on building alliances with countries like India and China, who Russia actually cares about, to put diplomatic pressure on it to 1) agree to a ceasefire 2) engage productively in talks in that context. Instead we went it alone, got nowhere, and are now doubling down on a failed approach.



You're completing missing the escalation point. Russia has strategic objectives, which don't necessarily involve levelling Ukraine. If they had got what they wanted initially, they wouldn't even have started the war and you wouldn't need SAM missiles to protect Ukrainians. But if we keep fomenting the situation, maybe you can let me know what's going to protect them from a tactical nuclear strike. Prayers?

So better that Putin would win and create new "People's Republics" that could join later Mother Russia? — ssu

Better that this gets deescalated. My expectation is the more you escalate it, the more Putin will demand as a penalty for the extra dead Russians you create. That penalty being more dead Ukrainians and harsher terms for ending the conflict. Probably the only route to this 'People's Republic' you refer to is, ironically, the complete decimation of Ukraine caused by an indefinite extension of the war fuelled by an indefinite influx of foreign weapons: A neat way to give cover to Putin to completely destroy and subjugate the country. As a bonus you might get to start WW III.

We are drifting into a brittle situation where we are gleefully arming Ukraine with heavy weaponry. I support helping Ukraine fight off Russia, but I can see a plausible chain of escalation that ends very badly. — RogueAI

Yes, it's all about probabilities, of course, and my take is that the probability of this being a constructive rather than a deductive move is very low. Talking heads in Russia are already saying WW III would be preferable to defeat in Ukraine. Do we want to bet the house that Putin doesn't feel the same way? I wouldn't. I don't think it will go there, but I also don't think Putin will back down. So, ball back in our court.

Regardless of everything else, you've got to question the sanity of throwing 20 billion more in weapons into this tinderbox.

20 billion of that is for weapons and only 3 for humanitarian aid, apparently. :sad:

https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-looks-congress-oligarchs-more-cash-help-ukraine-2022-04-28/

What's bizarre is that you think 33 billion is a lot. — frank

It's a lot in Ukraine. About the same as their total annual government expenditure.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Ukraine/government_spending_dollars/

It's not specifically in the rules. It just makes things easier to read and helps to show you haven't misquoted someone. If you really don't want to use it, ok, I suppose.

Please use the quote function. You can access it by highlighting text.

There's been speculation he has Parkinson's. That won't stop him though.

I get a 404 error on this. What's it supposed to link to?

At what point does it become a failure for the invader? — Olivier5

When he withdraws his forces and the country is liberated or when that outcome becomes inevitable, obviously.

And I for one wish they keep 'losing' it as effectively as they have so far. — Olivier5

While you may be enjoying the spectacle, they are dying and their country is being destroyed.

:chin: Just to add though, for all their ostensibly hostile talk, there seems to be a tacit agreement between NATO and Russia that goes something like this: NATO 'You can destroy Ukraine, but go no further'. Russia: 'You can arm Ukraine, but go no further'. This is underlined by the fact that Russia telegraphed their recent missile test to the Pentagon as harmless and the Pentagon described it as routine even as the propaganda arms of their respective media were dramatizing it. It's distasteful as the likely result is that Ukraine's destruction just gets drawn out rather than mitigated while NATO and Russia act tough to keep their respective plebs satisfied.

Obviously not Baden — Manuel

I'm just another internet rando anyhow. :grin:

Do you mean the use of any nuclear weapon by Russia or a nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO? The former is a significant possibility (though still very unlikely) at the moment imo, the latter not. The most likely outcome is still Russia forcing Ukraine to capitulate through conventional warfare. That might take a month or a year depending on how much support Ukraine gets, but they're losing the war simply because they're facing a much more powerful opponent and there's no external political will to overturn that dynamic.

Mandatory 'Finnegan's Wake'? That'll teach 'em. :naughty:

A book about a dystopian society where everyone is forced to read Kierkegaard should be required reading for anyone who suggests everyone must read Kierkegaard.

:up:



From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

It's fair to contextualize the issue. Nothing we say here is going to contribute to a solution, merely analyse its possibility. And it's also fair to make moral arguments one way or the other. What I would be interested in is if anyone could tell me what they think is going to happen next because I consider my theory of a straightforward solution pretty much defunct now.

Yes. But is Olivier5 trying to smear me, Benkei and boethius by association with Carlson and Taylor Greene, or is he trying to smear Carlson and Taylor Greene by association with me, Benkei and boethius! — Isaac

I suspect you are Tucker Carlson, so the difference is moot. :eyes:

You can argue that these atrocities mirror those in Iraq and elsewhere but you can't argue that they are not the current narrative. That horse has left the stable and they have to be addressed. The question is how does that play out? I see brick walls to progress everywhere at the moment.

So the correct thing to do is to rather ask the question... Why is their rhetoric similar to "that group"? — Christoffer

No, the correct thing to do is address their arguments, which stand on their own merit.



You connected them in order to discredit your opponents.

We can read the exact same kind of crap here — Olivier5

Your ridiculous denials are amusing but eventually you will have to address your opponents' arguments on their merits or you will simply be seen as someone who has no ability to do so. Your choice.

From the link:

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument."

Doesn't that rhetoric sound familiar? We can read the exact same kind of crap here, written by the likes of Benkei, @Isaac or mage @boethius. — Olivier5

QED.

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling. — ssu

I don't think that fairly represents @Benkei's position. But he can speak for himself. Before I get tarred with the same brush, I suppose I should emphasize again, the invasion of Ukraine has been brutal, unjustified, and I unequivocally condemn it. That doesn't mean I can't criticize NATO too. But the extent of Russia's apparent war crimes is the more pressing issue now as it's the dominant narrative and it makes any settlement favourable to Russia much harder to reach and therefore a deescalation much harder to achieve. So, I'm much less confident of a solution in the forseeable future and also less confident about how the issue should be approached. On the one hand, ideally, the war just needs to stop even if that means concessions to Russia. On the other hand, the brutality meted out to Ukranian civilians can't go unanswered.

Guilt by Association Fallacy

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences. — Baden

Seeing as @Apollodorus does not seem able to heed warnings, his last couple of posts have been deleted as will any more along the same lines. Apologies to anyone who bothered to reply to him.

That sounds like more pro-NATO propaganda from the Finnish outback. — Apollodorus

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences.

It's my view that Putin will make a deal with Zelensky, get what he wanted before the war plus a little more and Zelensky will have to sell that to the Ukrainian people. If there can't be a deal then Ukrainians will continue to fight and maybe Putin will go for Kiev as a means to enforce his conditions. But, I do think by far the most likeliest outcome is a deal. And Ukraine is huge; Russia really would be stretching its resources very thin trying to occupy the whole country for any extended period of time. They achieve more with less effort simply occupying the South and East.

:smile: :up:

Joe Biden — frank

Are you painting again?