I said I'd reply if I found time. What peace could be 'negotiated'? You do not seem able to grasp the fact that no such negotiated peace exists, because: 1. Putin will not give up ANY of the UKRAINIAN TERRITORY he has invaded & annexed. 2. He will expect the artificial accession into the Russian Federation of not just Crimea, but Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk & Zaporizhzhia to be recognised internationally, even when half of those territories are not even under Russian control. He will expect the entirety of those oblasts to be accepted as fully part of Russia. 3. He will insist on the removal of Zelensky & all hid ministers as 'Nazis'....to be replaced by a puppet regime. 4. NONE of the above would be acceptable to the current Ukrainian government, nor most opposition groups. Remember, the current Ukrainian government won 73% of the vote in the election, so I think its views is very representative of those of the Ukrainian people. Do you propose removing that democratically-elected government to achieve a more 'malleable' situation? I thought you were very critical of any suggestions of 'regime change.' The level of negotiation that should be acceptable is whatever level the invaded country considers acceptable, NOT some carve-up that results in an incontrovertible act of indefensible aggression against an independent nation being rewarded with territorial gains. Were there to be a 'negotiated peace', how would it be policed? Can you see Putin accepting an UN force in an area he has publicly stated 'is and should forever be part of Russia'? Your list of semi-rhetorical questions are well and good & the implications behind them are truly worrying, but I'm of the opinion that attempting to prevent these catastrophes at present by, effectively, surrendering to Putin will only postpone the moment when they become evn more real, under a megolomaniac who would be even more determined and dangerous. I do not see how your stance affords you 'the moral high ground', based as it is on a list of pretty basic ethical questions taken out of any real context. And then you finish a perfectly valid post (if, in my view, a misguided one) with another puerile swipe at others.
I was NOT asking you to answer 'whether the war could have been stopped' though, was I? I was asking you this simple question: now that Russia has initiated a war by invading Ukraine which has then had the temerity to defend itself, should Ukraine be sacrificed so that the war could be stopped? I'm not asking about apportionment of blame for miscalculations in the 20+ years lead up to this point; that is a whole other discussion. We all want the war to end, but there is no way that can happen at present unless the international community sacrifices Ukraine's integrity on the altar of current expediency. I accept such 'expediency' would contain some welcome relief from current pains being suffered by many people in many countries, but at the same time I think it's pretty clear that any gains would not be long term, as Putin would just initiate another 'justified special military operation' to 'defend Russia from the evil West who want to destroy her.' Do you seriously believe Putin would abide by the terms on any 'negotiated peace'? And when he breaks those terms, what realistic counter-measures could be taken against him? Or would we then be having another discussion along the lines of 'well, a lot of Ukraine is already part of Russia, so why not let go of the rest?' Or, 'well, you know, Estonia is not very big & it's quite close to Kaliningrad, after all.'
As I have said in another post, you answered a question about what should be done NOW by stating what you thought could have been done BEFORE the invasion. Not the same thing at all.
Responds to question with an answer to a different question & then gets all self-righteous & insulting about it. Hilarious.
And you're seriously saying THAT is not as loaded a question as any you have been asked? A question that ignores any potential negative FUTURE consequences of allowing Putin to win on this issue. Your Biden question is just symptomatic of how you bizarrely approach the subject of the ongoing problems caused by an aggressive invasion launched by a megolamaniac self-styled Messiah through the lens of how bad Biden is. There were meetings & discussions in early 2022, but it became very clear very quickly that Russia had no intention to negotiate honestly. Do you recall Ben Wallace's description of his Feb 2022 meeting in Moscow before the invasion. where he stated, on the subject of the concern that Russia was intending to invade Ukraine, that (pace Kursaal Flyers) 'they knew that we knew that they knew that we knew that they were lying; but they kept on lying anyway'. The 'illusion of integrity' comment is one of your most humorous into that mirror.
Sorry. But that is what I was talking about. I stated that clearly several times. Not my fault if you only read the bits you want to see. There is little point in me saying what I think now because it has been completely F'd up, Biden has got what he wanted, and there is little or no alternative to it. I have always spoken about the war being avoided. But make no bones, if an opportunity arises for negotiation, I'd take it. It is F'd up. Do not expect me to provide an answer to the conundrum your boy got us into. And next time stick to the subject. My criticisms are of Biden's failure to prevent or even try to prevent the war.
You never asked me that. You stated it as a fact on a number of occasions, such You make many statements, but you never ask the question, you even state, in the same post you first mention it, that I haven't answered it AT THAT POINT. Demonstrating that you think you have already asked the question, which you hadn't. UEA did asked something similar, but he understood that I was referring to prevention, and not asking how I would tidy up this didaster that Biden has created. That post represents your own train of tjought on the subject, and does not contain a question, it only claims no answer has been given. It is rhetoric. There was no question. I asked my question long before this post, yet your reason for not answering me was that I hadn't answered a question you never asked. Don't make yourself ill.
