Random thoughts/comments

What do you call a cross dressing boxer?

Switch hitter?

EDIT: I'd have never guessed that answer.

(Nov 11, 2023 03:49 PM)stryder Wrote: What do you call a cross dressing boxer?

A Trouncevestite

I was thinking : Punch & Judy

If Trump gets in and capitulates Ukraine by refusing to support further war efforts, then he effectively is saying tyrants are allowed, that empires can be rebuilt and that a countries sovereignty has little meaning.

So inadvertedly, It would mean that the British Empire can be rebuilt, American can be retaken by Charles III and Trump signed off on that. So just remember when voting, you voting to have America put back into the fold of the Empire. (Roll "Empire Strikes Back" music)

Why isn't it so much more Europe's responsibility? It is at their own doorstep.
Why does everyone assume the US will swoop in and rescue them, even from their own geopolitical folly? Like taunting Russia with overtures of joining NATO.
Does the US have any vested interest in maintaining Ukraine's borders?

Why didn't anyone say Obama was allowing tyrants, when he turned a blind eye to Russia taking Crimea, gave Iran access to tons of money, left Iraq to the ISIS, etc.?

Sounds like a double standard.

Syne Wrote:Why didn't anyone say Obama was allowing tyrants, when he turned a blind eye to Russia taking Crimea,

Standard rhetorical nonsense. If X is the same as Y then why.. when X isn't the same as Y. Putin's army seems to have rolled into Crimea with barely a murmur. Some years later, with Zelensky in charge .. Putin's army was turned back from the gates of the capital city of Ukraine *

You can't help people that don't want to fight (even if you want to) .. what makes the rhetorical X (no fight) different from Y (fighting) is .. would you even admit there is a difference? You can't because .. well I think all the regular forum members will understand why.

*Metaphorically if not literally.

(Sep 27, 2024 12:24 AM)Syne Wrote: Why isn't it so much more Europe's responsibility? It is at their own doorstep.
Why does everyone assume the US will swoop in and rescue them, even from their own geopolitical folly? Like taunting Russia with overtures of joining NATO.
Does the US have any vested interest in maintaining Ukraine's borders?

Why didn't anyone say Obama was allowing tyrants, when he turned a blind eye to Russia taking Crimea, gave Iran access to tons of money, left Iraq to the ISIS, etc.?

Sounds like a double standard.

Actually I was being humourous... although maybe that got lost in translation.

However:
Why does everyone assume the US will swoop in and rescue them?
I would of gone with "Hollywood". Yep you can blame them, everytime they create a film where something happens like a comet hits, or some world destroying event happens... "only the good ol' US of A can save us all!!!". The Rhetoric of saviour, is as strong as the rhetoric of Russians being Evil... although to be honest they are actually more in line with their role.

As for Taunting Russia through "Joining NATO". Just ignore all the geopolitical manipulation Russia was doing through Poisoning, Assassinations and running Enclaves that house Pro-Neo-Nazi Nationalists.

I can't say much about the things Obama did or didn't do, But I can point out that it "takes a village". No person alone can stand to make anything worthwhile happen, it requires lots of people to pull their weight, to voice their opinions when they count and to make light the work. It's one of the main reasons why Trumps "Messiah complex" of being the "Only person that can fix the country or the world" is likely to have every fruitloop gunning for him.

(Sep 27, 2024 12:24 AM)Syne Wrote: Does the US have any vested interest in maintaining Ukraine's borders?

Does it need any? Ukraine is an internationally recognized sovereign state and as such deserves the right to its own land and rulership. Being invaded by Russia is simply wrong and helping them is the right thing to do. Have you ever just done the right thing without having any vested interest in doing so? What was the vested interest for America in joining in the war against Hitler's invasions? Why wasn't that war all Europe's responsibility?

(Sep 27, 2024 01:47 AM)stryder Wrote:

(Sep 27, 2024 12:24 AM)Syne Wrote: Why isn't it so much more Europe's responsibility? It is at their own doorstep.
Why does everyone assume the US will swoop in and rescue them, even from their own geopolitical folly? Like taunting Russia with overtures of joining NATO.
Does the US have any vested interest in maintaining Ukraine's borders?

Why didn't anyone say Obama was allowing tyrants, when he turned a blind eye to Russia taking Crimea, gave Iran access to tons of money, left Iraq to the ISIS, etc.?

Sounds like a double standard.

Actually I was being humourous... although maybe that got lost in translation. 

