h a l f b a k e r yThe leaning tower of Piezo
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Resolution of the drone surveillance cameras is getting so good that the wooden and wire-frame decoys are not working like they did at the beginning of the war. Some of the greatest losses have been in parked vehicles between missions while the crew rests and rearms. Stand-off distances are now determined
by EW effectiveness against watching drones. When a decoy is detected it is marked as a non-target and ignored. If kits were developed for HIMARS, GRADs, M270s, etc the real units would be overlooked.
Kits could be stretched fabric, wood or composite, and either make the unit look like a decoy or one that has been already incapacitated. Make a GRAD launcher look like a destroyed APC or vice-versa. A couple of faux crew dummies could complete the fiction. Camo netting made to look like blast remnants and fake open hatches add to realism. Broken window panels, spilled contents, and other evidence of death and destruction could lead drone units to overlook and avoid active vehicles.
Russian war crime attack
https://en.wikipedi..._hospital_airstrike
when considering Putin's actions always remember who supported him. [xenzag, Jul 07 2023]
Fact Check
https://eu.usatoday...-staged/7041649001/
Claimed : "The Russian attack on a Mariupol maternity hospital was staged" Verdict : FALSE [Loris, Jul 07 2023]
Anatomy of the Mariupol hospital attack
https://edition.cnn...l-attack/index.html
Report from CNN. Annoying animated-on-scroll design, but work through it. [Loris, Jul 09 2023]
Trump appeasing Russians.
https://www.busines...ion-confirms-2018-4
With Hellfire missiles. [doctorremulac3, Jul 10 2023]
Trump promising Putin he’ll do as commanded, he just needs to wait till after the election.
https://youtu.be/0mgQaFlo_p8
[doctorremulac3, Jul 11 2023]
Article from just after the war started, examining policy under the previous presidents
https://www.washing...ine-us-arms-supply/
Washington Post : The U.S. has been rushing to arm Ukraine, but for years it stalled on providing weapons [Loris, Jul 11 2023]
[link]
|
| |
Well, okay, but when your enemy is attacking farm equipment with their helicopter gunships, they may not be fooled. It might be more cost-effective to build additional piles of cardboard boxes with an occasional postal-tube in the fields. |
|
| |
Interesting, but hard to do from an infrared picture perspective. |
|
| |
Make portions of the netting flammable, so when a detected incoming drone gets within camera range, it starts burning to give off the appearance that it's been struck with either munitions or Molotov cocktails. That would mask the infrared heat signature from the engine and occupants. |
|
| |
For the Russians you'd be better creating fakes that look like maternity hospitals, theatres being attended to by crowds of people, pizza restuarants and of course apartment blocks filled with ordinary civilians, as all of these are their most favoured juicy targets. |
|
| |
You know, for a hospital packed with vulnerable mothers and infants, I'm AWFULLY skeptical about a military bombing attack on such a facility that only resulted in 4 deaths. That doesn't sound fishy to you? Certainly not what I'd consider "juicy" in military terms. What are they dropping, M-80s? |
|
| |
Pamphlets printed on c-4 paper with a timed anti-accelerometer switch. Not only do you get the message out, but there is no evidence of having done so. |
|
| |
Perhaps the biggest decoy of all took another form entirely: "Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them.
Trump said he saw the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis on TV “and I said: ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine … Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.” Guardian 22 Feb 2022 |
|
| |
//You know, for a hospital packed with vulnerable mothers and infants, I'm AWFULLY skeptical about a military bombing attack on such a facility that only resulted in 4 deaths.// |
|
| |
What are you saying? That it's suspicious that the Ukranians were trying to minimise the exposure of their vulnerable civilians in a war zone? Or that the Ukranians are downplayed their fatalities? Or that it was a false-flag attack ... or something else? |
|
| |
//Both sides publish lies.// |
|
| |
False equivalence.
A mass-murderer and someone who parked on a clearway both broke the law. |
|
| |
There is a tendency to paint one's enemy as wholly evil, and to spread lies in that direction. It is a mistake. Know your enemy, this is the path to victory. Don't demonize your enemy. This is the path to being a decent human, and to a just peace.
