The flat earther thing is expanding on my claim, in the flat earth thread, that the arguments you guys make are akin to those of flat earthers. My belief is that they don't even believe what they say themselves, so whenever you guys contradict yourselves making some virtue signalling but ill thought out piece of reactionary comment, I point it out, and liken you to flat earthers. Personally, I think it works quite well. Like you saying ceding territory may have worked, and then saying nothing could have worked. You cancel yourself out, you see, because you don't believe the arguments you make, because you do not think about them enough. You have allowed others to do any thinking for you. Biden has come out and said regime change, and even the Chinese are criticising the US for its ecologically disasterous destruction of the pipeline. That one rather makes septuagenerians sitting on a trunk road in Tooting seem a little redundant; and I don't think anyone has thrown custard on one of Hunter Biden's fine works of art in offence to that aggressive action against European gas supplies. But you think its all tin foil hats, and, despite the only piece of opinion you gave to the matter (that ceding territory could have saved a war), you now disagree with yourself and say that nothing could have saved a war. If you are confused, have a word with yourself. So anyway. Is the war good? Has it achieved everything you hoped it would? Is it worth all the death, eco-disaster and economic breakdown across the globe? Are you thanking the heavens for delivering us from loosing Donbas? And remember, all I am criticising is the complete absence of any attempt to prevent the war, and behaviour from Biden, since, that has indicated two major objectives of the same old, same old US foreign policy that we have seen in every war they have been involved in since WWII.
I think you have had your gammon arse kicked and garnished with a slice of pineapple, personally. And it wasn't me that did it, but once again it was yourselves. Your all too familiar MO of making bold statements that you then go on to contradict as if no one can look a few posts back is my greatest strength when making arguments. But at least the forum knows how many times I pointed out gammon like behaviour. I can see you now with a pencil and a bit of scrap paper... Moose: "1 gammon, 2 gammon, 3 gammon..." And you think it is me that insults your intelligence? Ha. PS. And I get the usual demands to answer questions I have already answered, but not one of you has answered a single question I have asked. Like I say. It's a good day to ignore me. Just like you always do when I ask you to justify yourself.
It is his current insult of choice, following on from such side-splitters as 'middle-class lefties' and 'gammons'. @SkylaRose is to blame as she started a thread musing on how much respect she should try to show to people who state the belief that the earth is flat. HH then posited the thought that such 'flat earthers' may only be presenting their claimed views as a means to generate some kind of disruption to generally-accepted viewpoints. It now seems to have mutated into something to call anyone who, surprisingly, do not accept his idiosyncratic 'worldview'. Not for the first time, I find myself in awe of his command of irony.
Could the most recent Russian invasion of Ukraine had been stopped? ('Most recent' to distinguish it from the invasions of 2014). It has been suggested that some form of territory concessions linked to 'peace keeping accords and trade deals' could have prevented this invasion. Is this meant to imply that the 2014 invasion & annexation of Crimea should simply be accepted, and to hell with any considerations of how Ukraine and its citizens feel? Should the partial invasion & control of Donbas & Luhansk also be accepted? Maybe the proposal is to go the whole hog and agree to deprive Ukraine of the whole of these 2 regions, which are their most significant industrial resource. And then link this to a peace accord; the sort of agreement that we all know Putin would broker with utmost sincerity, a bit like the way he completely disregarded the Budapest Memorandum under the terms of which Russia was a signatory GUARANTEEING Ukraine's independence and security. Maybe it simply slipped his mind, but we will be able to trust him on this. All such suggestions ignore the facts of Putin's approach. He has openly stated Ukraine 'has no right to exist as a separate country'. No grey areas there. He has stated he will not stop until the 'Nazi elite governing Ukraine' is removed and destroyed. You know, that Nazi elite government led by Zelensky who only received 73% of the vote. (No doubt Poroshenko has evidence his victory was 'stolen'). But, hey, yes, he really is someone we can all get round the table with and negotiate with in good faith. It's a horrible situation and the impact on innocent people all over the world has been terrible. But is anyone suggesting that Ukraine should effectively be sacrificed so that the rest of the world do not suffer as much? That is the explicit conclusion that has to be drawn from the idea that territory should be ceded to Russia and everyone crosses their fingers that Putin will 'behave' henceforth. All the evidence suggests he will not. Any 'peace accords' will be subject to the drip-drip of disinformation claiming Ukrainian misdeeds all along any demarcation line, justifying Russian '(military) peacekeepers' to intervene to 'protect the people': just ask Georgia on that one. There is no evidence to suggest he will stop with Ukraine; the Baltics and/or Eastern Poland WOULD be next (as he views those regions ethnically and rightfully part of Russia) & as that would involve a direct attack on NATO countries, the current world disruption would seem but a minor inconvenience compared to the consequences. Better to take our medicine now, awful as it is. The 'concessions' approach is redolent of naivete and seems akin to 1930s appeasement.
