Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is a thread I just posted here on OL that is relevant to this discussion.

War Lies

I was going to post material here. But we already know, war mongers lie and their will be plenty of lies to come. So over time, a discussion of the Ukraine mess will not be as relevant as a more general thread.

Now, there is a correct place to expose or discuss new war lies in real time.

 

For now, though, the Ukraine mess is still happening. 

And speaking of the Ukraine mess, has anybody noticed how easily it fell off the headlines with the SCOTUS leak on overturning Roe v. Wade?

That's because the headlines are more about the upcoming midterm elections than anything else. And the predator class is taking a beating not seen in a long, long time.

The Ukraine mess, not just the headlines about it, is also about the predator class keeping power. But even the war mongers are feeling the jingoes are just not working this go around. So no need to worry about too many headlines anyway. They'll settle for the grift.

Or at least what they can put over on the public.

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 4/8/2022 at 7:08 PM, Abiding Dude said:

On 4/8/2022 at 6:41 AM, tmj said:

The massacre in Bucha ? Given the timing of the deaths ‘documented’ by satellite ‘evidence’ , those bodies are most likely the results of the area being shelled , the civilians died in their own town from artillery fire . Were the Russian forces that occupied the area shelling themselves ?

A good survey of the information about Bucha is available from Meduza here. As they state, "After Russian troops captured the city, the active fighting stopped; judging by the state of the buildings (which were largely left intact compared to those in other Ukrainian cities), artillery fire happened relatively infrequently. This was confirmed by NASA’s global fire map, FIRMS, which uses satellite imagery: most of the fires in the city were recorded in late February, when Russian troops were first entering the city and Ukrainian troops were firing at them. From March 5 to the end of the month, less than ten large fires were recorded in Bucha, while dozens were recorded in Irpin. This suggests that the Bucha residents who died in the second half of March did not die as a result of ongoing military activity."

Big Reuters story on Bucha. 

Love letter, ID card point to Russian units that terrorised Bucha

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

Eyewitness testimony, discarded documents and social media posts point to the Russian soldiers and chain of command in the bloody occupation of the Ukrainian city of Bucha

 

[william.scherk]

On 4/26/2022 at 4:15 PM, william.scherk said:

The most popular of Russian media gets a lot of attention right now.  How else to monitor and attempt to understand what the Russians will do next -- and what kinds of arguments they use to persuade their audiences ... ?

 

Russian will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, foreign ministry says

WWW.REUTERS.COM

---

Russia will not use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, foreign ministry spokesman Alexei Zaitsev said on Friday.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Another war lie exploded.

They’re Going to Get Us All Killed: Biden Regime Helped Ukraine Sink Russian Ship the Moskva – Then Leaked it to Warmongers in Liberal Media (VIDEO)

They're Going to Get Us All Killed: Biden Regime Helped Ukraine Sink Russian Ship the Moskva - Then Leaked it to Warmongers in Liberal Media (VIDEO)

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

The Russian Moskva before it was sunk in April. The Biden regime is going to get us all killed. US intelligence, under the direction of Joe...

Remember the Russian ship that everybody on the Deep State side held up as proof that the heroic Ukraine was winning in a David vs. Goliath contest?

The USA military under Biden was in it up to its eyeballs. The USA pinch-hit for Ukraine. That was not Ukraine's varsity team doing that. More realistic than getting us all killed, the USA was getting hoards of Ukrainians killed.

To use another analogy, a big dog picks a fight with a beast but makes it look like--to the beast--that a chihuahua did it, then turns the fight over to the chihuahua. What does anyone think will happen?

Oh, there's a lot of CYA talk in this exposure, but the USA is doing war without declaring war. And without anyone in the administration coming to the American people and presenting the case. Hell, even Bush sold the Iraq invasion before doing it.

But no need to sell? Just what the war mongers love.

Now imagine, think the war mongers, if they can goad Putin into making a move that they can sell to the world as a first attack by Russia against the USA.

Man, just think of all that money...

 

But on the side of the people who do not want to pay for this or send their kids to die for it, thank God for the Internet. The time between a lie and the exposure of it is short enough to remove most of its propaganda power.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

May 9?

"Russia reveals massive scope of May 9 military parades as war in Ukraine rages on"

"Russia has revealed Wednesday that tens of thousands of people and hundreds of aircraft are set to participate in military parades on May 9 to celebrate its victory in World War II. 