Do I really have to say again that Russia did something evil? Do you need that virtue signal to be sure I'm on your team and can therefore be listened to? If you only listen to people on your team you'll very quickly become ignorant. Those you hate are not totally evil. No person or group is totally evil. So can I talk with you about this without stridently denouncing Russia every other sentence? Because I'm not gonna do that. |
|
| |
I don't disagree with that - but it's kind of besides the point. I suggest that just flatly saying "Both sides publish lies" is /also/ virtue signalling, in a way[1], vague[2] and also, probably in error in this case[3]. |
|
| |
[1] "Oh, you can't trust them, they might not be entirely truthful. I'm smart, I can see through the lies. But I don't need to give any further details - you can trust me, I'm beyond that."
[2] I gave 21 several options. What do /you/ think happened?
[3] I can totally believe there was a russian missile strike on a hospital early in the war which killed 4 (and also contributed to a still-birth). There have been continual missile strikes by the russians on civilian targets since then killing small numbers of people. Sometimes they get lucky and kill dozens, sometimes they wiffle it, and hurt noone. Early on, there was considerable work by independent fact checkers to verify claims made by both sides[4], and by and by large the Ukranian statements were essentially upheld, and the Russian ones were shown to be absolute bullshit.
[4] Including the hospital attack in question. |
|
| |
There's a massive difference between "a Russian missile struck part of a maternity ward" and what Ukraine wants you to believe, which is "Russia made a deliberate decision to bomb the bejesus out of a maternity ward because they are just that evil" I don't know what happened, but my point in saying both sides lie is that the origins of [xenzag]'s hyperbole is misinformation, and that it shouldn't be taken as gospel. I have no idea why you thought I was implying some kind of moral equivalence. |
|
| |
//There's a massive difference between "a Russian missile struck part of a maternity ward" and what Ukraine wants you to believe, which is "Russia made a deliberate decision to bomb the bejesus out of a maternity ward because they are just that evil" I don't know what happened...// |
|
| |
Sure. It's not simple to determine intent for any one missile strike. Maybe it was off course, maybe they had bad information.
But given the additional information that has accrued over the last year, as Russia has continued to use missiles and drones to strike civilian targets with no military value, I think it's pretty clear that at the very least they're deliberately aiming at civilian centres. |
|
| |
//I have no idea why you thought I was implying some kind of moral equivalence.// |
|
| |
No, actually - I said false equivalence. You brought morality into it. |
|
| |
I suspect the hospital was already evacuated, and they blew it up themselves. They could've easily moved some bodies from the onsite morgue into position to get blown up. If the Russians wanted to hit a 'juicy" target, you really believe they couldn't penetrate a hospital structure? |
|
| |
//I suspect the hospital was already evacuated, and they blew it up themselves. They could've easily moved some bodies from the onsite morgue into position to get blown up. If the Russians wanted to hit a 'juicy" target, you really believe they couldn't penetrate a hospital structure?// |
|
| |
Then I think you've been suckered by Russian propaganda.
See link; "Fact Check", which collates evidence from various sources. |
|
| |
//I suspect the hospital was already evacuated, and they blew it up themselves// I suspect the Japanese faked the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and had already evacuated the whole city and blew it up themselves to end the war quickly without anyone thinking they had lost their honour and surrendered without a proper fight on home soil. I'm also sure Hitler faked most of the second world war. 9/11? another fake. Kennedy assasination? He's living it up in Bora Bora. |
|
| |
The Japanese claimed a lot more than 4 dead. |
|
| |
4 is all they needed to whip up a bunch of international outrage, when those 4 are PREGNANT WOMEN AND MOTHERS! GASP! You've actually let them convince you that the Russians are literal monsters (or at least, Xenzag has). Dehumanizing your enemy is a classic strategy. |
|
| |
A maternity ward is a right fine place to hide operations. So much now is about emotions instead of rationalization. |
|
| |
If we're to get through this shit this time, y'all need to be able to think like psycho/sociopaths... and than not fall into the trap of becoming one. |
|
| |
it's not fun
being able to only makes you feel stained |
|
| |
I design army tanks for a living. We call it "engineering." |
|
| |
//Dehumanizing your enemy is a classic strategy.//(sic) I also forgot the lovely ISIS organisation, who faked all those beheadings and mass exterminations; they're all laughing away with Bin Laden and Pol Pot in the next hammock beside Kennedy. Everything is a fake - everything! We know this now that Emperor Trump has revealed the ultimate truth to us all. Mi Lai massacre? - summer barbeque where a bit too much petrol got used. Dinosaurs? All rescued by Noah and living it up on the island next door to Bora Bora. |