Yes. But I think the whole thing could and should have been avoided, starting with a positive response from Europe to Trump's warning back in the day, and you don't. And I think all the other things I mentioned, if Biden had not committed to them, may have helped calm the situation. But you don't. Because Putin is evil. I just think he's another power crazy nob head like Biden and the rest of them, out to make whatever they can from the worlds woes. Funnily enough though, Trump may be a nob, but he is not like Biden and Putin, and I genuinely believe he would have done what he could to prevent a war. Make up what you like about that. But I think you know that is the case.
So. What did Biden do to prevent the war, and how did it fail? The only thing I can think of is his removal of Trump’s Nordstream sanctions. Presumably this was an appeasement to Putin. Have your gas pipeline, without sanction, and please don’t invade Ukraine. Not very convincing I am afraid. It is weakness personified, like your wife thanking you for giving her a lift to her boyfriends, then you have to let the tyres down on his car when he’s not looking, because you said you would if he saw her again. We’ll be nice to you if you are nice to us. It left Biden with little or no choice (an excuse, one might say) but to take out the pipeline, which serves US interests in many other ways. So, the one thing he discernibly did simply showed weakness (in terms of war prevention strategy) and opened Biden up to criticism that may come back to haunt him in future. It is a piece of industrial sabotage on a grand scale, and it has seriously affected world economics and energy supplies in Europe. You can blame Brexit for its affects, if you like, but no other country experiencing them will be doing so.
I agree the whole situation could have been prevented, but action needed to be taken WAY before....as soon as Putin was allowed to get his way in Georgia & Chechnya it was only going to escalate to a point when only direct military action would have caused him to even pause. That is many years before any pronouncements from Trump. I am no Biden supporter; in fact I have little confidence in any US politicians of either side. I do find the attempt to paint him as equally bad as Putin a baffling product of a worldview I can only describe once more as 'idiosyncratic'.
I have no problem with you saying 'I am not ready to discuss what should be done now; I am only talking about what could/should have been done before'. The problem I had was with you saying you had answered the question about the now, and then issuing perjorative comments about anybody who said you hadn't answered that question.
Sorry, but I have answered every question I could on the topic I was discussing, and believe I always do. I am not keen on being drawn into separate arguments, particularly the idea that I should solve an impossible situation caused by the very situation I wished to be avoided. I also believe that the questions I asked were clear, unambiguous and without pre-loading. The only arguably loaded element regarding Biden having done nothing to avoid the war, was the fact that we all know he did nothing to prevent the war. It is a question that, in my opinion, needed asking because everyone was saying it couldn’t be prevented, yet no one seemed to have the slightest consideration that world leaders should even try, which, to me, is bonkers. Recognising that Biden did nothing to prevent it, is an important consideration when you then understand, from his own words, that Putin cannot remain Russian leader, and that Nordstream 2 will cease to exist. Which, experience tells us, is him acting out standard US foreign policy, in the only way he knows how. I think he should be open to criticism, and that is what I have been doing. So, though I appreciate your last posts have been honest and respectful, I really can’t figure out what you mean with this one.
The unnecessary ‘don’t make yourself ill’ comment. I understand a lot of what you say about the lead up to the current situation and agree with some of it. I am just unable to view any of that as a face-off between what Trump and Biden did or didn’t do. Looking at Putin’s moves over the last 20 years, any attempts by either of them were going to be 15 years too late, unless either were willing to give him whatever he wanted. You think ‘firm diplomacy’ may have worked and you’ve got every right to hold that view; it’s the lurch into Biden-blame I find untenable. I cannot accept the view that we should offer Putin the rewards of ‘keeping what he’s taken’ on 2 counts: the fact it would involve selling out Ukraine whose only real crime is not wanting to be controlled by Putin’s Russia and that I believe it would be ineffective and actually counterproductive…we’d only end up where we are now with other innocents falling victim to Putin’s expansionist aims. I understand your despair as to how people are suffering now; I simply fear if a stand isn’t taken now, there will be more and worse to follow. Not for the first time, or last, I’m sure, we’ll just have to agree to differ. I’m off on holidays soon, but don’t tell Dave.