"The scope of the demonstrations, which were outlined by Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu during a meeting with Moscow’s armed forces, come as President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is in its 70th day. "

Russia reveals massive scope of May 9 military parades as war in Ukraine rages on

WWW.FOXNEWS.COM

---

Russia has revealed Wednesday that tens of thousands of people and hundreds of aircraft are set to participate in military parades on May 9...

"Don't Be Surprised if Putin Tries to Make May 9 a Day That Will Live in Infamy"

“‘Escalate to Deescalate’ is one of those Dr. Strangelove-sounding oxymoronic stratagems from the Bad Old Cold War Days when the Nuclear Bomb of Damocles dangled over our heads. But it’s real. It isn’t from the Cold War. It’s current Russian doctrine and it might be coming as soon as Monday.”

Don't Be Surprised if Putin Tries to Make May 9 a Day That Will Live in Infamy

PJMEDIA.COM

---

“Escalate to Deescalate” is one of those Dr. Strangelove-sounding oxymoronic stratagems from the Bad Old Cold War Days when the...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Even the Pope, yes, even that one, the leftie Pope Francis, is telling the war machine to knock off its bullshit about Ukraine and Russia.

POPE FRANCIS BLAMES NATO FOR UKRAINE WAR!

Pope Francis Blames NATO for Ukraine War!

WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

---

Few would describe Pope Francis as a Russia apologist or a puppet of Vladimir Putin, yet the pontiff recently adopted the same line as many...

Here's a direct quote from the Pope about the probably reason Putin invaded Ukraine:

Quote

NATO barking at Russia’s doors.

 

Here's another article, but there are plenty out there. Many have a lot of spin in them, but they can't turn the Pope's words around enough to make them not say what the Pope said. For instance, here:

Pope Francis suggests the 'barking of NATO at Russia's door' may have forced Putin to invade Ukraine

Pope Francis suggests the 'barking of NATO at Russia's door' may have forced Putin to invade Ukraine

WWW.FOXNEWS.COM

---

Pope Francis appeared to partly blame the West for Russia's invasion of Ukraine in an interview published this week, suggesting that the...

Or here:

Pope Francis says NATO, ‘barking at Russia’s door,’ shares blame for Ukraine

Pope Francis says NATO, 'barking at Russia’s door,' shares blame for Ukraine

RELIGIONNEWS.COM

---

VATICAN CITY (RNS) — In an interview with Il Corriere della Sera, the pope said he hopes to visit Moscow and meet President Vladimir Putin.

From this last article:

Quote

Pope Francis told an Italian newspaper on Tuesday (May 3) that NATO may be partly to blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and he said he hopes to visit Moscow to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in hopes of brokering a peace.

Talking to reporters from Il Corriere della Sera, Francis said that “NATO barking at Russia’s doors” may have raised alarms in the Kremlin about the Western European alliance’s intentions in Ukraine. “I can’t say if (Russia’s) anger was provoked,” he continued, “but facilitated, maybe yes.”

Even the Pope...

 

And, hey!

Biden's a Catholic, ain't he?

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 4/30/2022 at 12:41 PM, william.scherk said:

Among the questions I have are: "Are civilians from areas under Russian control being evacuated to the east?" and "what happens to any such civilians?"

It may be standard in war to detain and interrogate military-age men.  They may well be trained operators, scouts, communication relays ...

This looks to be very grim, should it turn out to be true ...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

Just as curiosity, do you ever have any empathy for the Russians or Russian sympathizers in Ukraine who have been harmed or killed by Ukrainians?

The tenor from your posts is that Russians are not human. So whether they live or die is irrelevant. That may not be your position, but that's what your posts communicate.

And just to remind you, as given in countless posts on this thread, my stance is that the war must end through peaceful means if possible because ALL war casualties are to be grieved.

I find war casualties--on all sides--committed due to the machinations of the Deep State not only grieving-worthy, they are morally offensive to me at a primal level since they are manipulated deaths for money. They are pointless except for those who want the money. Those are the ones I see you give a pass to if they are on the Russian side. Those deaths don't count.

Is that your position?

btw - This effect comes from omission. When one constantly ignores a grievous wrong on one side in a dichotomy, while showing constant moral outrage of the same grievous wrong on the other side, the communication effect is sanction of the grievous wrong if it is carried out by the favored side.