So you are citing previous apathy as justification of ongoing apathy? As for appeasement, isn't that what Joe Biden got. He wants regime change, and he has already destroyed Europe's primary source of affordable gas from Russia, plus the military industrial complex is making billions of bucks whilst the economical affect gives him the perfect distraction from his own policies, and the threat of nuclear war, made worse by his own comments, makes people look more to their government. Biden is winning 2-0 so far. Consider him appeased. And are you now on record saying that giving Putin what he asked for would not have worked? Flat earther.
So you’re happy for Ukraine to be sacrificed so that, it would seem, you can blame Biden. Pleasant. In a very early post in the thread ‘Ukraine: WW3’ I detailed a variety of errors ‘the West’ had made in the build up to the 2022 invasion, so in no way do I exculpate ‘western governments’ from the succession of events that led to the current situation. US governments of both colours, UK, European, all bear some culpability. As do such as China and India with their implicit (maybe even explicit) promises of support no matter what actions Putin decided to take. So we are where we are, and the CURRENT question seems to be: do we sacrifice Ukraine and its interests in the hope of curtailing Putin’s aggression? Important to notice the difference in emphasis here: Ukraine WILL be sacrificed whilst we can only HOPE Putin will refrain from future acts of aggression against independent, sovereign states. Thus far you seem to have decided not to give a straight answer to that.
Would you have let Hitler carry out the holocaust without consequences because going to war would've caused a greater loss of life + impact the economy? That's every day tbh.
Yes, Europe and the US bear some culpability (you have chosen to overlook that I have been extremely critical of Europe ignoring Trump's warning, but that is no surprise given that forgetting key assertions, spoken plainly and without ambigution, is somewhat your schtick), possibly China and India too, but you are truly into the realms of speculation there. The US are the 'world police' in these matters. Biden was the man in the hot seat. I didn't s Do you believe there was nothing the US could have done to avoid the war? Do you think that what has transpired since the war started is actually a better thing than, worst case scenario, Putin was given everything he asked for (not discounting that a strong negotiator in a position of power might have got Russia to accept less than everything they wanted). Do you think Trump warning Europe about engaging in energy trading with Russia was a fair point to make? Remebering that European leaders laughed at his suggestion. Do you think that ignoring Trump and committing to energy trading with Russia emboldened and enabled Putin or discouraged him and made it more difficult? Do you think Biden saying 'a small incursion by Russia may go unpunished' emboldened Putin or discouraged him? Do you think Biden removing Nord Stream 2 sanctions put in by Trump emboldened Putin or discouraged him? Do you think Biden becoming President emboldened Putin or discouraged him? Do yo uthink Biden stating that regime change had to happen in Russia calmed things down or heated them up? Putin is a bad guy in all this. But I think that the same can be said for Biden. If he was Trump in exactly the same situation (that is, he did nothing to prevent the war and only acted in ways that exacerbated it) I would hold him equally in contempt. It is not about people or sides for me, it is about actions and in-action. But you, clearly, will attack Trump no matter what he does, and defend Biden no matter what he does.
If you like. 1 min 20 secs: "If the Russians cross the border, there will no longer be a Nordstream 2" Joe Biden, February 2022. For some reason I find myself trusting him completely on that, given the evidence. Even more so now I can apply s little hindsight. It's funny when you choose to believe him and when you choose not to. And the Chinese appear to be of the belief that the US did it. Demanding serious explanations from the Biden administration for its effect on the world economy.
