The Ukraine War

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Crewton said:

You obviously get your opinions of the Ukrainian war from the same type of source (incidentally, the same ones who spin a pro-Assad. pro-Russian narrative about the Syrian War), the people who push a rhetoric about oppression of Russian-speakers and the Maidan revolution that has been comprehensively disproven by real journalists and which is an insult to Ukrainians.

I could say allot more but I'll stop here because you have a closed mind and a poor understanding of history and that clearly isn't going to be changed by anything I post.

I was wondering what took you so long with delivering the insults 😉

[Ram-Alf]

39 minutes ago, Crewton said:

I could say allot more but I'll stop here because you have a closed mind and a poor understanding of history and that clearly isn't going to be changed by anything I post.

Not only has @ramit a closed mind, He also can't answer a very simple question...what would he do if Iceland was invaded, He either has me on

1. Ignore

2. He'd wave the white flag

3. He'd take up arms.

We can discount 3 as he's against war/conflict, So waving a white flag or on ignore seems the likely option

[Crewton]

1 minute ago, Ram-Alf said:

Not only has @ramit a closed mind, He also can't answer a very simple question...what would he do if Iceland was invaded, He either has me on

1. Ignore

2. He'd wave the white flag

3. He'd take up arms.

We can discount 3 as he's against war/conflict, So waving a white flag or on ignore seems the likely option

You'll know this, but the Communist Party of Great Britain refused to support the war against Hitler because he was an ally of the Soviet Union, even provoking strikes in the Glasgow shipyards designed to hinder the war effort. All that changed in on 22nd June 1941 when the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union, proving what ideological hypocrites they were.

Sometimes dogma or ideology blinds people to what is morally right. 

[ramit]

Oh another tenor for the insult choir, classy.

I did reply to one of your posts.  You try being pummeled with replies from numerous posters, you would do as I did, answer the pertinent ones and refrain from having to repeat yourself.

You demand that I answer you, I don't take orders.  Your question is also over simplified, each conflict has it's origins that matter in how they are viewed by outsiders and locals alike.  That's why I didn't answer you, if you must know.

Edited June 18 by ramit
typo

[ramit]

7 hours ago, Crewton said:

Sometimes dogma or ideology blinds people to what is morally right. 

It certainly can and does, on this first part we can finally agree, as to morals, you are obviously of the opinion that supporting war is morally right, that is where we disagree.

[Ram-Alf]

9 minutes ago, ramit said:

Oh another tenor for the insult choir, classy.

I did reply to one of your posts.  You try being pummeled with replies from numerous posters, you would do as I did, answer the pertinent ones and refrain from having to repeat yourself.

You demand that I answer you, I don't take orders.  Your question is also over simplified, each conflict has it's origins that matter in how they are viewed by outsiders and locals alike.  That's why I didn't answer you, if you must know.

You replied to my "real disaster" not the..."what would you do if you were invaded".

I'm not demanding anything, Your refusal shows you can't answer what is a very simple question, Nothing to do with "each conflict has it's origins" 

You complain about being "pummeled from numerous posters" if you poke a bear with what we would describe as foolish comments what do you expect.

And just to add, We've invaded your postings and you're fighting back...double standards me thinks ☺️

 

 

[ramit]

7 hours ago, Ram-Alf said:

You replied to my "real disaster" not the..."what would you do if you were invaded".

I'm not demanding anything, Your refusal shows you can't answer what is a very simple question, Nothing to do with "each conflict has it's origins" 

You complain about being "pummeled from numerous posters" if you poke a bear with what we would describe as foolish comments what do you expect.

And just to add, We've invaded your postings and you're fighting back...double standards me thinks ☺️

 

 

You suspected I had you on ignore, even as I had replied to you, as per my comment on that matter Alf.

I fear you confuse simple with simplified.

Poke a bear eh?  I leave that to others.  My original post was a call for peace with worry that this war might get out of hand and spread into Europe and you call that foolish, well to each their own foolishness.  Wars have a habit of getting out of control, history tells us.

To gang up on a poster some obviously do not agree with is a bullying tactic intended to overwhelm and shut up said poster.

[Ram-Alf]

27 minutes ago, Crewton said:

You'll know this, but the Communist Party of Great Britain refused to support the war against Hitler because he was an ally of the Soviet Union, even provoking strikes in the Glasgow shipyards designed to hinder the war effort. All that changed in on 22nd June 1941 when the Axis powers invaded the Soviet Union, proving what ideological hypocrites they were.

Sometimes dogma or ideology blinds people to what is morally right. 

Yep...so did the American communist party...until December 7th 1941.

WW2, Ukrainians fight the Germans, Ukrainians fight the Russians, Ukrainians fight Ukrainians.

Quote from a Ukrainian journalist during WW2..."how mad is it when Germans rape and kill us yet we welcome them over Russia"

 

[Crewton]

1 minute ago, Ram-Alf said:

Yep...so did the American communist party...until December 7th 1941.