Michael

 

EDIT: To be even clearer, both sides are wrong in these hostilities. One wrong does not make a right on the other side. The enemy is the endless war for profit machine, not Russia and not Ukraine, although both are acting despicably in this war. (The governments, not the people.)

[Brant Gaede]

Personaljzed AZ license plate I saw last week: WMSHRK. The plate holder said DEFEND HAWAII

--Brant

he sure does get around

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just to lighten the mood while keepin' it real.

Here's how Putin Tootin' works in reality.

Not what is said, but what is done.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

Michael

[Peter]

On 5/7/2022 at 8:35 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just as curiosity, do you ever have any empathy for the Russians or Russian sympathizers in Ukraine who have been harmed or killed by Ukrainians?

The tenor from your posts is that Russians are not human. So whether they live or die is irrelevant. That may not be your position, but that's what your posts communicate.

Every country has faults and everybody has some “mud on their shoes.” However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is naked aggression, the violation of individual rights, and the initiation of force . . . as is every foreign invasion. Peter

Roger E. Bissell quoted the following: Later, in 1962, in her column "Introducing Objectivism," Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man--every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own ~rational~ self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is ~laissez-faire~ capitalism. it is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as ~traders~, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and ~no man may initiate the use of physical force against others~. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ~only~ in retaliation and ~only~ against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.

[Peter]

What will the cost of Russia’s invasion and slaughter of Ukrainians cost the world? What will it cost Russia? I think the Russians will “rue the day” in a Shakespearean way. More Russian deaths, higher prices, and shortages will now surely occur in The Land of Vlad.  Peter  

What Europe’s ban of Russian oil could mean for energy markets – and your gas prices | MAY 4, 2022 It’s going to get even more volatile in energy markets – and hence for gasoline prices. Crude prices jumped on Wednesday after the European Union proposed a ban on oil imports from Russia as part of a new round of sanctions targeting the country after its invasion of Ukraine. The details are still being hammered out, and the proposal needs to be unanimously agreed upon by the 27 members of the bloc before going into effect. Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, jumped more than 4% on the news and was trading at around $110 a barrel.

From The New York Times: Ban on Russian Oil Could Hit the U.S. Economy as Gas Prices Rise/ The White House is stopping Russian energy imports as the country wages war on Ukraine, which could push American gas prices even higher.

Bleak assessments of the Russian economy clash with Putin’s rosy claims. April 18, 2022, 11:00 a.m. ETApril 18, 2022 April 18, 2022 by Anton Troianovski and Patricia Cohen

Russia’s central bank chief warned on Monday that the consequences of Western sanctions were only beginning to be felt, and Moscow’s mayor said that 200,000 jobs were at risk in the Russian capital alone, stark acknowledgments that undermined President Vladimir V. Putin’s contention that sanctions had failed to destabilize the Russian economy. The bleak assessments from two senior officials align with the forecast of many experts that Russia faces a steep economic downturn as its inventory of imported goods and parts runs low. How Russians react to the financial hardships resulting from Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will determine in part whether anything can weaken the Russian leader’s grip on power or sap support for the war. Russia’s economy has avoided a crippling collapse for now, but more sanctions are on the way that would further increase the economic pain. The European Union is formulating a plan to curb imports of Russian oil. And Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen is expected to call on American allies to increase economic pressure on Russia at the spring meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in Washington this week, according to a Treasury official.

Estimates from international financial organizations of the contraction in the Russian economy range from 10 to 15 percent. On Monday, the Russian central bank said on its website that consumer prices on average were 16.7 percent higher than they were a year ago.

[Peter]

Crossword question. Who delivered the mail in the Harry Potter books and movies? The word “who” is a clue. Answer? Owls!  What exactly is “force” or “the initiation of force?” the following throws some light on the dimness. Peter

From: "WILLIAM  DWYER" To: <Atlantis Subject: ATL: Re: Roll Call (i.e., definition of force) Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 09:32:38 -0700 Joe Duarte asked, [D]oes anyone have a good definition of force? The non-initiation of force principle is key to the objectivist ethics and politics. I'd like to know exactly what we mean by force. I heard that Kelley defined it in one of his works - does anyone know which one? I can't find it.

