Elon Musk proposals to end the war in Ukraine

That you wish to limit all discussion to this very fine sliver, and ignore the reason for our conversation, and this thread, in the first place-- Putin's Russian aggression, in Ukraine-- is, to the contrary of your claim, the quintessential meaning of "subtle:"

Wiktionary
https://en.m.wiktionary.org › wiki
subtil - Wiktionary
From Latin subtīlis (“fine, thin”), from sub + tēla (“a web”).

 

OK I just don't see what point you are trying to make after losing the last point.

 

I already asserted it, just a couple of posts back, at length (with a thorough explanation of why this was the case), that I do not think it is accurate to describe Biden's comment to be any more threat of "regime change," to Putin, than Obama's turned out being, to Assad-- and there is no reason for anyone to fear the U.S. doing anything more about Biden's comment, than it did about Obama's. Hence, you are acting like a Russian stooge, by claiming that Biden's words justify any future behavior by Putin, or even more egregiously acting as if they should in any way color the prior Putin acts, which had led to Biden's condemnation.

 

So really this is all about calling me a "Russian Stooge?" Heh, this old cold warrior finds that amusing!

The US calling for regime change is taken seriously internationally, even though you seem to think it's some sort of a joke. When Obama declared that "Mubarak must go" it lead to Mubarak resigning since he lost his main sponsor that put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, which then lead to a coup putting the military in charge which, after two years of the Muslim Brotherhood, the US signed off on. That was totally unnecessary.

Not having learned his lesson, Obama called for "Assad must go." Now no one was questioning that Assad was a bad guy, but the alternative, the multiple radical Islamic groups, including ISIS, were worst (the moderate rebels were always mostly a myth). So that lead a lot of people to think that the US was behind them in overthrowing Assad. So what happened? Assad is more in charge than ever, a half a million people were killed in that stupid civil war, and Assad invited Russia into Syria to help support their ally.

Great job.

So when that doddering old fool for a President calls for the same thing in Russia, do you think that will create an environment in which we can ever sit down with the Russians to negotiate any sort of peace? Or anything? No, the Russians have every reason now to fight to the last nuke.

The long and short of it is that a US President has no reason calling for regime change for any government unless we are actually at war with them (so let's hope it's not a nuclear power).

Now what does this have to do with the actual topic of this thread? Not much, but you can't seem to quit me after I pointed out you were wrong about the US's call for regime change. I can only assume that you want to date me.

 

And how does this apply, in the case of Putin? Remind me, again, are we Putin's "main sponsor?" I'll answer that, for you: your example only shows what a disingenuous argument you are making.

You know what, if that's the dishonest way you want to debate, just forget it.

 

OK you don't really want to have a discussion or you would not have cut up my post and only post a rather irrelevant part about US support for Egypt when no such relationship existed with Syria.

Glad we're done with this

 

Yeah, you and Mike Flynn, both!

 

OK you're not really glad, or you would not have bothered to toss one more steaming load my way, on your exit.

"A rather irrelevant part" of your post? This was the first, of only two examples you gave, for your only argument:

Lil Mike said: ↑
The US calling for regime change is taken seriously internationally, even though you seem to think it's some sort of a joke.

I think Putin sees it as a joke, which is the important part, isn't it?

But you want more, fine:

So all that top paragraph, is in service of a rather irrelevant aspect of your argument? Forgive me for not knowing that, Mike, since traditionally, the first paragraph is for the most important and compelling argument, so your system is new to me. Should I, from now on, treat your first paragraph of an argument, as something "rather irrelevant?"

The rest of your post only cites Syria, which I, if you recall, had used as a comparison as to why this was no serious call for regime change, before you mentioned it. But here, I will quote what you said, though it is no "argument," whatsoever. All you do is erroneously link the fact that Assad is now in a strong position, not to the fact that Russian troops came in to aid them--
which had absolutely everything to do with the efforts of the Syrian resistance, and nothing at all to do with Obama saying that Assad should go (note that we had troops in the area, fighting ISIS, which did not confront Assad's forces)--
but to Obama's rejecting the legitimacy of a leader who gasses his own people; which I guess you don't view as clearly enough counter to American ideals, to make a fuss over, or, as you would put it, which "you seem to think (is) some sort of a joke." But I feel, first, Assad was completely deserving of Obama's reproval and, secondly, without something more substantial behind it, the words didn't amount to much, if anything. But they certainly did not cause the situation, or contribute, either, to the resolution. So it is only an utterly bogus association, you make, without even as thorough of an explanation, to connect those data points, as you gave for your "rather irrelevant," first example.

But you're obviously real proud of your work, so here you go:

Oh, goodness, after all that meaninglessness, there's more; but this is where it gets funny:

So you think there was a chance of a political settlement, with Putin bombing civilians, his troops engaging in mass atrocities, firing missiles at the Ukrainians from a base at Europe's largest nuclear facility (as cover, from counter bombing), and Putin discussing the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, if only Joe Biden spoke more nicely, about Putin.


LMAO.