Trump rambles on about George Soros and Globalist ‘puppet masters’ in a call for cash that absolutely no one could read as playing into antisemitic tropes. https://twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1628212682896670721?s=46&t=eJvsOOXYNBzLupdeP2F28w https://forward.com/fast-forward/53...e-soros-jewish-billionaire-fundraising-email/
Explain please, Moose. How is that anti-Semetic? Which anti-Semetic trope are you refering to? Are you saying that Jews are commonly described as billionaire socialists funding anti capitalist judiciary and politicians? The Soros foundation does that without apology, so when Trump says what he says, he is merely agreeing with Soros himself. But it certainly isn't a Jewish trope. In fact, it could be described as the antithesis of the standard anti-Semetic jewish trope. In fact, you, a complete and utter leftie by your own claim, describing Trump as making a racist insult to all Jews because he describes them as effective socialist activists who are a threat to capitalism, is a little bit of a conundrum, and a contradiction of your own ideology that comes as a surprise to no one. In addition to being utter rubbish. Criticise him for cynical fund raising, like all American politicians (say, Pelosi fund raising off the back of an assault on her husband), but calling him anti-Semetic for criticising a billionaire, among others, who happens to be Jewish, is a bit like using Jewish identity as a political tool, which genuinely could been seen as insulting to a minority.
Hooter, you read sufficient right wing sources to be fully aware that anti-semites use ‘tropes’ of alleged Jewish globalist ‘puppet masters’ of which Soros is the most well-known. No one on the right uses Soros’s name to praise him. It’s all about spreading the false notion of a racial conspiracy in global finance. You only have to consider what the view would be if Corbyn claimed an elite conspiracy with Soros behind it. @iamofwfc you are letting yourself down by associating yourself with apologies for prejudice.
Jews may be among the "globalist puppet masters" as are billionaires of all types, but it is not a Jewish trope that they are socialist anti capitalists, as Soros openly is, and Trump merely recognised. Write to Soros and ask him, for goodness sake! You are desperately reaching for racism in a matter where it clearly is not present, or even requiredto be invoked. Again, as I said happens, you are asked for an exllanation, and your answer, literally, is shut up, we all know he is anti semetic. Well. No we don't. Where do you get this ridiculous 'trope' from, that Jews are billionaire socialist anti capitalist activists?
Run down of those Soros conspiracy theories. People can decide if they are a good thing for former President Pussy Grab to run with. @iamofwfc can tell us through the medium of ‘likes’ whether he wants to be associated with them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theories
Ah. Got it. It told you in the tweet what to say, so you said it without having to think. Litetally, you have shown that that is what you did. And you invented your own myth by doing so. Trump didn't mention a single one of those loony conspiracies. But the Soros Foundation openly funds Lawyers and judges with a socialist leaning, it being their thing. Many Americans are not sympathetic to what Soros is doing (simply and only because he is a commie), and all Trump is doing is recognising that. Is it offensive to recognise something Soros openly embraces now? So again, what did Trump say that was anti-Semetic? In the clip that you linked to as an example of him being anti-Semetic. Establish your moral position on this before you start spraying around your baseless "Hooter is anti-Semetic" schlep. Be careful what you say too, please. You are on the verge of going beyond offensive. If you think I am defending anti-Semetism, you prove it, and then criticise me... Now too might be a chance for you to revisit your defence of Labour under Corbyn. Whatever you say of me, it is nothing that hasn't been laid at your door previously, only with you, there has always been your own words to use against you. If you don't say it, I can't quote it.
Is there any way Trump could have directly criticised Soros without Moose calling him anti-Semetic? If you find the answer to be no, then you can come to your own conclusions. And yes. I am a bit of s nob.
Have you lost the plot? Because, Moose, he was talking about the behaviour of Mega Billionaires like Soros and the Koch brothers (sorry, I assumed you had watched the video you linked to and quoted from). He can't really do that without making it clear who he is talking about. I shouldn't be surprised that you think there is something wrong when a person speaks about politically controversial characters from the left, no more sutprised than you crying anti-Semetism for mentioning a person who, incidentally, is Jewish. That is the unpleasant extremist point of view you can be expected to communicate. I am glad you are so keen for people to be able to judge you. So anyway. You stated, using the medium of iamofwatfordfc blaming, that I was defending anti-Semetism. Please can you explain yourself. Such accusations shouldn't be made lightly, no matter how odious a person may be. So please explain... Or was it all lies, and you were making it up?
You think the ADL and JC got this wrong then? Why would Trump choose to continue this line of politics, given this history? Soros isn’t the only mega-wealthy person on the planet. Why continue to pick him out? But you know the reason. Weasel words from you to defend your man. https://www.thejc.com/news/world/fo...eSaLuTnvT2XgjbKPSkxJ?reloadTime=1677110400011
Answer the question Moose. Why do you say I was defending anti-Semetism when I asked you what Trump said that was anti-Semetic? Clarify what he said that was ant-Semetic and maybe explain how he can address the unpopular activities of the Soros foundation (a very real socialist/ant-capitalist effort) without mentioning the Soros foundation? Just because you would rather he didn't highlight it (which Soros makes no bones about), doesn't mean it is anti-Semetic. That is a serious allegation, and you threw it at me on this forum with not a shred of evidence to support your rather distasteful claim. Now you are justifying your claim by saying "but fox". But that is not what I was defending and I have never defended fox on here. Yet you have defended Labour anti-Semetism, by saying it wasn't as bad as the tories. Justify what you said about me Moose. It was nasty. But I am glad it is on here because you have done this to yourself. I may not be popular, but I think people know that I do not say anything unless I can back it up. Try it.