|
| |
That also is fake news but serves to keep away the nosey media, autograph hunters and dinosaur paparazzi trolls. |
|
| |
//given the additional information that has accrued over the last year, as Russia has continued to use missiles and drones to strike civilian targets with no military value, I think it's pretty clear that at the very least they're deliberately aiming at civilian centres.//
I think it's more likely Ukrainian military personnel and/or formerly civilian combatants and fighters using guerilla tactics are actually firing from nearby positions, and also that the accuracy of Soviet missiles sucks balls. I could be wrong, I haven't been following that side of the war closely. Maybe Russia actually is deliberately targeting arbitrary civilian infrastructure (note that I wouldn't include power plants in this, they're targeted in every military invasion everywhere for obvious reasons) but if they are it's a stupid, stupid thing to do. And I don't think the people in charge of Russia's military are stupid. |
|
| |
//You brought morality into it.// |
|
| |
Really? //A mass-murderer and someone who parked on a clearway both broke the law.// isn't introducing an argument of morality? |
|
| |
//I don't think the people in charge of Russia's military are stupid.// hahaha - have you read the details of their first assualt on Kiev airport? You couldn't make this stuff up. They landed helicopters full of soldiers which were of course destroyed by pre zeroed in artillery. So what did they do about that - landed more in the same fields of fire. The incompentance of the Russian army is so profound, it's hard to take in. |
|
| |
There's probably a lot of validity to the suggestion that Ukrainians are firing from bases near or on top of hospitals. We see the same tactic used repeatedly by Hamas, and the same kind of restraint shown by the IDF when responding to such attacks with near surgical precision. |
|
| |
New rule: if you use civilians as human shields, you don't get to cry foul when the shield gets hit. |
|
| |
Okay, I take that back - you've not been taken in by Russian propaganda - you're spewing it yourself. |
|
| |
//Do you use the word differently?//
Yes. Failing to respond correctly can be caused by stupidity, but it could also be caused by insanity, ignorance, or miscommunication. When I say "stupid" I mean "unable to accept, understand, and form an accurate world-view based on information which includes synthesis of a set of actions leading to desirable outcomes for the person or organization in question". |
|
| |
//civilians as human shields// |
|
| |
The alternative to this could be seen in Paris, 1940; to spare civilians, the city was declared an "open city", which meant it was not defended. In the short term, this undoubtedly saved some lives. However, we might question, with hindsight, whether it was really the best response to a genocidal invasion. |
|
| |
The whole "human shields" trope (which took off in the mid 1980s) originated with reference to illegitimate groups, such as terrorists, taking hostages or otherwise abusing civilians whom they did not represent. It is not applicable to a situation where the army of a democracy takes up positions in its own cities, to defend those cities, while at the same time facilitating the evacuation from those cities of civilians who wish to leave. That's not "human shielding". That's just defending your own cities. |
|
| |
Isn't there a Geneva convention against soldiers hiding under protected symbols like the red cross, though? If a hospital is declared off limits to attacking troops, then defending troops need to stay out of it. The minute you put guns on a protected structure, you open that structure to attack. |
|
| |
It's a tough pill to swallow, being the tiny defender and being limited by international law in the tactics you can use to defend yourself, but if you break those rules I don't want to hear you accuse your attacker of war crimes. |
|
| |
All right, and is there good evidence that this is what happened? Witness statements? Geo-located photographs? That sort of thing? |
|
| |
It seems to me most likely that, in the early stages of the war, the Russians hit civilian targets mostly by accident, because they were just not very well organised. Incompetence is much more common than evil. However, a strongman dictatorship can't afford to say "Oops, our bad!" and is therefore forced to produce propaganda with another explanation. |
|
| |
//Isn't there a Geneva convention against soldiers hiding under protected symbols like the red cross, though? If a hospital is declared off limits to attacking troops, then defending troops need to stay out of it. The minute you put guns on a protected structure, you open that structure to attack.// |
|
| |
Yes, but - the fact is the Ukranians weren't doing that. |
|
| |
Russian media and shills claimed it was in use militarily. They were lying.