No. And if it had been reported that Putin was rounding up the region's Jews and shipping them in from Hungary, by train, to the Donbas to be exterminated, then I would have been calling for a combined International response. But that is not what was happening, and as it goes, it seems that there are nearly as many fascists on the side of the Ukrainians as there are on side of the Russians. What incredibly fatuous and self degrading questions you ask. If the measure is, you lot don't like answering questions I ask because the answers are inconvenient to you, then I agree. Every day, tbh, for certain.
Are people even aware that Biden has spent over two million dollars shooting down what appear to be three hobbyist weather balloons, over the US? Apparently they cost around $500 each. It's only allegedly though. But apparently they stopped looking for debris from all but the very first, verified, Chinese spy balloon, without even finding anything.
Oh yeah! And do you have any comment as to the hundreds of thousands of deaths, impact on the world economy, ecological disasters both as a result of the war and of sabotage of Nordstream, destruction of whole cities, enriching of corporate bodies, threats of armageddon, etc., that the war has brought with it? Or are you going to say that is all 'alleged' as well. The fact that of all these things, the only one you chose to comment on was Nordstream, is very telling about how much you care about anything. And can anyone say that they think that what has ensued is better than what was avoided? You know, actually address the the ongoing outcomes, and say they are worse than the Russian's taking administrative control of the Donbas? Go on. Someone say this war is better than the alternative.
No. It is a description I use for people who argue with themselves using me as the medium. And not for the first time, I find myself amused by your grasp of life and the world around you.
‘Flat earther’ labels other people ‘flat earthers’ because they decline to accept his persistent claims that the earth is flat. Is there no end to the irony?
I suppose insulting Hooter is easier than saying that you think the war is a good thing, and the deaths, economic, ecological and existential issues it brings with it are better than bothering to negotiate a peace. Hooter, nob or not, at least appears to have the moral high ground on you. When will this war end? How many lives are enough? What ecomonic fall out is unacceptable to you? What ecological fall out is unacceptable to you? What level of nuclear conflict is unacceptable to you? Is there any level of negotiation that is acceptable to you? More questions for you lot to completely ignore!! Whilst criticising me for not saying what Biden might have done, despite my having repeated to you the one thing you all said he could have done. You are calling me a flat earther, but only because it is a hollow insult with no reasoning behind it, other than that I have used it on you. I am calling you flat earthers because you are arguing with your own claims, whilst calling everyone else idiots. Please don't ever change. When I am having a bad day, seeing you guys dig little holes into big ones cheers me up no end.
I don't think it is devastating, but you are talking about it, so it has obviously hit a spot... And it'll give you something else to do after you have finished counting the uses of "gammon" and "gammons" on the forum. Let me know when your pencil needs sharpening.
Question. What is the word for the type of ‘when did you last beat your wife’ questioning Hooter employs above? I’m sure there is a term for it. Beyond simply trolling, which is obvious. Somewhat ironic that Hooter demands answers to his questions, when he failed to provide answers to simple questions posed by his grandiose statements. He claimed the West could have prevented the war. How? He couldn’t answer.
It's known as a "loaded question", a type of logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Can you please answer the question that has been put to you more than once: do you think Ukraine should be sacrificed so the rest of us don’t suffer as much? (with the concomitant result that Putin’s aggression is rewarded thus ensuring future such acts from him) Everything else you have posted on this is repetitive waffle, attempting to cover up some ‘interesting’ levels of Putin apologia without having to accept the unpalatable implications of what you are saying.
I have answered it, but, yet again, you and Moose are avoiding answering my questions by saying I haven't. You guys have answered it yourselves. I believe that a determined and strong US leader who wanted to avoid war could have done so, or at the very least tried and show themselves to have tried. I believe that could have stretched from total capitulation (which a number of people on here suggested themselves would do the job) up to political (face saving) concessions rather than ceding land (though Crimea would likely to have been recognised as under Russian administration), guarantees and sanctions that may have had the desired effect. You do not agree. But that is what I believe. Now, you do not like the answer, but that is it. So how about some answers of your own to the questions I have asked? I predict now that you will not give any, and in a few posts time will be saying once again that I haven't answered, because that is what you always do. You are funny, both of you. But I enjoy it, so I don't mind. You make yourselves look far worse with your squirming, insults, apparent ignorance of your subject matter and lack of answers than I could possibly make you look. I just like drawing it out of you by making my point. Between Moose counting words and you telling me that I haven't answered your questions, despite having done so repeatedly, you make a right pair. But I don't think much of your gammon revolution's chances.