Yes, yes, Moose. But are you going to explain why you said I was defending anti-semetism Moose? That is a nasty slur. What kind of unpleasant person would make up such things about another person? I assume you cannot. Perhaps you should consider reigning in your unfortunate accusations when you can't back them up.
You’ve associated yourself with Trump’s position, one that I’ve demonstrated Jewish groups and others find to be deeply concerning antisemitic tropes. That was your choice (and @iamofwfc) to do so. You are correct that most forum members have a low opinion of you (both) and this won’t improve it. Here’s an idea. Stop responding to each post with a ton of unpleasant, supercilious verbiage and think about what your own replies say about you.
Oops What have I accused you of that was not evidenced by your own words? You have accused me of being anti-Semitic on this forum, the least you can do is explain why. Saying I associated myself with Trump’s position is now a NEW LIE. I did not do that, I asked you how calling out Soros, the Koch brothers and Biden (the content of the video) was an act of anti Semitism? And your reaction was not to explain, but to call me anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Semitic Moose. I have Jewish heritage and good friends in the community. What you said is offensive and a pack of lies. And there is nothing I said that justified it. You can apologise, if you like, but you don’t have to. From my point of view, the odious nature of your contrary opinions is better shown by your own behaviour, than deleted threads or face saving acts. You are the only person on this forum who has defended anti-Semitism (in Corbyn’s Labour, saying it wasn’t as bad as the tories) in any form or to any degree. Yet here you are, lying about me, and calling two members on the forum anti-Semitic apologists without any fair explanation, other than that you think we are. How odious. I hope the mods can resist deleting this thread, because everything you have said was done totally on your own volition. I have not had to make anything up to say what I say about you. And if you find it unpleasant, maybe you should have thought about that before spouting your lies and unpleasantries. IF THIS STAYS UP, you will likely stay clear of such unfounded insults in future. If it is deleted, as has happened before, you will carry on making up lies and slurs to smear other posters with. NO ONE ELSE DOES IT MOOSE. ONLY YOU. No one should be banned, but also, no one should be censored. I can’t say you called us anti-Semitic sympathisers without you having done so. Sorry to the forum. I know it is tedious, but please imagine if you had been called anti-Semitic without reason.
Baffling. I’ve not called you that once. You have chosen to put forward a ridiculous argument to support Trump and deny that he used an antisemitic trope, which he obviously did. That’s your problem, not mine. By all means, involve the mods if you like. Hopefully they will get around to banning you for the endless trolling. Somewhat ironic that you, who constantly implies racism, disablism, homophobia in others by making strident assertions about what others mean, gets so prissy on this. The floor is open to you to disassociate yourself from Trump’s comments or own them. The choice is yours.
As I say Moose. I only say it when I can back it up with your own words. If you are not calling me an appologist for anti-Semitism there, what are you doing? I think it is fair to say that someone making up rubbish like that is a bare faced unappologetic liar. You have an opportunity to explain, but you keep doubling down. And you still haven't explained why Trump's critical comments about Soros, the Kochs (not Jewish, right wingers) and Biden (devout Catholic) that was anti-Semitic, other than to say it is your opinion that simply using Soros's name is an act of hate towards Jews, even when you are criticising others who are not Jewish. You are just saying that no one can criticise George Soros. Now apply that to Israel (I wouldn't, but it is your argument now). No need for mods, I was just trying to head off your usual schtick. If you are going to call me, at the very least, an appologist for anti-Semitism, explain yourself. And explain why you also think it is OK for you to be an appologist for anti-semitism (Labour) and racism (****ish East African Asians), and still get to criticise others who never spoke or defended either. I think I have asked yoy fair questions.
Meanwhile, the Dominion vs Fox News case continues with interesting admissions from the Fox side. They knew the ‘stolen election’ narrative was nonsense that only bizarre freaks would buy. Unfortunately, those bizarre freaks were their subscribers, so they kept on giving it airtime. We all know where that went. I would have liked us to be stronger in denouncing it in hindsight,” Murdoch said in the deposition Murdoch himself dismissed Trump’s claims, describing the former president’s obsession with proving the election was stolen as “terrible stuff damaging everybody”. Murdoch acknowledged in his deposition that he could have ordered the network not to platform Trump lawyers such as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani on its programs: “I could have. But I didn’t,” he said. (Sean) Hannity said: “That whole narrative that Sidney (Powell) was pushing, I did not believe it for one second” https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/27/rupert-murdoch-deposition-dominion-lawsuit-fox-news