However:
Why does everyone assume the US will swoop in and rescue them?
I would of gone with "Hollywood".  Yep you can blame them, everytime they create a film where something happens like a comet hits, or some world destroying event happens... "only the good ol' US of A can save us all!!!".  The Rhetoric of saviour, is as strong as the rhetoric of Russians being Evil... although to be honest they are actually more in line with their role.

As for Taunting Russia through "Joining NATO".  Just ignore all the geopolitical manipulation Russia was doing through Poisoning, Assassinations and running Enclaves that house Pro-Neo-Nazi Nationalists.

I can't say much about the things Obama did or didn't do, But I can point out that it "takes a village".  No person alone can stand to make anything worthwhile happen, it requires lots of people to pull their weight, to voice their opinions when they count and to make light the work.  It's one of the main reasons why Trumps "Messiah complex" of being the "Only person that can fix the country or the world" is likely to have every fruitloop gunning for him.

Really? Entertainment made primarily for US audiences is supposed to arduously avoid centering around the US?
Tell that to all the British period pieces. Again, sounds like a double standard.
And it seems the world made the US their guardian long before Hollywood did, with how little most Western countries invest in their own militaries and rely heavily on US participation in NATO.

Russia being a bad actor is exactly why any neighbor shouldn't antagonize them. Same goes for Iran, North Korea, etc.. Unless you're willing and capable of dealing a decided blow, as the saying goes, "don't let your mouth write checks your ass can't cash." And pretending that Ukraine is totally virtuous, instead of largely corrupt, even during the Russian invasion, is a bit obtuse.

Of course, it "takes a village" with Obama, but somehow Trump is especially capable of breeding tyrants all by himself. Those gunning for him couldn't possibly be because of all the rhetoric about him being "a danger to democracy" and even your own insinuation that he would create invasions. Take responsibility for your own language before whining about what prompts nuts to violence.

---

(Sep 27, 2024 01:59 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:

(Sep 27, 2024 12:24 AM)Syne Wrote: Does the US have any vested interest in maintaining Ukraine's borders?

Does it need any? Ukraine is an internationally recognized sovereign state and as such deserves the right to its own land and rulership. Being invaded by Russia is simply wrong and helping them is the right thing to do. Have you ever just done the right thing without having any vested interest in doing so? What was the vested interest for America in joining in the war against Hitler's invasions? Why wasn't that war all Europe's responsibility?

Why isn't Europe doing most the heavy lifting? It takes 8 of the top 10 countries contributing to Ukraine to match the US contribution. How much of that contribution has been lost to Ukrainian corruption? And what is the plan for Ukraine victory? It certainly isn't dealing a deciding blow against Russia. So far, it seems to be an endless need to fund a slowly eroding stalemate. So unless Europe institutes a draft and starts throwing its own able-bodied men at the problem (to offset Russia's ability to fight a war of attrition), why should the US do any more than it already has?

Why is it leftists are all of a sudden war hawks over Ukraine? Seems to be part and parcel with them liking to spend everyone else's money, so long as it doesn't cost them anything personally, i.e. virtue-signalling.
The US didn't enter WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. That's a pretty compelling US interest in combating the Axis powers (which were more than one country threatening a single country).

(Sep 27, 2024 07:39 AM)Syne Wrote: Why isn't Europe doing most the heavy lifting? It takes 8 of the top 10 countries contributing to Ukraine to match the US contribution. How much of that contribution has been lost to Ukrainian corruption? And what is the plan for Ukraine victory? It certainly isn't dealing a deciding blow against Russia. So far, it seems to be an endless need to fund a slowly eroding stalemate. So unless Europe institutes a draft and starts throwing its own able-bodied men at the problem (to offset Russia's ability to fight a war of attrition), why should the US do any more than it already has?

Why is it leftists are all of a sudden war hawks over Ukraine? Seems to be part and parcel with them liking to spend everyone else's money, so long as it doesn't cost them anything personally, i.e. virtue-signalling.
The US didn't enter WWII until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. That's a pretty compelling US interest in combating the Axis powers (which were more than one country threatening a single country).

You do realise just becomes someone puts a figure that the US has put $53b+ towards defending Ukraine that it doesn't necessarily mean that is raw virgin funding, some of it is materials and goods that would otherwise been mothballed or deconstructed possibly contracted for production during the Iraq or Afghan conflicts. The point is even as a surplus it has a price attached to it, so it makes it look like a huge contribution that otherwise would of ended up recycled or dumped in a military asset graveyard.

European countries on the otherhand didn't tend to have a bunch of surplus kicking around, it's only when they replace things that they can give more. (Part of the reason for them not having surplus is actually the NATO plan, otherwise they'd likely have a lot more surplus themselves)