You have not answered, so stop pretending you have. You have made various other points which I will respond to when I have time as I currently do not have a lot of time.
Spell out the bits I haven't answered, and I'll link you to the posts, or give you an answer. Here is what I consider to be my most recent answer, which is in the message your post above replies to... Let me know how that does not answer your question, or has not done so in the four or five times I have previously explained it. You are simply avoiding answering my questions, just as you always do. Anyone else on here would hang their head in shame mate.
Go on. Ask the question again... The one thing that everyone on here knows for certain, 63, is that you will do everything you can to avoid answering the questions I have asked you. And they all know that I have answered your question. Everyone one knows that, even your little buddy who has disappeared again at the point where an answer may be expected from him. The pair of you are totally transparent, and I have no problem calling you out because you do it all the time to me, and others.
Thanks Arakel. No idea why you brains trust guys insist on making my arguments for me, but glad that you do… Leftie gammon’s question to Hooter (a loaded question): Hooter answered that one. Here’s another… Answered that one too. Tell me those are not two of the most horrendously loaded questions you could imagine. Hooter’s original question to the forum: What did Biden do to stop the war and how did it fail? That went unanswered. Another straight Hooter question: Do you think that what this war has brought (the deaths, social, economic and ecological affects) is better than ceding the Donbas? Also unanswered. Both very straight and very obvious questions that you would think any person might ask. Like I say, you guys show what you are far better than I ever could. I would have thought, if you guys on this forum wanted to maintain some illusion of integrity, that the last thing you would want to do is start raising loaded questions as an issue, or highlight the fact that you never answer the straight questions put to you. You, personally, are probably the most oblique and non-responsive poster on here! But thanks for your support, by doing both, on this subject.
You would have taken more wind out of my sails if you had answered the questions mate. As it goes, you simply showed yourself up for what you are. The only things you can throw at me are insults and accusations of not answering your questions, despite the fact everyone, however much they dislike me, can see I have. Do you think that is a good look for you.
Your questions have been answered. Most contributors to this debate, including me, do not feel that the Donbas should be ceded for peace, if the Ukranians want to fight. It was, after all, slightly ethnically Ukranian, not Russian. No basis for imposing authoritarian foreign Government on it. And people also believe that ceding territory wouldn’t necessarily stop the conflict anyway. Russia would take it and simply continue the conflict. It will not allow Ukraine to forge its own path and will insist on a Belarus style state. This means that peace made out of duress wouldn’t be anything of the sort. No one wants this war and your supercilious, vapid pronouncements on what others think and want are disrespectful. But then that’s your game and why we mostly don’t engage.
While we'd all like the Russians and Ukrainians to sort this horrific situation out by negotiation, I'm not sure that there is much point in talking to Putin and his gang given that time and again they have shown themselves to be shameless liars
Fair opinions. I disagree about the affects and in part the conclusions, for the reasons I have previously stated. However, my question is not, and never was, "should we stand with Ukraine now the war has started?" Which given the unfortunate situation we were put in, in my opinion, of the war being left to happen, seems like the lesser of two evils, rather than the moral crusade of those fighting for freedom. My questions are. Are the affects and future risks of the war (death, economic, ecological, existential) more desirable (to the wider world) than Russia taking administrational control of the Donbas? And. What did Biden do to prevent the war, and why did it fail? But thank you, at least, for a civil post. Your other speculation is fair to make, and should be an important consideration. But given US and European military might, trading power and influence, I am not at all convinced that any deal eeked out would have resulted in much worse than Ukraine losing the Crimea, trade guaratees between Ukraine and Russia and reassurances regarding NATO\Russo expansion. To me, claims that Putin would not stop are akin to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: simply an excuse. I believe that a strong US or even European lead (I include us in that) could keep a fading Putin at bay. This is his end game. Not his life's mission. Now, we don't agree, but we have both expressed our opinions and no one got insulted. Life's good.