WW2, Ukrainians fight the Germans, Ukrainians fight the Russians, Ukrainians fight Ukrainians.

Quote from a Ukrainian journalist during WW2..."how mad is it when Germans rape and kill us yet we welcome them over Russia"

 

That's all true Alf. Some Ukrainians hoped that the Nazis would treat them less oppressively, which turned out to be a big mistake. But what would you do in that situation, less than 10 years after a famine and caused by Soviet policy and neglect coupled with the systematic murder of Ukrainian nationalists and Kolcheks who resisted collectivism? In an authoritarian state where truth was supressed, how much would a peasant now about Nazi crimes?

[Ram-Alf]

8 minutes ago, ramit said:

You suspected I had you on ignore, even as I had replied to you, as per my comment on that matter Alf.

I fear you confuse simple with simplified.

Poke a bear eh?  I leave that to others.  My original post was a call for peace with worry that this war might get out of hand and spread into Europe and you call that foolish, well to each their own foolishness.  Wars have a habit of getting out of control, history tells us.

To gang up on a poster some obviously do not agree with is a bullying tactic intended to overwhelm and shut up said poster.

No confusion here fella, And no ones ganging up on you, If you believe in your posts, Then expect those "ganging up" on you to believe in their posts.

I can see you're intrenched in your views, Not an issue for me.

PS where did you stand on the "Cod wars" against us you know...fishing rights 😊

[ramit]

7 hours ago, Ram-Alf said:

I can see you're intrenched in your views, Not an issue for me.

PS where did you stand on the "Cod wars" against us you know...fishing rights 😊

It's spelled entrenched.😉

Since you mention it, the Cod Wars were not the only time Britain treated Iceland with aggression, they invaded our island in 1940, disregarding Iceland's neutrality in the world conflict, they called us terrorists and thieves during the Icesave issue, demanding that all Icelanders take responsibility for the criminal actions of a private company. 

Icelanders have more to fear from Britain, than any other nation, history would strongly suggest.

[Ram-Alf]

3 minutes ago, Crewton said:

That's all true Alf. Some Ukrainians hoped that the Nazis would treat them less oppressively, which turned out to be a big mistake. But what would you do in that situation, less than 10 years after a famine and caused by Soviet policy and neglect coupled with the systematic murder of Ukrainian nationalists and Kolcheks who resisted collectivism? In an authoritarian state where truth was supressed, how much would a peasant now about Nazi crimes?

You've got me, I had family under the Nazis in Austria, My Mother said this and I quote her, The Russian Mongols were fcuking bas****s, The White Russians just bas****s.

The Nazis after The Anschluss of 1938 life was no better or no worse, Rationing became an issue when operation Barbarossa was actioned, Lucky for her family her Dad my Grandad was a station master in Vienna he had access to the food in the wagons, If he'd been caught steeling the food he'd have been shot or sent to Mauthausen.   

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, ramit said:

It's spelled entrenched.😉

Since you mention it, the Cod Wars were not the only time Britain treated Iceland with aggression, they invaded our island in 1940, disregarding Iceland's neutrality in the world conflict, they called us terrorists and thieves during the Icesave issue, demanding that all Icelanders take responsibility for the criminal actions of a private company. 

Icelanders have more to fear from Britain, than any other nation, history would strongly suggest.

You got off lightly, try a history of living next door 😂.  They've mellowed quite a bit nowadays to be fair!

Getting back to wars and without wishing to be too argumentative. There surely has to be a concept of a 'just war' in certain circumstances. The classic example of fighting the Nazis is probably the standout example.... or any of the wars of independence against Britain/France/Mongol/Roman etc..empires.  Surely those were just too. That is the category I would put Ukraine in at the moment, basically fighting for their country's existence against an aggressive invasion, instigated by a deluded despot, with a warped sense of history (in that he firmly believes the Ukrainians are not a real nation). 

Of course in any war there is at least one side who is not engaging in a just war, that's how I'd categorize Russia in this conflict, clearly the aggressor.  Often, and here I'm sure you'll agree, both sides in a war are behaving immorally, and it's just a case of imperial or national greed or whatever, and the whole thing is just pointless waste of life. Think of the wars between France and Britain in North America for example, or Spain and Portugal in South America. 

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Highgate said:

You got off lightly, try a history of living next door 😂.  They've mellowed quite a bit nowadays to be fair!

Getting back to wars and without wishing to be too argumentative. There surely has to be a concept of a 'just war' in certain circumstances. The classic example of fighting the Nazis is probably the standout example.... or any of the wars of independence against Britain/France/Mongol/Roman etc..empires.  Surely those were just too. That is the category I would put Ukraine in at the moment, basically fighting for their country's existence against an aggressive invasion, instigated by a deluded despot, with a warped sense of history (in that he firmly believes the Ukrainians are not a real nation). 