Joe, I don't know about Kelley's definition, but "force" in a libertarian/Objectivist context refers to the negation of a person's will or choice; it means compulsion.  In this sense, two people engaged in the sport of boxing or wrestling are not using "force" against either; since their participation is voluntary.

The ~initiation~ of force, for an Objectivist or a libertarian, is gaining a value from its owner without his or her consent, which is why fraud is a form of force. Thus, the initiation of force presupposes the concept of property rights, which is a point that Kelley has made.  For example, if I physically remove you from a particular place against your will, I have used "force" against you.  But I have not ~initiated~ force against you if the place is my property and you are occupying it against my will.  Thus, in order to determine whether or not an act of force qualifies as the ~initiation~ of force, one needs to have a prior understanding of the property relations obtaining between the two parties involved in its exercise.

For whatever it's worth, Peikoff defines "physical force" as "coercion exercised by ~physical~ agency, [e.g.,] by punching a man in the face, incarcerating him, shooting him, or seizing his property."  So, what, then, do we mean by "coercion"?  My dictionary defines "coerce" as "to restrain or dominate by nullifying individual will," which comports with my earlier definition of "force". Peikoff also defines the ~initiation~ of physical force as "~starting~ the use of force against an innocent individual(s), one who has not himself started its use against others." [OPAR, 310]

My dictionary also lists several synonyms of "force" and makes some interesting distinctions, e.g., "compel, coerce, constrain..."  "Coerce comes closest to what Objectivism means by "physical force".  Accordingly, "coerce suggests overcoming resistance or unwillingness by actual or threatened violence or pressure." I hope this helps.  It is the best I could do off the top. Bill

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

55 minutes ago, Peter said:

Every country has faults and everybody has some “mud on their shoes.” However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is naked aggression, the violation of individual rights, and the initiation of force . . . as is every foreign invasion. Peter

Peter,

Is it the county that bothers you?

I don't mean country like Russia, Ukraine, USA.

I mean country as opposed to individuals.

Ukraine (the Ukrainian government and cutouts) has been just as ruthless and about just as prolific at killing individuals as Russia has. Innocent individuals, not those involved in this invasion. Individuals killed by the Ukraine government (and cutouts) initiating force against them.

So, on that level, Russia and Ukraine are about equal.

Notice I haven't even mentioned all those crooks who kill people and do their embezzlement business in Ukraine.  Nor have I mentioned the literal Nazis there.

Let me repeat, on initiating force to kill innocent people, Russia and Ukraine are about equal.

 

If we are to go to war, is it only for a country and not for individuals? 

If so, what is a country? Is it just a large piece of land?

I always thought a country was made up of individuals, not mud on shoes or victims.

That is, mud on shoes for the murdered individuals of one country and victims for victimization stories for the for the murdered individuals of the other country. And everybody else--all those countless individuals--just ignored as if they don't exist. What a frame that is.

Isn't a country made up of all of those individuals?

Individual-wise, I consider individuals on both sides of this Ukraine-Russia mess to be equally human.

Why is one mud and the other not?

 

And, leaving that aside, why should American taxpayers have to pay for any war between Ukraine and Russia? Why should sons the and daughters of American families have to die in such a war? What do they gain?

Just saying aggressor and invasion and so on doesn't convince me. For sanctioning war, I need a hell of a lot more.

From what I see so far, for most American people, there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose, but for the Deep State, there is everything to gain and nothing to lose. Why? Because Americans in general value life on earth. The Deep State does not care whether other individuals live or die, just so long as it is running things.

That's a horrible value proposition.

Not persuaded.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Another way of putting this is that INDIVIDUALS have rights. 

Not countries.

At least not rights like individuals have. Any right a country may have is only a right when it is derived from the rights of its citizens. Without that, no right applies to a country.

In Objectivism, Rand discussed this in her essay, "Collectivized "Rights"" (in The Virtue of Selfishness). She is discussing the topic of "national rights."

Quote

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. 

Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob.

Any doctrine of group activities that does not recognize individual rights is a doctrine of mob rule or legalized lynching.

The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

That's just for starters. And let me repeat the opening line:

A group, as such, has no rights.

That means a country, too. 

There are a lot of quotes in that essay that are relevant to our discussion. I'm only going to present a few since this can get too long and I am tempted to go off into copyright infringement.  So I recommend everyone read, or reread, that whole essay.