Russuan shills claimed the victims were crisis actors. They were lying. |
|
| |
You can go and look at the Fact Check link I posted above, or probably find similar things elsewhere. |
|
| |
Now you might say that they may have just been mistaken, but the fact that they've kept up the egregious bullshit the entire time suggests they knew what they were doing in any particular instance. |
|
| |
Russia is a shaped charge with no shape. Both sides are dying on the field and everywhere else. The stupidity starts much earlier than battlefield decisions. Victims all. In case of fire, break balls. |
|
| |
"They were lying"... according to the Ukrainians. Ukrainian witnesses and Ukrainian government officials. Witnesses, according to your linked article, said Russia dropped SEVERAL bombs on the hospital, but still only killed 4 people? Come on. I remember when "fact check" sites insisted the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't real, and posts claiming otherwise were flagged as misinformation. I remember when "fact check" sites insisted Covid did NOT originate from the lab in Wuhan, but that's been walked back now as well. Our own governments have been aggressively gaslighting us, and I'm not buying the bullshit anymore. |
|
| |
And, again, even if it IS true that the Russians bombed it, that doesn't mean the Ukrainians weren't housing soldiers or weapons in it. |
|
| |
Has it occurred to you that the target wasn't the people but the hospital as a facility? |
|
| |
Hunter Biden is a well-monied, and mentally deficient individual who embarrasses his family. Of course he has a laptop, and of course it has porn or whatever on it. Of course he would try and peddle his influence. |
|
| |
What hasn't been shown is what it has to do with some nefarious government coverup. |
|
| |
And sorry but after defending a notorious mobbed-up bastard you don't get the luxury of pretending like you give a shit about government ethics. |
|
| |
But back to the idea. 50% of the engine heat comes out of the tailpipe. |
|
| |
Tanks use cooling systems that are absolutely massive compared to what's in your truck. |
|
| |
//"They were lying"... according to the Ukrainians. Ukrainian witnesses and Ukrainian government officials. Witnesses, according to your linked article, said Russia dropped SEVERAL bombs on the hospital, but still only killed 4 people? Come on. I remember when "fact check" sites insisted the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't real, and posts claiming otherwise were flagged as misinformation.// |
|
| |
Well, Ukranians and independent organisations and observers like Associated Press journalists. And there is evidence to back them up.
Whereas the Russians made claims without evidence, or produced 'evidence' which on closer investigation wasn't what they said it was. And made false claims about the real evidence. |
|
| |
I don't know why you have such a high opinion of Russian bombs. It's not like each one is guaranteed to kill a certain number of people. If you want to make a claim that the number is insufficient, what evidence do you have that more would be expected? Do you have anything more than a gut feeling? |
|
| |
(I don't know or care about Hunter Biden or what he did.) |
|
| |
//I remember when "fact check" sites insisted Covid did NOT originate from the lab in Wuhan, but that's been walked back now as well.// |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure for the most part scientists in relevant fields still think it didn't. They may concede that it's a possibility, but ... well, that's just how science operates. The balance of probabilities is still very much in favour of it being a natural outbreak. |
|
| |
//And, again, even if it IS true that the Russians bombed it, that doesn't mean the Ukrainians weren't housing soldiers or weapons in it// |
|
| |
This is how the bullshit merchants operate. They deny or cast blame at every link in the chain:
~~No, it wasn't bombed by the Russians. But there were soldiers there, so it was a valid target. And the civilians who were shown injured (one of whom later died) were faking it.~~ |
|
| |
I'm reminded of an anecdote about a man whose dog had bitten someone at the park - who said their dog was too small to be a danger, and they hadn't taken it to the park that day, and the victim had provoked it into biting them, and in any case they didn't own a dog. |
|
| |
What "notorious mobbed-up bastard" have I defended? |
|
| |
Regarding the "nefarious government coverup", how has it NOT been shown? Reports about the laptop were flagged as misinformation until Biden's election was secured, then VERY shortly afterward all the folks who trashed the reports about it and insisted it didn't exist very quietly admitted that it was real all along, and had the story been allowed to circulate it could well have cost Biden the election, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY. The facts speak for themselves here. Now, whether you call that a cover-up or not is up to you. |
|
| |
Loris, that would help explain the low body count if, as YOU believe, the building was directly bombed. They can't exactly report an accurate number of casualties if they were mostly armed soldiers. It's like filing itemized tax returns. You don't report the stuff that incriminates yourself. |
|
| |
//Loris, that would help explain the low body count if, as YOU believe, the building was directly bombed. They can't exactly report an accurate number of casualties if they were mostly armed soldiers. It's like filing itemized tax returns. You don't report the stuff that incriminates yourself.// |
|
| |
There's pretty convincing evidence that it was a working hospital, that it was an airstrike, and that the injured people were civilians. Perhaps you'd like to peruse the link I'm about to post ("Anatomy of the Mariupol hospital attack"), which shows a significant bomb crater in the middle of the courtyard, and has a timeline - including what russian side claimed, and when.
