Reply With Quote
FIFY
You would be surprised how rare flushing toilets are in many parts of country.
FIFY
You would be surprised how rare flushing toilets are in many parts of country.
The thread is about Ukraine. Let's keep it honest.
It's the 4th quarter and Chris Putler choking per the usual bads...
Not involved = not at war. Else what are they "not involved" in? War. Exactly.
You're just revising history to try to be right. You'll jump through a lot of hoops here in an attempt to pull something from this, but your definition in the 1st paragraph clearly states "does not itself become involved".Well, I disagree. Afghanistan back in the 80s when Russia was the aggressor was another proxy war fought by the US. The big difference then was that the stakes where nowhere near as high as they are now (didn't happen in NATO's backyard, China wasn't a player, there were two well defined superpowers, etc).
How else do you see "not involved". It seems you're the one who isn't clear about a definition you posted.POTUS said NATO wasn't at war with Russia, not the US (you quoted him). POTUS is also the pushing the military aid packages to Ukraine, approved by Congress nonetheless.
Doesn't detract from what I said.And to round up about your bold claim, this conflict dates back to pre-2014, when Putler's installed puppet (Yanukovych) was kicked out and had to flee. So if we're going to talk about meddling in Ukraine, Russia was always at the forefront of that.
The CIA does this all over the globe but this sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory. Either way, you've attempted to neuter war to the point where war can be any sideways look across the room, just so you can continue to insist the US is at war with Russia.It was a joke to the fact that the CIA conducted these proxy wars all the time during the Cold War. I don't even know if Russia invaded by the time I made that post, but the connotation clearly was that the US was going to be involved (the joke being former CIA in quotes).
I am not the one who left off "proxy". Again, I accept the definition you provided in the 1st paragraph of your response. It clearly states "not involved" so you have to settle "involved in what?" It would obviously be "not involved in the war it instigated" ergo not at war. Could the president of the US be tried and convicted of war crimes during this war in Ukraine, as a proxy? If not, why not?If we're going to agree, let's call things by their name. It's not just a proxy, it's waging a proxy war. Not just the US, but the entire West. The difference for the US is that it didn't used to be overt about this stuff, but it is now. I suppose the end of the Cold War changed that.
And if Russia succeeds, it's going to be very difficult for the West to spin they didn't lose this conflict. Plus all the other knockoff effects like reinvigorating China and North Korea. This is exactly why the West can't afford to lose this.
Which is your desired outcome. Russia's desired outcome is that they cannot lose this. In both cases "whatever it takes" makes sense to the one with the desired outcome as their main goal. It doesn't mean I agree with one and disagree with the other. I think Russia is 100% wrong, however when looking at motive I think it's important to consider both sides have a desired outcome. We just provide onlooker value judgement. Not saying that's wrong, but it does skew the conversation to homer takes and squashes any dialogue to the contrary of the chorus here.My claim was that Russia can't be allowed to win this, thus the "Whatever it takes", which spurred this conversation. Russia attacked an European country, the West decided (this time) to push back. The aggressor here was Russia, period. You could argue they tested the waters with Crimea and noticed nothing was going on, so they decided to go for the whole enchilada.
Also, Crimea was annexed, not invaded. Maybe a technicality but AFAIK only six deaths during this annexation. The US didn't do because we didn't have strategic interest. Suddenly we care.
This is you again trying to diminish the concept of war to just a disagreement. We may have enacted sanctions, maybe we have withheld energy, these are alternatives to war. They aren't war itself. Ukraine isn't part of NATO, not part of the US and the US has no responsibility to intervene. So to say Russia started it, you need to clarify who they started it with, and if they really started it with the US, why aren't we bombing the out of them?We're waging a war in many areas: economic, military, energy, etc. The war wasn't started by the West, it was started by Russia when it invaded Ukraine.
I think everyone knows the answer to that.
He's got nobody. These are emotional arguments devoid of reason.
Talk about not caring what someone's opinion is. . . .
Even if he doesn't you are still wrong.
The point of me posting the definition was to make clear it's a war, by definition. Your new swerve is also invalid, by "involved" it means involved directly in the hostilities. ie:
A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors, one or both of which act at the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities. In order for a conflict to be considered a proxy war, there must be a direct, long-term relationship between external actors and the belligerents involved. The aforementioned relationship usually takes the form of funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance which assist a belligerent party in sustaining its war effort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war
Ukranians are killing Ruskies with weapons, intel and training from the West, which happens openly. I don't know how much more clear this needs to be.
