I think he’s replying to post 133.
I think he may not know that he can just edit his post instead of making a whole 'nuther post.
And I’m not sure that he knows how to quote.
Announcing the imminent invasion was a power move. The message was both to Russia and to China.
The Chinese press was full of how Biden was full of shit, a paper tiger, manufacturing lies against Russia, that it was the CIA stirring up shit because the “so called invasion warning” was a big lie. Then, of course, a couple days later Russia proved the US of A correct by kicking off the invasion.
You will notice that China isn’t actively helping Russia beyond buying oil at fire sale prices.
I tried to say this. It did not go over well.
I tried to say this. It did not go over well.
You tried to say what exactly? You need to learn how to use the quote feature. Because otherwise, your posts make little to no sense.
I tried saying this. People will make a big deal about punctuation and quoting, and deny that this is actually true. Unquote. Period.
So reply to what I was obviously talking about
I made a nice quote for you. I am just agreeing with this other guy, here.
If you tried saying that, you said it badly. China Guy gave a well thought out statement.
When you said “the US announced the invasion was happening before it started”, this was incorrect, and frankly a silly thing to say. They did not announce it was happening before it started. They correctly shared their intelligence information with the world because it was the right thing to do.
You started off with a poisoned well, and things did not get better from there.
Ok. I just have nothing for that. Have a good night.
In this very thread, in fact.
ALL nations act in their own perceived self-interest and not morally in the sense that people can and do. To imply otherwise is a ridiculous ignoring of reality.
You have failed to prove this point.
Largely because:
Yes, that is a fair assessment. Personally, (as I told @Kedikat some time ago) I don’t have a problem with you being a Russian apologist but I would appreciate it if you were honest about what your position is and who you are rooting for.
In other words, the US is just like every other nation that acts in its own perceived self interest. Too bad for Russia that what they perceived to be to their advantage turned out to be false and their actions have resulted in disaster.
This forum has always required citations when asked. If you have difficulty with that ask for help, you can always improve. The rest of us here know quite a bit about quite a lot and no, we do not agree with your main points.
According to irrendentist Russian notions frickin’ Alaska should still belong to them, along with Finland, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltics, etc. They don’t. Russia is no longer the empire it was under the Tsars or the USSR.
One can only hope that it makes China think twice about strong-arming Taiwan.
Which, really, is China acting in the self-interest of China because they always need more oil. So China is acting in its self-interest just like every other country does.
We “make a big deal about it” because it makes communication easier. Especially since not everyone here speaks English as their first language.
ISTM that most of your difficulty in this thread is your very odd choice of phrase: “had a hand in …”
It is a trivial statement to accept that as a world leader and very powerful economy the United States’ governments actions and inactions both have significant impacts on what happens in the rest of the world, sometimes with outcomes desired and sometimes not.
By your use of the phrase then the United States has “a hand in” pretty much everything.
So lets revisit the events you reference.
Yes the United States gathers intelligence including much that is open source. In this case it was widely understood by most experts that Russia was planning to attack Ukraine. What I was hearing was more discussions of exactly when not if. In face of that the United States had a choice to make. It wanted to try to signal that it would not be as passive in response as it had been with Crimea and to put Russia in a spot internationally that possible made Russia reconsider, eliminating any bullshit provocation by Ukraine story in advance. That was effectively accomplished by shared the higher level intelligence they had. Keeping quiet would also have been of impact, effectively passively giving Russia a green light that there would be nothing more than protests of show. Whatever the U.S. did or did not do had an impact on what happens going forward. Most of us would not call that having “a hand in it”; that phrase implies culpability that does not apply.
Likewise for what followed. The United States NOT supporting Ukraine would have had huge impact on what Russia does in the future, encouraging more military adventurism towards claiming a greater Russia. It also would have encouraged China that action by them against Taiwan would be similarly met with little response. Those events then happening would be just as much events that the United States had “a hand in” as the marginally decreased risk of them happening now is something are outcomes that the United States has had “a hand in.”