Contrary to russian claims, there is no good evidence that it was a military base - no, a photo of a tank 6 miles away does not support their case.
Vacillating between contradictory claims isn't something you'd expect from a group with truth on its side either. |
|
| |
And as I said above - this wasn't an isolated case. The russians have continued to attack civilian targets, sometimes with much higher fatalities (e.g. the Mariupol theatre airstrike, a week after the hospital). And their claims repeatedly fail to be confirmed. And when they gained control of an affected area, they'd neglect to bring in independent investigators, and instead hide and destroy the evidence. |
|
| |
Could you recommend a competent and unbiased third party willing to say, if it's true: "The Russian government's actions are consistent with prosecuting a war with minimal civilian casualties"
Or are they all going to say "this war is illegal therefore everything Russia does in it is evil and a war crime full stop" |
|
| |
I think it's fair to say that Russia is not in any sense attempting to minimise any sort of casualty. |
|
| |
//Or are they all going to say "this war is illegal therefore everything Russia does in it is evil and a war crime full stop"// |
|
| |
I don't think that's true either. War crimes are fairly tightly defined. So even if a war is unjust, various actions still won't be war crimes. |
|
| |
//Perhaps the biggest decoy of all took another form entirely: "Donald Trump has said that Vladimir Putin is “very savvy” and made a “genius” move by declaring two regions of eastern Ukraine as independent states and moving Russian armed forces to them.// |
|
| |
He also complimented Kim Jong Un. It's a negotiation tactic. The nuke threats to Obama stopped after Trump met with him. It's called diplomacy, something that the war mongers hate. |
|
| |
Putin's invasions under each US President: |
|
| |
Clinton: Ukraine prelim: Persuaded the Ukraine to give up its nukes. (He admitted this led to the eventual invasion.) |
|
| |
George W Bush: Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia |
|
| |
Barack Obama: Georgia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk oblast |
|
| |
Joe Biden: Ukraine, Kuril Islands |
|
| |
But it's just because Putin was getting everything he wanted under Trump. Riiiight. Except being able to invade countries. |
|
| |
Now let me check, when the Ukraine asked Obama and Trump for lethal weapons, who was the president that turned them down and who was the one that actually sent them weapons? Not "support", actual leathal weapons to kill Russians with. Hmmm, let me check. |
|
| |
And who was the president that got caught on camera telling Medvedev to tell Vladimer he could do as directed (especially with regard to missile defense) after the election? |
|
| |
I understand cults are a great way to turn the brain off, but can you keep the mindless mantra chanting down? |
|
| |
As far as the other discussions here, I have no idea what's really going on over there. Fog of war and propaganda are a fact of conflict so I'm not going to even bother guessing. Putin's evil enough for me to not really care about the details. |
|
| |
"Diplomacy" is an awfully funny way to say appeasement. |
|
| |
So you would have just bombed North Korea like a big man? |
|
| |
And how many countries got invaded by Putin under Trump's "appeasement" again? Oh yea, zero, compared to the long list under the other presidents. And ask the 300 or so Russian troops Trump bombed if they felt appeased. Maybe Trump said to "appease" them and his military misunderstodd and thought he said "Blow them ta-pieces." |
|
| |
Look, I know some people's lives revolve around this guy, but jesus, do we have to hear about him every second? |
|
| |
I seem to remember Trump precipitating more than one crisis in the Middle East by moving troups and embassies around. And of course he committed to pulling out of Afghanistan right at the point where it would conveniently be in the next administration.