This isn't about me or what I'm trying to do, I know exactly what I'm saying. If you dispute that the Afghanistan war in the 80s when Russia invaded didn't include a proxy war with the US, then state so, then proceed to look up Operation Cyclone
Looks like the only one having problem understanding what a proxy war is you, not me. First it wasn't a war. Now that we moved past that, you hang your hat on "not involved", where you are wrong again. Let's see once we move past that what's the next part you don't understand. Don't worry, I'm patient.
Of course it does, you claimed this war wouldn't have happened without the US and NATO meddling in Ukraine, and that's A) a claim you didn't back up, and B) if there was any meddling, it was after Russia that started with it in the first place.
It's fairly well do ented, see link above. Nicaragua in the 80s as well. Like I said, if there's anything surprising in this conflict, is that it's now in the open.
And I didn't neuter anything. War is waged in a mul ude of ways. It's not just armed conflict. Cyberattacks are, for example, another way war is constantly waged as well nowadays.
Then you're accepting that a proxy war is just another war, and "proxy" is just indicative of the type of war being waged. And it's "obviously" none of that. It simply means they're not shooting the guns, period. They obviously bear some responsibility when they openly provide those guns, training, intel, etc for the war.
The reason the POTUS couldn't be convicted of war crimes has nothing to do with proxy wars. It couldn't happen in a direct war either, and this is because the US never recognized the ICC:
There is a legal body specifically set up to prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and other serious international crimes. It's the International Criminal Court, or ICC.
But here's the rub. The U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of this legal body.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/16/10932...criminal-court
I looked at both sides. One side got invaded by a an autocrat with 20+ years in power, who changed his country's cons ution for unlimited elections, rules with a criminal iron fist, and hates democracy. It was really a no brainer.
Crimea wasn't bordering any NATO countries, and Crimea itself had much more value to Russia than it did to Europe (due largely to Sevastopol). That said, I do think the West complete inaction there was wrong, tbh.
Economic warfare is not even new. In the past, blockades or ravaging the crops of enemies was a typical way to wage economic warfare, for example. Nowadays it's simply a different form in a more complex world. When the US deprives Iran from selling it's oil, it's waging economic war. It's asymmetric, because Iran really doesn't have ways to fight back, but that doesn't mean it isn't war and it doesn't diminish the word one iota. Just ask Iran or North Korea what they think about the sanctions.
oh, not even pretending to root for The West, then. Sad tbh.
Poster "B" has that same issue in this thread.
DD, is that you?
DD, is that you?
Zelenskiy in Izium today. That’s a leader.
Where’s Putin hiding?
From 3-5 days, to this...
The "West" isn't at war. I root for Ukraine over Russia, but can discuss it objectively unlike you.
derp tries to join our winning side six months too late.
TSA, Dale, Snacks and Darrin are MIA from this thread if not the forum. hater and DMC are trying to switch sides....Pretty much all that's left is for Tucker to tell Qhris to say he was for Ukrainian independence all along.
Must be his Air Force lab technician critical thinking skills kicking in.
Russia’s arsenal makes any direct intervention in Ukraine riskier than any rational American leader could tolerate.
The answer was right there in my response.
gotheem again
So you found another explanation you liked better than the one you offered before. Involved but not involved. You just changed "war" to "hostilities".
We aren't going to agree on this so we should move on. Although I agree the US is providing funding and material, I don't agree the US is at war with Russia.
I don't consider "proxy war" equal to "war". I defer to the "not involved" aspect of the definition you provided prior. I never even hinted that the US wasn't involved by proxy, only that Russia and the US were not at war with each other. I do think the term "proxy" is being misused here, however I've used it myself in this way.This isn't about me or what I'm trying to do, I know exactly what I'm saying. If you dispute that the Afghanistan war in the 80s when Russia invaded didn't include a proxy war with the US, then state so, then proceed to look up Operation Cyclone
Not involved in the war. I think you know this already. You provided the definition. I merely accepted it.Looks like the only one having problem understanding what a proxy war is you, not me. First it wasn't a war. Now that we moved past that, you hang your hat on "not involved", where you are wrong again. Let's see once we move past that what's the next part you don't understand. Don't worry, I'm patient.