In this specific case the United States took actions to help to try to prevent the attack, and has taken actions (and chose to avoid other actions) to help reduce risk of future expansive military exploits by Russia or China, to help support standards of international behavior, that reduce the risk of future direct conflict between Russia and NATO, and that support a nation violently attacked.
A choice of phrasing that implies blame on the United States for Putin’s aggression is very unfortunate.
it surely is - as it implicitly impies (by means of implying) - that there is shared guilt! … which there is not!
Yes, that is what I was trying to say. I do not think Americans should claim any moral high ground just because this particular war had an unambiguous aggressor.
I disagree, the US chose to act in a certain way to further its interests. Yes, Russian nationalist paranoia is responsible for Russian actions, but I do not believe that US foreign policy has shifted to one that is considerate of morality.
I would appreciate to not be called a Russian apologist because I am critical of the actions of my own nation. In particular, I am bothered by how easily the war drums start beating among people that are generally anti-war, and some of the frankly insane suggestions of NATO intervention.
Too bad for the Putin regime, certainly. The general populace had very little say and should not be held accountable for the actions of its leaders, which was actually the main point of my initial statements. This is a point which did not recieve any real disagreement, apart from my phrasing.
I have not made a good impression with statements like this, and I will make an effort to improve. I came out of the gate with a controversial opinion and did a poor job of supporting it with citations.
It certainly will give China pause, which is why the US actually did it in my opinion. As far as Alaska goes, I was tempted to call this hyperbole but the speaker of the Russian Duma actually did say this in July 2022. Fair enough, these guys are extremists.
This is not the general vibe of the conversations about the war. There is a lot of talk about crushing Russia, and killing Putin, all taken from a supposed moral high ground. My comments, which were phrased poorly I have to admit, reflect a discomfort with the general tone of the discussion about the war. [quote=“Broomstick, post:152, topic:972624, full:true”]
ALL nations act in their own perceived self-interest and not morally in the sense that people can and do. To imply otherwise is a ridiculous ignoring of reality.
You have failed to prove this point.
Largely because:
Yes, that is a fair assessment. Personally, (as I told @Kedikat some time ago) I don’t have a problem with you being a Russian apologist but I would appreciate it if you were honest about what your position is and who you are rooting for.
In other words, the US is just like every other nation that acts in its own perceived self interest. Too bad for Russia that what they perceived to be to their advantage turned out to be false and their actions have resulted in disaster.
This forum has always required citations when asked. If you have difficulty with that ask for help, you can always improve. The rest of us here know quite a bit about quite a lot and no, we do not agree with your main points.
According to irrendentist Russian notions frickin’ Alaska should still belong to them, along with Finland, Poland, Lithuania, the Baltics, etc. They don’t. Russia is no longer the empire it was under the Tsars or the USSR.
One can only hope that it makes China think twice about strong-arming Taiwan.
Which, really, is China acting in the self-interest of China because they always need more oil. So China is acting in its self-interest just like every other country does.
We “make a big deal about it” because it makes communication easier. Especially since not everyone here speaks English as their first language.
[/quote]
This particular comment was with regard to Euphonious Polemic, who I believed was being deliberately obtuse in their insistence that they could not understand me. I do apologize for not posting in accordance with the board standards. I understand that it reflected badly on my argument . This post is an attempt to communicate in a more thoughtful way, and maybe not come across like a total asshat. Hopefully I did all the quotations properly.
I stand by my phrasing, as I think it is accurate. I do admit that the general tone of my posts was arrogant and stupid at times, and invited some of the ridicule that I received. I did make a point by point reply to Broomstick, which I hope covers your criticism as well.
Then you stand alone, because it isn’t accurate.
Yes. And standing by that phrasing invites more. It would be one thing if it was merely an unfortunate turn of phrase by which you intended no implication of American culpability or guilt in causing this attack by Putin on Ukraine. Now standing by the phrase knowing that such is how I think all readers take it? Yes that invites all the ridicule you have received and invites more.
Trying to state that you and I, or you and @Tamerlane were saying the thing was, in that case, not mere poor communication on your part, but offensive.
I did not intend to imply American guilt. I do think it is important to recognize that my country is an active participant in this conflict, and has been for some time.
Then you should use words that don’t imply guilt.