Of course in any war there is at least one side who is not engaging in a just war, that's how I'd categorize Russia in this conflict, clearly the aggressor.  Often, and here I'm sure you'll agree, both sides in a war are behaving immorally, and it's just a case of imperial or national greed or whatever, and the whole thing is just pointless waste of life. Think of the wars between France and Britain in North America for example, or Spain and Portugal in South America. 

“All wars are started by angry old men, but they are fought by young men who die for reasons that are beyond them. In the end, the same old men sit around tables and the war ends. Nothing is achieved. Nothing is gained. New faces move into old castles, and the sons of the dead build families ready to feed new battleground graveyards.”

— David Gemmell

That about sums up how I feel about wars, with the exceptions that I don't just blame the old men, it is also shared by the gullible subservient young men who think so low of themselves as to be marched onto the battlefield as cattle to the slaughter,  for without them there can be no wars.  And in the end, who gains by wars?  Is it the common man? No, rather it is industrialists, bankers and for a moment megalomaniac leaders.

There are many great war quotes.  This one spoken by one who knew it intimately comes to mind.

"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."

--Robert E Lee

We don't agree and that is okay, respect for keeping it civil.

 

[Alph]

It's strange declaring that you're anti-war. I find myself declaring it a lot but realistically there's nobody outside of the safety of power that would be 'pro war'

Again it comes down to self defence and what we allow to pass as self defence. 

Empires were built on self defence and securing borders. 

You can find the most civilised and decent law abiding pillars of society can get behind a bit of mass killing if it's packaged and presented as self defence. 

I respect your view @ramitthat you feel there's never a condition for supporting violence. I disagree though purely because people are easily frightened and easily manipulated into acting on that fear. That's just the sad way it is and it will never change. 

American (and Russian) meddling in "national interests" is beyond infuriating. To me they're biggest destabilising threats and I despise listening to their politicians talk about human beings as if they're playing a game of Risk. 

But I can't find a way to condemn Ukraine fighting back. I'm certainly no West is best daydreamer. It just comes down to plain fight for survival for Ukraine. It was brought to them that they must fight for their homes, their way of life, their future. I struggle to understand any argument that they should just accept their fate. I'm trying, but to be that far anti-war would mean I would have to roll over should Britain be invaded and my way of life threatened. It may be the fault of British foreign policy or whatever but at the end of the day if it's kill or be killed.... 

What I don't allow though is for British politicians to tell me that I'm under threat by threats I can't see and hear myself. So no, I don't support the next military campaign thousands of miles from home, Mr Prime Minister

[Ramarena]

The path to peace is actually remarkably simple.

Russian soldiers go home to their families and Ukraine barricades the border, then joins NATO and lasting peace should ensue.

Now all Putin needs to do is issue that order and save many lives.

 

[ramit]

10 hours ago, Ramarena said:

The path to peace is actually remarkably simple.

Russian soldiers go home to their families and Ukraine barricades the border, then joins NATO and lasting peace should ensue.

Now all Putin needs to do is issue that order and save many lives.

 

NATO has listed Russia as it's main adversary and you propose that placing two sworn enemies next to each other will ensure lasting peace?

Edited June 18 by ramit
wording

[Ramarena]

5 hours ago, ramit said:

NATO has listed Russia as it's main adversary and you propose that placing two sworn enemies next to each other will ensure lasting peace?

Yes.

Sworn enemies is very extreme. That maybe the case on the Russian side, but not so much on the NATO side. 

If NATO wanted to attack Russia it would have already. There’s been plenty of opportunities. Now Finland is a NATO member as well, extending the NATO border with Russia…….and nothing has happened.

Russia would not attack Ukraine, NATO would not attack Russia.

There could be a chance of lasting peace, many lives saved.

Who would turn their nose up at that?

 

[Eddie]

5 hours ago, ramit said:

NATO has listed Russia as it's main adversary and you propose that placing two sworn enemies next to each other will ensure lasting peace?

See India and Pakistan.

Sworn enemies, both having a nuclear arsenal, yet somehow 'Mutually Assured Destruction' has kept them at arm's length.

[Ram-Alf]

6 hours ago, Ramarena said:

Yes.

Sworn enemies is very extreme. That maybe the case on the Russian side, but not so much on the NATO side. 

If NATO wanted to attack Russia it would have already. There’s been plenty of opportunities. Now Finland is a NATO member as well, extending the NATO border with Russia…….and nothing has happened.

Russia would not attack Ukraine, NATO would not attack Russia.

There could be a chance of lasting peace, many lives saved.

Who would turn their nose up at that?

 

I see that Estonia and Latvia who have borders with Russia and are NATO members since 2004 seems pretty amicable, But I don't get to read the Icelandic communist Daily News Paper so could be wrong ☺️