Now I know they're not russia related, but to be fair the Russians were consolidating Crimea and still contesting Donetsk and Luhansk (these continued throughout the Trump presidency). But it's probably reasonable to consider that Trump only served for one term. No actual russian invasions happened under Clinton for two terms, or one of the two terms of the other presidents. |
|
| |
The wikipedia page List_of_invasions gives three russian invasions over this time-period (I think these cover all the invasions you mention - it groups them together - except for Kuril Islands, which might be technically be a dispute rather than an invasion or something; I don't know much about it.) |
|
| |
I have collated these with the US presidential terms. |
|
| |
Clinton 1993-2001
(no russian invasions)
Bush 2001-2009
2008 invasion of Georgia
Obama 2009-2017
2014 invasion of Ukraine
Trump 2017-2021
Biden 2021-present
2022 invasion of Ukraine |
|
| |
So it seems like russia under Putin is invading places at a cadence of 8 years or so, give or take, and Trump's presidency just happened to fall in the interim. |
|
| |
//Now let me check, when the Ukraine asked Obama and Trump for lethal weapons, who was the president that turned them down and who was the one that actually sent them weapons? Not "support", actual leathal weapons to kill Russians with.// |
|
| |
Um, mainly Biden sent weapons. Yeah, trick question, definitely. |
|
| |
Name one thing I said that was not 100% correct. |
|
| |
Oh, I don't know, a lot of it seems right. But it's the sort of true which reasonably gets labelled as "misleading" or "lacking context". In this case, you're drawing an inference which isn't really justified. |
|
| |
Word salad. A retort doesn’t necessarily refute. You could say Hitler was a bad guy, the other guy says “Yea, but FDR had smelly farts.” But Hitler killed six million Jews.”Yea, but FDR could clear the room with one of his bigger farts.” Sounds like a debate. It’s not. |
|
| |
Again, name one thing I said that’s not 100% true. And if I’m alluding to a falsehood using true facts, what is that falsehood? Clarify. I’ll do it for you because I know how it works, next you’ll create a straw man argument, you’ll say I’m arguing that Trump is perfect in every way, that he’s a god. You couldn’t win debating my point so you’ll create a false narrative of my point that you CAN win against. |
|
| |
So let’s just skip to that and tell my why I’m wrong saying Trump is the most flawless, perfect, brilliant, trim, athletic, talented dancer, greatest singer, best boxer, football player, painter, poet, scientist in history. I’ll save us some time. |
|
| |
Anyway, if we can’t turn the tribal knob down to 11 and discuss specific approaches to specific problems, not a lot gonna get done. If the argument is whose guy is right 100% of the time and whose is wrong 100% of the time not a lot of brilliant solutions coming out of that exchange. |
|
| |
And as for saying Clinton isn’t to blame for Putin invading the Ukraine, take it up with him. He said it, not me. |
|
| |
//Again, name one thing I said that’s not 100% true. And if I’m alluding to a falsehood using true facts, what is that falsehood? Clarify.// |
|
| |
Doc, you're implying that Trump being in power prevented Russia from invading anywhere. You've made this claim before - I think several times. This was the time I decided to investigate, and what I found was that the data doesn't support that claim. |
|
| |
// I’ll do it for you because I know how it works, next you’ll create a straw man argument, you’ll say I’m arguing that Trump is perfect in every way, that he’s a god. You couldn’t win debating my point so you’ll create a false narrative of my point that you CAN win against.// |
|
| |
Is that what you think of how I operate? That's disappointing.
And I honestly think I successfully rebutted your point. |
|
| |
//And as for saying Clinton isn’t to blame for Putin invading the Ukraine, take it up with him. He said it, not me.// |
|
| |
To be fair I think that says more about Clinton's personality vs. Trump's, rather than culpability. |
|
| |
But to be clear, I understand that you want to defend Trump against xenzag's incessant wittering. That's okay, I understand that. I may not have your high impression of Trump's negotiation skills, but I don't think he bears any particular responsibility for the Ukraine war.