You don't think, just maybe, Biden had a better sense, from all his diplomats' attempts already, with Putin's government, going back to before the invasion, of what our chances were of being able to play a helpful role, in negotiations, than you do? Since you obviously have not been following this story, I will fill you in: we have no part, in any talks. Any agreements with Russia, are strictly Ukraine's decision, we have already publicly stated. Months prior to that, we had acknowledged that Putin's government was not willing to enter into any sincere negotiation; that they were, in fact, only using the concept of "talks," for PR purposes. So, if you didn't know-- now you know. Absolutely zero "chance at peace" was lost, by Biden's words. And if you'd thought that Putin was not planning to pull out all the stops, until Joe Biden spoke, your ideas are lost in Never-neverland.

Oh, but far be it from me, to not post the last drops of your, reputedly, earnest argument:

I'm going to leave out the part about you thinking that I want to date you, if that's OK...Or was that part, the actual heart of your argument?

 

IMO, the counterattacks should continue at least until the Russian military is out of Ukraine.
Longer if Russia launches attacks on Ukraine from Russia.

Appeasement only encourages aggressive wars of conquest.

 

Given that our argument, over whether the US threatened regime change to Russia, was over a day ago, and yet still you persisted, then yes, I would say the part that I wrote about you wanting to date me seems a fairly valid point, since otherwise it's hard to understand what in the world you are going on about, other than the revelation that you never want any negotiations or peace talks. So apparently this ends with US tanks at the gates of Moscow and Putin hanging in Red Square or nuclear fire. I think it's obvious which is more likely.

 

Putin could call off his invasion at any point, and both his military leaders, and his populace, would be extremely gratified by it, so I don't accept the argument that Putin would be done for, if he pulls back his forces. On the other hand, if Putin carries on as it seems he is inclined to do, there is always the small chance that some "accident" will befall him.

​

But no matter, in time, his forces will all be beaten back. The Ukranians will not invade Russia, proper, however. So is Putin going to use nukes, as acknowledgement that his army is no match for the Ukrainians? We will have to see. But the true foolhardiness, is in believing that Putin is willing to be satisfied with any agreement, giving him less than what was his original goal: to dominate all of Ukraine. Perhaps you prefer the idea of dealing with this multiple times, as an ongoing problem, but that seems a poorer choice, than resolving this now, instead of just leaving that pot on the stove, to boil over at any unpredictable, but inconvenient, moment in the future

 

Sometimes it's better to forego a problem rather than risk Armageddon to solve it once and for all. We had to deal with the problem of Iraq all throughout the 1990's until President Bush, following your foreign policy philosophy, decided to take care of the problem once and for all. I think history shows that we would have been better off dealing with Iraq one problem at a time.

I really don't think the Ukrainians are going to push the Russians back to the prewar borders. If they could really do that, then we wouldn't need to send them hundreds of billions of dollars.

"But the true foolhardiness, is in believing that Putin is willing to be satisfied with any agreement"

Duh. They're Russians, but we've still made agreements with them, because even though they'll eventually break the agreement, it buys time. Are you opposed to nuclear arms accords? Do you think we should never have signed a single agreement with Russia simply because at some point, they'll break it? That's true of most agreements so unless you're calling for unconditional surrender and a Red Square Nurnberg trial, we're going to have to make some sort of agreement with them. But I realize there is a large contingent who think playing nuclear chicken with the Russians is the way to go. I'm sure a lot of folks in the foreign offices of London and Paris in 1914 were pretty confident too.

 

Your analysis is, once more, erroneous: Papa Bush was NOT trying to solve the Iraq "problem," once and for all. I am at a loss, to understand how you could think such a thing. If that were the case, we would have done what G.W. did, and taken over the place, making sure that Saddam had been deposed, instead of pulling the plug, after only 100 hours. Did you mean to refer to Dubya's folly? If not, you've got nothing, here.

For that matter, even if you were intending to refer to the Second Gulf War, in which the apparent idea was to enact a long term fix, there is no analogy to be found, between a trumped up accusation against Saddam, for his nonexistent WMDs, and this very real act of aggression, by Putin.


Sorry if you don't like my saying this but, as the person, towards whom your "arguments" are directed (with a supposed expectation of a response): I have to be clear that I feel you are goofing up, at what is really only a primer level, for which there seems to be little excuse.

 

So you thought I was talking about Papa and not Dubya? And you've no idea that Iraq was one of the major foreign policy issues for the US during the 90's? OK if you don't know that you are not going to understand anything else about the analogy I offered.

Well the US still threatened Russia with regime change so you'll probably get your foreign policy fantasy. We may not live through it but that's never stopped the neo con fantasy before.

 

Cutting through all your nonsense, if the US (NATO) would have stayed their sorry asses West of Germany as promised 30 something years ago, then none of this current bullshit would be happening. The end.

If any Nukes are launched, it's our own damn fault.

Training and arming self-avowed nazis in the ukraine is a recipe for disaster, especially when you're doing it next to a country that lost 20 million in WW2 fighting nazis.

The retards in DC are next level.