Never said anything of the sort.Of course it does, you claimed this war wouldn't have happened without the US and NATO meddling in Ukraine, and that's A) a claim you didn't back up, and B) if there was any meddling, it was after Russia that started with it in the first place.
I said this: "played a role in fueling the conflict"
So if you keep feeling the need to misrepresent my statements, maybe you need to win something here. Just say so, I am not pot committed.
Regardless, you haven't shown how Russia did anything to the US or NATO. Still waiting to see how "they started it" with the US.
Let's go to Wiki, a source you used earlier:It's fairly well do ented, see link above. Nicaragua in the 80s as well. Like I said, if there's anything surprising in this conflict, is that it's now in the open.
And I didn't neuter anything. War is waged in a mul ude of ways. It's not just armed conflict. Cyberattacks are, for example, another way war is constantly waged as well nowadays.
War:
War is an intense armed conflict[a] between states, governments, societies, or paramilitary groups such as mercenaries, insurgents, and militias. It is generally characterized by extreme violence, destruction, and mortality, using regular or irregular military forces. Warfare refers to the common activities and characteristics of types of war, or of wars in general.[2] Total war is warfare that is not restricted to purely legitimate military targets, and can result in massive civilian or other non-combatant suffering and casualties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Definition
Next let's go to the actual dictionary...
war
/wôr/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
"Japan declared war on Germany"
I simply don't accept your customized definitions. I do accept your meaning though, and we agree the US is acting by proxy. Ukraine is the proxy. I just don't agree that the US is at war with Russia. I believe the proxy aspect exists to avoid that very thing. So I am not willing to loosely accept that the war exists between the two regardless. As soon as Russia pulls out of Ukraine, the US will likely relax or simply stop the sanctions. There will be no long standing concessions by Russia like existed in Japan after WWII. Any patching of relationships will need to be between Ukraine and Russia. The US will operate status quo, still spying on Russia and being spied upon by Russia.
No I don't accept that at all.Then you're accepting that a proxy war is just another war, and "proxy" is just indicative of the type of war being waged. And it's "obviously" none of that. It simply means they're not shooting the guns, period. They obviously bear some responsibility when they openly provide those guns, training, intel, etc for the war.
There are other agencies who could prosecute for war crimes and US military members have been prosecuted for these. If the POTUS could not be, it's because he isn't at war. He doesn't make executive decisions about the battlefield tactics, and AFAIK neither does the Pentagon.The reason the POTUS couldn't be convicted of war crimes has nothing to do with proxy wars. It couldn't happen in a direct war either, and this is because the US never recognized the ICC:
There is a legal body specifically set up to prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and other serious international crimes. It's the International Criminal Court, or ICC.
But here's the rub. The U.S. does not recognize the jurisdiction of this legal body.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/16/10932...criminal-court
But this is all about the fact I disagree with your claim that Russia and the US are at war. I'll let that rest since we won't find common ground there.
What action should Russia take if the US were at civil war due to a decision by the federal government to either annex a territory or prevent secession? Why does the US have any responsibility to act as world police, outside of self interest, and can't the self interest aspect be a slippery slope where hypothetically the US is now meddling relentlessly again?I looked at both sides. One side got invaded by a an autocrat with 20+ years in power, who changed his country's cons ution for unlimited elections, rules with a criminal iron fist, and hates democracy. It was really a no brainer.
Crimea wasn't bordering any NATO countries, and Crimea itself had much more value to Russia than it did to Europe (due largely to Sevastopol). That said, I do think the West complete inaction there was wrong, tbh.
This is why a superpower is called a superpower. I don't think economic coercion is the same as war. I think it's to help stave off war. I won't accept war is used to avoid war. I won't accept political pressure and diplomacy are political warfare.Economic warfare is not even new. In the past, blockades or ravaging the crops of enemies was a typical way to wage economic warfare, for example. Nowadays it's simply a different form in a more complex world. When the US deprives Iran from selling it's oil, it's waging economic war. It's asymmetric, because Iran really doesn't have ways to fight back, but that doesn't mean it isn't war and it doesn't diminish the word one iota. Just ask Iran or North Korea what they think about the sanctions.
They just hit the pumping station and dam near Kryvyi Rih with six cruise missiles. They are attempting to flood the region along the Inhulets River to slow down the offensive.
Flooding already happening, thousands without water as of a few minutes ago
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
