Ukraine conflict

When there is a serious problem and you need someone to laugh about it at the wrong time, send Vice President Harris.

She out Quayle’s Quayle.

Maybe it is a set up for her failure by the WH. She is not yet ready for the world stage. They know it.

This is Oliver Stone's 2016 documentary 'Ukraine on Fire', that was briefly removed on Youtube last week, for violating their graphic footage policy. YT reversed their decision a a few days later, after it was put on Rumble.

No need to sign in on Rumble.

https://rumble.com/vwotwt-ukraine-on-fire-how-us-not-russia-destroyed-ukraine-oliver-stone-2016-docum.html

Quote: Tanko

This is Oliver Stone's 2016 documentary 'Ukraine on Fire', that was briefly removed on Youtube last week, for violating their graphic footage policy. YT reversed their decision a a few days later, after it was put on Rumble.

No need to sign in on Rumble.

https://rumble.com/vwotwt-ukraine-on-fire-how-us-not-russia-destroyed-ukraine-oliver-stone-2016-docum.html

Oliver Stone, known best for fictionalizing history in his films.

I have to ask: is what the Russians are doing to Ukraine really much worse than what we did to the locals in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Quote: missedhervee

I have to ask: is what the Russians are doing to Ukraine really much worse than what we did to the locals in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes. Vastly.

Intent matters. Russia wants to annex Ukraine. We had no desire to annex any other those countries, we just wanted to change leaders.

When a country desires a total takeover of another country, far worse things happen by default.

As for Syria Russia has done far more than America (as far as what you would probably call "bad things").... We were actually pretty muted in Syria (another place where Trump and Obama both failed us), and now Russia has their troops on the ground and we have no influence.....

If Putin had a magic wand he would make Ukraine look part of Russia instantly and kill all those who would rebel. If Bush had a magic wand, he would make Iraq and Afghanistan democratic and peaceful. Intent is the leader in all other decisions.

America is not perfect, but we go over and beyond to avoid civilian causalities even at our own risk, and we aggressively punish people who break these rules. On the other hand in Russia this "scenario" cannot even be called a War by the media. Does that not tell you that there is a difference?

This is the kind of equivalence that is being fed to use by Putin trolls, don't fall for it, IE, "But look at America are they any different".....

The reality is the world (often by design) sets unrealistically high standards for Americans in foreign conflicts (and the West in general), and if something slightly wrong happens, it gets lambasted endlessly, in Russia if you point out something wrong you end up missing.... There is a difference, a large one. For all of those that say America spies on and abuses its citizens for free speech, its doing a pretty bad job compared to Russia (which of course America is not)....

Quote: missedhervee

I have to ask: is what the Russians are doing to Ukraine really much worse than what we did to the locals in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?

We were actually spending the majority of our efforts trying to hit military targets. We did drop a giant bomb or two in the mountains of Afghanistan to try to collapse caves.

Quote: Gandler

Yes. Vastly.

Gandler, I think you said you've played Civ 6 even though you prefer Civ 5.

I keep thinking of the siege of cities one does in that game, To be successful, you surround the city, and blast the hell out of it until the defenders are dead and the city is likely destroyed as well. Or you lose a city that way.

Exactly what Russia is doing.

Quote: rxwine

Gandler, I think you said you've played Civ 6 even though you prefer Civ 5.

I keep thinking of the siege of cities one does in that game, To be successful, you surround the city, and blast the hell out of it until the defenders are dead and the city is likely destroyed as well. Or you lose a city that way.

Exactly what Russia is doing.

Oh yeah and Civ 5 is similar, you need to get the City strength close to zero before an infantry (or melee naval) unit can take it.

I think it was Napoleon that said (paraphrasing), "Cities swallow armies", even huge armies cannot last long in a massive City, there is just too much (clearing thousands of buildings roomy by room). Sieges are a tactic that go back to early history to combat this issue (weaking a City until there are nobody left to resist).

Same concept now, except we have planes and missiles instead of cannons and trebuchets.

Its very hard for a ground Army to take a City that does not want to be taken (now if a City wants to be taken or liberated this is very different, as we saw in WWII, because you have much more support). However, Ukraine is showing Russia that they do not want to be taken (despite what Putin is claiming).

But, even in CIV, this is a huge deal, every City you take (even if you did not start the War), you get a warmonger penalty for, which adds up fast until everyone hates you. Real life is not different. Putin is quickly losing any fanboys he had, and now only the most blatantly biased sources support him. In converse in CIV if you get involved in a War and take back cities that were conquered and "liberate" them (give them back to the original Civ), everyone loves you and you get rewarded, this is what the West would do in Ukraine.

I honestly think that the only reason we (and Europe) are not in Ukraine is paranoia about nuclear wars... In any other scenario Ameria would be there instantly... But sadly we are showing the world the importance of having and keeping nuclear weapons (nobody will fight back, even if many countries have far superior forces). Sadly this empowers people like North Korea and Pakistan to stay nuclear, and it encourages Iran to want to be nuclear.

The facts are simply: America is better than Russia and Civ 5 is better than Civ 6.

I'm recalling The Gulf War, you know, where we went in to prevent WMD's, only to find there weren't any WMD's.

We killed thousands of Iraqis, Iranis, whatever, and for what, exactly?

Quote: missedhervee

I'm recalling The Gulf War, you know, where we went in to prevent WMD's, only to find there weren't any WMD's.

We killed thousands of Iraqis, Iranis, whatever, and for what, exactly?

I think you are mixing up wars, The Gulf War was to stop Iraq's invasion (and attempted annexation of Kuwait). Iraq was 100% in the wrong here, they were literally invading a country for profit and power (like Russia is now).

If Bush (the first) did the right thing (remove Hussein) the war you are speaking of would not have been needed. But, he wanted a quick peace and traded security for it....