All quotes below are by Rand from her essay. Sorry for what I call "candy-striping" (making short comments after short quotes one after another), but I don't have time to do this better.

 

Quote

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens.

Notice that Rand first says a nation (or country) has no rights. Then she comes up with a derived form of right--a "collectivized right" for a group--and ONLY a group--that recognizes the individual rights of its members. Now notice that she uses the same word, "right," for both meanings here in the same essay. (This habit is one of my pet peeves with her.)

 

Quote

A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).

That does not describe Ukraine. Just look at its history. What should be that in its most recent form is being undone by Zelensky with each passing day.

 

Quote

But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard.

Well, in today's world, when talking about Ukraine and Russia, double standards are all we get. I don't think in that manner and this is probably the root of my disagreement with so many Putin Tooters. When I say individual rights, I mean it--all the way up to the government in uncomfortable contexts. 

 

Quote

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

To apply this to Ukraine, the Russian and Russian-leaning minority has just as many rights as other individuals do. These rights have been constantly infringed except during times where a different and opposite absurdity happened, like Russian puppets leading the government.

(Don't forget, we are talking about rights in the Randian sense.)

 

Now here is the money quote from Rand where she comes up with a second form of "collectivized right":

Quote

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.

You read that correctly.

Rand said any country that protects the individual rights of its own citizens has a RIGHT to initiate force against a country that does not. How's that for a collectivized right?

There is a long discussion to be had here, but right now, it's outside the scope of what we are talking about.

However, I'm a blabbermouth, so here is a tidbit. We can say for sure that Rand says--and means--that the USA has the RIGHT to invade Russia, but Russia does not have the RIGHT to invade the USA.

When we get to that point, I want to withdraw the word "right" from political discussion. At least when we are in the context of two world powers with their hands on major arsenals of nuclear weapons. Treaties and de-escalation are far better standards. Once the context changes and the tipping point into a nuclear war is more distant, we can go back to discussing which country has the right to invade which country.

 

Quote

There are four characteristics which brand a country unmistakably as a dictatorship: one-party rule—executions without trial or with a mock trial, for political offenses—the nationalization or expropriation of private property—and censorship. A country guilty of these outrages forfeits any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and becomes an outlaw.

Ukraine, I submit, is well over half-way there. (I don't want to get into the weeds with this detail or that, since this is exactly where the war-mongers always go, but Ukraine is a mess. At least it is not one party rule yet. And executions without trial for political offenses are done in the shadows by secret police and similar.)

So, to me, when applying a single standard (individual rights), Ukraine is perfectly within reason to retaliate against Russia's invasion.

But the USA has nothing to do with that. Russia did not invade the USA with a shooting army. Nor is it close to anywhere near that.

 

I don't recall Rand ever talking about rights for countries--when both countries are equally corrupt and are force initiators against their citizens--and one invades the other. She probably did in passing, but I don't recall. I do recall she intellectually shuddered and seethed every time she talked about the USA joining forces with a country like that.

I don't want to channel her, but in my opinion, even with her hatred of the Russian government under communism, she would have balked--in her brand of scorched earth terms--at the USA joining forces with Ukraine.

Also, I cannot imagine her ever sanctioning endless war for profit. She openly said several times that the way to prosecute a war, if one finds oneself in a war, is win it and get out. (She did say the Military-Industrial Complex is a myth, though, so there's that. Oh well. Reality does not forgive even her.)

 

The clowns on our side, the ones who are currently beating the war drums, do not think like Rand or you or me. They want endless war for profit. And they are doing the same damn things they have always done to get it.

So MAGA people (and fellow travelers) are waging a war on THEM. An election and information war, but one waged in the spirit of win-it-and-move-on. War Trump style.

Another way to say this is that we are in the process of throwing those goddam bums out. As many as we can and as quickly as we can--once we can do it legally. After that is done, only then we will worry about Ukraine. Maybe even Putin Toot a little.

Not before.

No more endless war for profit quagmires. This time the whole country is saying that from the ground up. And it is doing it. People are doing it. Millions of them. Individuals.

They are exercising their individual rights.

Michael

[Peter]

Which country invaded which country? Did both countries go to war at the same time? 

Della Street: Perry Mason would not take this case and he left it to me to try. I don't need to be a lawyer to see the truth. It is open and shut case. Russia invaded Ukraine. Jury? What do you say? 