I do concede he made policy which contributed to the Ukranian defence (permitting weapons sales is the thing I see in a quick google search). That's absolutely something which should be recognised. I found a report which I will link - but be aware that it's not entirely to his credit, since it raises explanations for why Obama was hesitant to do so, and several drawbacks to decisions Trump made. |
|
| |
//This was the time I decided to investigate, and what I found was that the data doesn't support that claim.// |
|
| |
//Clinton 1993-2001 (no russian invasions)
Bush 2001-2009
2008 invasion of Georgia
Obama 2009-2017
2014 invasion of Ukraine
Trump 2017-2021
Biden 2021-present
2022 invasion of Ukraine
|
|
| |
So it seems like russia under Putin is invading places at a cadence of 8 years or so, give or take, and Trump's presidency just happened to fall in the interim.// |
|
| |
You showed your research, it's the same thing I showed. |
|
| |
This is getting boring. When somebody's holding onto a falsehood for emotional reasons nothing's going to change their mind. |
|
| |
Here's my revelation that I've mentioned before, intelligence vs awareness, they're two separate things. People with high intelligence, like you, are going to want to use that asset to better their lives, like with any strength. But what if that intelligence brings to light some truths that far from bringing comfort, bring discomfort, even anguish? The example I use is finding out there's no Santa Clause. Your IQ was the same before and after you found out, but your awareness changed. |
|
| |
Okay, so how did you feel after that? Better or worse? So in your research, what if you found that the cause of all evil in your universe, Donald Trump, might have actually done some things right? Would you feel better or worse? Worse, of course. So would you use your intelligence to just accept that or to refute it anyway you could, or at least soften the blow by pointing out his face is orange or something? |
|
| |
Every day I'm aware of that discomfort that sometimes comes with awareness. I know that the world's a very complicated place and although I'd love to have some kind of easy trope to hang on to, like there's one guy who's the center of all our problems, I can't. |
|
| |
But I understand why people want a simple out for this complicated world. Having a figure that's the center of all the problems on Earth is comforting, I get it, but I've given you another viewpoint, you can take it or leave it. |
|
| |
And let's not get into your next straw man argument which will be refuting my "implication" that Trump is perfect in every way. This turns into these mobius loop arguments that are reaaaaally dull. |
|
| |
Anyway, enough about Donald Trump already. Gets really boring really quick. |
|
| |
//You showed your research, it's the same thing I showed.// |
|
| |
Not quite - I added presidential terms. It's relevant that Trump served for one term of office (4 years) while all the others served two terms (8 years). Since Russia seems to be going to war about every 8 years.
That model might be overly simple - but I think at the very least, having a refractory period between starting conflicts is likely. Even if you don't believe in that, a random event model would give a single-term president good odds of avoiding being in post when Russia initiated hostilities over the period. |
|
| |
//So in your research, what if you found that the cause of all evil in your universe, Donald Trump, might have actually done some things right?
[...]
And let's not get into your next straw man argument which will be refuting my "implication" that Trump is perfect in every way.// |
|
| |
I feel like you might be confusing me with someone else.
I responded to your post about Trump - merely to point out you were overstating his effectiveness.
But I don't see how he's all that relevant to the current situation, to be honest. /I/ don't really care about him. |
|
| |
I think I heard a pin drop. |
|
| |
[pert], I take mine with a glug of goat milk, half-spoon of honey from happy bees. 'What? Not lemon? I hear you cry; lemon supply-chain issues in central Canuckistan. |
|
| |
Re: the idea: I quite like the entire decoy town created by distressed yet actively pranksterish villagers in Blazing Saddles. |
|
| |
Hey Loris, went back and read my stuff and it was a bit harsher sounding than I meant. You’re a smart guy I’m just so sick of this Trump stuff. In my defense I’m sick as a dog and didn’t sleep all night. |
|
| |
Good debate, I’m going to pass out now. |
|
| |
Thanks doc, that's good of you to say, I do appreciate it.
Get well soon! |
|
| |