 

Oh, so you are also the type to double down, on your mistakes? Check for yourself-- I guarantee that you will not be wasting your time, but rather pre-empting your looking like a fool, again, in the future. The first Gulf War, occurred in the early 1990s. Papa Bush was defeated (at the polls) in '92, and Bill Clinton moved into the White House in '93. He was re-elected in '96, to serve through the 2000 election, to early 2001, That's when Dubya took up residence, at the White House. Therefore, since you specifically seemed to me, to be saying that the problems we dealt with from Iraq, "all through the 1990s," were the result of our interference, in that country (in a case which actually does bear some resemblance to today, since, then, Saddam was threatening an invasion of Kuwait), this seemed to be your intended meaning, though it seemed dubious to me, your characterizing this, as you had. So I figured that you had probably meant to refer to our problems with Iraq, in the 21st century, due to G.W. Bush's action, and that you had just erred, in your dates. As I read it now, I could also see the interpretation, of your just laying down the predicate situation, before Dubya came to town:

Lil Mike said: ↑
Sometimes it's better to forego a problem rather than risk Armageddon to solve it once and for all. We had to deal with the problem of Iraq all throughout the 1990's until President Bush, following your foreign policy philosophy, decided to take care of the problem once and for all. I think history shows that we would have been better off dealing with Iraq one problem at a time.
<End>

I would call that a not clearly defined argument, you voiced. But, regardless, as you know, I have already addressed both Bush wars, since I found your text to be unclear. Therefore, there is zero cause, or basis, for your comment, that I am "not going to understand anything else," about your analogy (unless you mean only to underline your own inability, to express your ideas clearly).

Here's a novel suggestion: why don't you just state, unambiguously, what point you are trying to make?

 

Oh, that seems like a fun, nonsense game, Bill! Let me give it a try:

If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, and declared war on the U.S., we would never have dropped an atomic bomb on them, and this technology might have been greatly slowed, in its spread, and so delayed, in its competitive progress, so that Putin might not even have, such an extensive store of the later generation, tactical nuclear weapons, as he currently possesses.

So, if any nukes are detonated, it's Japan's fault!

 

And you are an international policy expert? It’s ok for you to have N opinion but not people you disagree with?

 

Still up to your sophomoric (and I’m being generous) arguements.

That’s the stupidest analogy ever, Japan attacking the US doesn’t compare to any of these items under discussion.

As others have pointed out, this is all above your pay grade.

 

Something like Dwarfstan.....maybe his a$$ cancer is clouding his judgement.

 

Unused?....probably because half of it doesn't work.

 

1) I am unconcerned about what those, who are well below my grade of intelligence, postulate about my "pay grade."

2) Have you ever heard of a thing, called "parody?" Or, perhaps you might know it, as lampoonery?

 

~ Elon should get a fake birth certificate and run for president ...

 

Oh, you mean like this:

Or this?:

Pardon my less than quick returning of your message. But, as I trust you recall, when we began our conversation, you were very bull headed about even making your argument, and quite badgering of me, to supply an argument for my own, merely supporting our nation's strategy (which does not make me the focus of this thread). Since there was not much happening on the forum, I spent hours, going around in circles with you, until I finally was able to extract the teeth of your argument. I ended the night by answering all your points, but getting no response from you except, hours later, a brief note about how you didn't have time to reply-- now that we had the iron well heated-- because you didn't spend all your time, here (implying that I did).

So the next day, when I checked my alerts, I had a bunch-- including several from you. So, I treated it as I might treat having a dozen and a half phone mssgs. Namely, rather than spending what I anticipated would be a good stretch of time, replying to one person, while a dozen others waited, since the others were only single or double alerts, I figured it made more sense to work on those first, and save yours for last. Since, believe it or not, I try to accomplish other things as well, I was on and off, all day, catching up on my messages, a little bit at a time.

Also, during the day, others were in the forum, so my replies not infrequently were the beginnings of additional exchanges, either with the person to whom I'd responded, and/or with someone, replying in the moment, to the thought, I'd freshly expressed.

It took all day, and by the late night hours, I didn't feel inclined to begin a long, potentially contentious process with you. Is that not understandable?

My feelings could only have been augmented by the fact, that you had not just been difficult, the previous day, but insulting. For instance:

Or:

While you may not be familiar with American customs, falsely implying that a person is a dishonest idiot, is considered to be rude. So, too, is making false, or insufficiently based accusations, against your interlocutor:

Topping all that off, was just your good ol' fashioned, conspiracy- based delusions:

In truth, of course, I do not want to "force" any further military actions. From taking a gaging of the news, any sane person might more likely get the impression that the one who continues to antagonize, with an unprovoked, war of choice, while committing all sorts of human rights atrocities and war crimes-- not to mention, who continually brings up his using of nuclear arms, in this conflict-- was actually the provocateur, here, who seems to be driving things toward military escalation.


Be that, as it may, I just wanted to explain that my mostly enjoying many conversations with others, these past 2 days, had been what is causing my slight delay, in returning to our debate. With your busy schedule, however, I hardly would've thought that you'd have noticed the lag, in my response.

 

Neville Chamberlain thought that about Hitler. That didn't turn out so well...