[Jules Troy]

Can I have a PutinTootin tee shirt? “Smirks”.

[anthony]

All I'm watching is escalation with no end in sight, one that those governments with itchy trigger fingers, are visibly relishing. The excuses and alibis have already been cooked up and popularly digested- to be used in the event of any outcome.

No one available of Kissinger's caliber, even. I must be frank, the present US Administration's Foreign Policy stinks.

 

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwinpYGE_tL3AhUKQvEDHRKGCSEQFnoECEAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Fbrinkmanship&usg=AOvVaw0YmoHVBfqsXhhc5CY9CA-j

 

 

[anthony]

50 minutes ago, Peter said:

Which country invaded which country? Did both countries go to war at the same time? 

Della Street: Perry Mason would not take this case and he left it to me to try. I don't need to be a lawyer to see the truth. It is open and shut case. Russia invaded Ukraine. Jury? What do you say? 

Yeah, that's where most people have remained fixated: "Unprovoked" attack on innocent Ukrainians. Any more, confuses the Narrative.

I say to some that a young nation which not long after nationhood, overthrows its democratically elected government because it didn't suit many any longer, and does so in violent clashes with Gvt. supporters and the new government attacks those for desiring to break away, is hardly Democratic or a Nation or free and innocent, and is setting a chain of unforeseeable and possibly bad things in motion. A counter- revolution? Counter-counter rebellions? Civil war? A foreign invasion (to purportedly or actually protect the original supporters)? A widening international conflict? Who knows?

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

59 minutes ago, Peter said:

Which country invaded which country? Did both countries go to war at the same time? 

Peter,

From the optics of American families that have to fund this incipient endless war for profit and send their kids to die, there is only one correct answer.

Who cares?

Let them work it out over there.

Well, maybe I can do better.

Who the fuck cares?

 

 

If you want an opinion, I'm happy to say Putin was wrong to invade, he's an aggressor, initiated force, immoral, all of it.

If you want a war with American participation, no way José. I want none of it.

(I speak knowing a huge number of people--probably the majority--think like I do and are acting to make sure a Deep State-led war doesn't happen.)

 

So who cares who invaded first? People interested in opinions?

I just gave you mine.

Is that satisfying?

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And just to keep perspective clear, why should America fund anything against Putin so long is Europe is funding him?

Europe is paying for Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Look it up. They are gladly paying for it, too. Cheap oil.

So why should America fund the war part against him?

He invaded first?

Hell, who cares in that context?

Or here's an idea. Let the Ukrainian oligarchs fund some of Ukraine's defense.

Say that out loud and you start hearing, "But... but... but... but... but..."

 

 

The world wants the American deplorables to fund this thing. The Deep State at the Pentagon certainly does. But the deplorables ain't gonna do it.

And if anything gets passed before 2023, it will be revoked in short order after the new swearing in.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Can I have a PutinTootin tee shirt?

Jules,

That's actually not a bad idea.

I don't sell tee shirts yet, but who knows?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And if anything gets passed before 2023, it will be revoked in short order after the new swearing in.

Like this.

They better get it while the gettin' is good.

Too bad about all those dead Ukrainians coming.

But hey, it's the price of business.

Besides, it's the skin off whose butt?

Good thing for the Deep State there are a lot of those suckers...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is part of the con.

Tech giants lost more than $1 trillion in value in the last three trading days

Tech giants lost more than $1 trillion in value in the last three trading days

WWW.CNBC.COM

---

The biggest names of the technology industry are becoming more affordable as investors take account of the latest U.S. central bank decision.

If you think that's something, wait until you see what happens to the dollar under Biden and his version of the Fed. It's close, too. (My God, all those years at zero interest rate while printing trillions...)

That's why Biden and his peeps need this fucking war.

It has nothing to do with Putin. At least not from the predator class end. The predators say it does, but saving their global money privileges, including their asses, is the only deal they are interested in.

So what if a few people die?

They're only deplorables, right? Besides, their families will pick up the tab like they have always done.

I've got to find a way to tell this story so people see the con.

Liars lie. Crooks steal. 

I learned this as a kid.

 

Oh well, gotta keep on slogging. If I just keep one young American from dying needlessly in an endless war for profit, to me it's all worth it. I don't even need to know who that person is.

No more bitching at the fates...

Michael