Just a reminder...

Ok... your brainwashing is too entrenched for anyone to have a reasonable conversation with you. Keep on thinking that everyone sucks. Enjoy your hate. I will block you now.

 

Please do not miss characterize my opinion.
If you go back and read my original post I clearly stated that I do not think it is ever right to annex the country by military force

 

....

 

~ Abe Lincoln was a man ahead of his time. Remember when he said this ...?

 

Learn how to read for meaning, and don't be such a candy- ass.

I never said, or implied, anything of the kind, of which you now suggest. Almost my entire post, examined Jolly Penguin's proposition, and I quoted your entire post, about Penguin's prop:

FatBack said: ↑
That's a very good point. We would certainly not tolerate foreign Nations having bases and armaments near our borders.

Look at how the world freaked out during the Cuban missile crisis.

Disclaimer..

My post should in no way be construed to display support for Russia.


Then I began my post with the words, "Then why is @Jolly Penguin 's, a good point? If you both are trying to appreciate Russia's complaint, certainly no one should fault you, in that. But why does your comparison end there, and not carry through to how the U.S. might respond, in such a circumstance, versus what we are seeing from Russia, in Ukraine? Ukraine, I must remind all, a country which, before this unprovoked attack, from Russia, was by all estimates, a COUPLE OF DECADES AWAY, from being admitted to NATO:... "


You see the stuff I underlined, above? That is my question to you. Then, I begin examining Jolly's argument, which you'd said, you'd thought contained, "a good point"-- isn't that right? My point, since I apparently need to explain this to you, was that any point, about only half of a situation, which ignores the other half of it, could very well be a pretty irrelevant point.*


Eventually, I reach the conclusion of my own analysis, starting from that same "good point":

"What looks, to my mind, like the reasonable compromise, is NOT that Mexico should never be allowed to join China's alliance, but that China & Mexico should sign a treaty with us, to never put nuclear missiles in Mexico.

NATO's not putting nuclear missiles in Ukraine, IF it were ever to become a member, there's no reason to believe would be off the table, or to assume could not have been negotiated, far in advance of the need for this agreement."

And then, finally, I return to you, FatBack, by posing my original question, once again:

"So, once more, what is the value of a partial analogy, to something that the U.S. would not tolerate, if that is used to, in the slightest, excuse Putin's actions?
Our "solution," would not be comparable to Putin's"


I hope it is now clear to you that, nowhere in my post, did I "miss characterize (sic)" your opinion.
I would appreciate if you returned the spirit, you asked of me, by not erroneously suggesting that I have mischaracterized your post, when I have not.


*My apologies to those who dislike changes in typeface, but I want to make one re- explaining suffice, and FatBack somehow missed this point, the first time, so I am indicating the most central parts, for him. If ignoring my highlights, is how he decides to demonstrate his intelligence, well, I've done all that I could.

 

And I would agree with that.

 

It doesn't EXCUSE Putin's actions, but it does put them into context and make them more understandable. And it also highlights the role of the USA in this conflict. The Eagle is poking at the Bear, just as the Bear once poked at the Eagle, and both reacted similarly.

I think it would have been wise to offer to Russia to leave Ukraine out of any western alliance or influence, on the condition that Russia likewise leaves them independent. Then if Russia still pushes into Ukraine, it has lost all pretext and has no excuses.

 

Then your a dimwit, frankly. Thanks for saving us the time discovering that, from your longer opinions.

 

You can type all the long screeds you want but since you chose to be rude I chose not to read it.

You're so very intelligent but you don't understand how to communicate.

 

When the moderators ding you for your rudeness then you'll go around accusing people of reporting you won't you?

 

And what good is that? Every mass murderer, has a reason for what he does; that does not imply any different treatment, upon conviction. Your argument's disingenuous device is that you are claiming that you are not justifying his behavior, but you expect that making his calculus "understandable," makes some difference. As I pointed out-- acknowledging your understanding of Putin's motives-- if his only concern was NATO missiles in Ukraine, which you accept, on faith, despite Putin's giving of all manner of other rationales, as well-- it is rightfully part of Russia/never was an independent nation; it's run by NAZIs; they're perpetrating a genocide, of ethnic Russians-- then the OBVIOUS solution is NOT your suggestion of a promise to not let Ukraine into NATO, but instead, signing an agreement not to put any nuclear missiles in Ukraine.

That has the same effect (in the fantasy scenario in which Putin is not full of guano) as your suggestion, except it does not deprive a country of "free association," with any other countries it chooses, and does not set the terrible precedent of allowing one nation to dictate the company, that another country can keep. Therefore, the ONLY other reason for this understanding to come into play, would be to mediate our response; to be "understanding."

As I stated, and should be obvious (and is obvious, to most) not having missiles in Ukraine was not Putin's only concern. It was a pretext. There were always no more than two options: either there would be a coup in Ukraine, by someone who was willing to play ball with Putin, or Russia was going to invade.

The U.S., which had been trying to be as accommodating as possible to Putin, in looking to negotiate, to find a solution, short of invasion, has come out and said that all Russia's talk about wanting to come to some agreement to avoid war, was insincere, and just an attempt at good P.R.

But you believe what you want.

 

No, that one, I am expecting to be deleted. That doesn't mean that it isn't the truth, though, or a deserving reply to his post; after I had pored over my post to you, clarifying what I'm sure was clear to nearly anyone else. And yet, he still can't follow? That is no Ivy- leaguer, there, I'm afraid.

 

Translation: I proved you wrong, and you have no reply. (Candyass)

And we can add your false accusation to the others, because that appears to be all that you are capable of:

FatBack said: ↑

It's just moron idiot Biden it's almost got us in a war with Russia.

Now simply pointing that out is not equal support for Putin. It means Joe biden's a moron(1) and both of those things can be true at the same time.

I know it's really hard to process that and a partisan non-manner (2)


Sounds like: 1) Takes one to know one.

2) The voice of experience.



And my "long screed," as you put it, we can add to the very long list of words that you have shown that you do not understand.

My post, which leaves you wanting for a reply (FYI-- the appropriate one would be, "sorry I mistook you for mischaracterizing me," and yet went off and accused you of it, instead of waiting to get your response") was in no way suggestive of a screed; it was actually a very methodical explanation, for your benefit, because of your misunderstanding, which led to your false charge.

And, after I go through that trouble, you say that you're not going to read it-- the one who just falsely accused me of something-- because you found my answer to be "rude."

Well I find false accusations to be more than rude.



And I find your posts to be-- and moderator, I point out that I am using the word from FatBack's own post to me (above) which I've complained about, some time ago, yet is still there, so I assume it's OK for me to use the word, as well?-- utterly disingenuous, and (IMO) worthless tripe.

Since you find me so rude, please do us both the favor of not replying to my posts, in the future. You are not deserving of my effort,
or my ideas; which are as pearls, cast before...
FatBack.

 

I'd like to just take this opportunity to point out that you're the one who responded to my post so take your own advice and find the ignore button.

Since you seem incapable of controlling your juvenile urge to insult others.

 

For your information, there's a pro-fairness faction within the GOP...Fair to Russia and China, for examples. Dems, members of the center and members of the right misinterpret the willingness of a component of the GOP to being fair to Russia and China, for examples, as being pro-Russian and pro-Chinese. There's also this firmness component in the GOP about Russia and China which dems, certain members of the center and right totally ignore because they 'see the red' of being fair to Russia...Dems, certain members of the center and right castigate the fairness to China if it scores points against Trump, for example. I laugh because most dems, certain members of the center and right are far more 'fair' to China than Trump or any other member of this faction of the GOP which wishes to be fair and firm to Russia and China, for examples.

Now, I know, there's this bias against Russia from within parties on the left and right. In my opinion, most of the left hates Russia 'cause they still think Russia helped get Trump elected. In my opinion, the center and right which hates Russia wants to contain Russia within the 'reverse Iron Curtain' known as NATO. In my opinion, the center and right which hates Russia fears Russia can become as world dominant militarily and politically as the US if left unchecked...BTW, certain members of the center and right wish to maintain the current government in Ukraine to control the might of Russia...And, of course, members of the left still want to punish Russia for getting Trump elected.

Sidenote: One has to wonder why the center and right which hates Russia isn't all that concerned over the world domination militarily and politically by China? Or maybe, it is that the center and right which hates Russia foresees China becoming the dominant force militarily and politically and wishes to cozy up to China now??

Putin sees this hatred of everything Russia from factions within the left and right and is pissed. He should be. Putin should be treated fairly (and firmly) as Trump has done. All world leaders (including Xi of Communist China) need to be treated fairly and firmly...Maybe folks will finally figure this out.

 

Understanding why things happen and how people think is useful. I didn't say it is his only motivation. But it is a clear and obvious one, and one he is using as an excuse, and one that can be taken from him. Beyond that, you are reading a LOT in that I didn't write.

And you are clearly not capable of mature civil discussion, nor are you very insightful, so I will opt to ignore the rest of your existence here. I don't think I will miss out on anything.

 

No need to report such jackasses. Just put them on ignore. If people refuse to be civil, they don't deserve your time.

 

The "Right" as a whole, no. Elements on the Right, absolutely. https://www.google.com/search?q=sup...57j33i160.11196j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

And I'd like to point out to you that you just messaged me, in a dead & over conversation, just to tell me, not to message you.

Ever the hypocrite.

Sure, stay ignorant-- that'll show me.

 

With your limited, perceptive abilities, I don't doubt that you are right, about being able to take nothing from my posts.

Adios.

 

Thumbs up guy, have a nice existence and good luck with your anger issues.

 

Just want to add that I don't believe that the right supports Russia. However, because Trump has a hard-on for Putin, and some on the right are very hesitant to cross him or may actually agree with him, that minority of folks are what is creating the illusion that the right supports Russia. The Tucker Carlson's of the right aren't helping. I think a sizable portion of this Russian support is rooted more in anti-Bidenism than pro-Russian sentiments. Enemy of my enemy sort of thing. Just like the hyper-partisans on the left who despise Trump, their counterparts on the right put their dislike of Biden above all else, willing to appear to be pro-Russian if they think it will somehow make Biden look worse. Many of these folks are the one peddling this "tough" talk nonsense, those empty macho words and the empty macho ideas behind them, entirely disconnected from reality(because it's easier to be tough if you're not responsible for it and you don't have to be tethered by the inconvenient bonds of reality).

But despite those folks getting a lot of play in the media for their comments, they are still a small minority.

 

Seems like you'll need more luck, with your own, so the least I can do is return the wish, for you.

 

Well that escalated quickly...

 

A grain of truth there.