Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[anthony]

On 6/27/2023 at 4:01 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Good Lord!

 

Russia is partying--literally partying--while the mainstream media is saying they are being oppressed by a bloodthirsty dictator who is toast and will fall because of a humiliating defeat in Ukraine.

Except there is no defeat.

There is no fall.

There is only the sound of the party.

 

 

 

l

Michael, The magic formula "regime change" is the West's simplistic answer to international "problem-children", real or perceived. I'm very sure that the 2014 coup, a "Color Revolution", in Ukraine was tested and anticipated as the prequel to recreating one later in Russia.

Ukraine's role, merely a convenient stepping stone towards inciting "a grassroots revolt" in its neighbor. Punitive sanctions and a prolonged war would hurt the Russian population, then, upheaval and very possibly civil war, aimed at fragmenting Russia into several weak nations (like the Baltics) easily dominated, politically and financially, for their geo-strategic position in Asia and of course, their natural resources.

(I make clear, I'm in the radical "laissez-faire" camp. I think "might" does not "make right", and other countries - and individuals - must be left alone, while not dismissing diplomacy or temporary assistance : i.e. they have free will to self-determine themselves for better or worse, often the latter. Whether one approves of them, their ideology, governments and leaders, or not - live and let live -- "left alone" to decide their own destiny).

I regularly ask myself lately, was this, and any, 'emergency' engineered by the "powers that be"? or was it a 'natural' and unforeseen event taken advantage of? (The pandemic and its possible origins and dictatorial controls comes to mind)

A cynical exploitation of an unhappy situation("never let a crisis go to waste") - or - a plot by the global elites that down the line predictably will be cause of a bloody conflict, then to be also exploited.

The third possibility, non-exclusive, it can be both in many mixtures. 

All in all, to the bitterness of many outsiders, it seems Russians are most satisfied with Putin. Regime change is not on the cards. One more time, as with misjudging its economic resilience and military strength, they reveal how arrogantly they totally failed to identify Russia and the Russian character.

Predominantly I've found Russians didn't welcome any war, but they understand the limited options Putin had left to maintain Russian security and sovereign integrity. A major cause of his popularity is forgotten, that he singly pulled the country out of a very bad period for the majority of people. I detect an implication from Russia's harshest critics, unspoken mostly: Russia was starting to succeed, "too, damn well". A rising "peer competitor" as geo-political analysts say. And why should increasing productive competitiveness hurt anyone else?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It looks like Prigozhin was a double agent acting to humiliate the West.

Judge Napolitano And Larry Johnson Discuss Prigozhin, Plus A Horrific Video Of Ukrainian Troops Trapped In A Minefield

Judge Napolitano And Larry Johnson Discuss Prigozhin, Plus A Horrific Video Of Ukrainian Troops Trapped In A Minefield | The Gateway Pundit | by Larry Johnson | 112

WWW.THEGATEWAYPUNDIT.COM

---

I will apologize upfront that I made the mistake of wearing earbuds and did not have time to clear the cache.

Here is the video directly.

 

 

The gist is, according to Larry Johnson's theory, that the CIA tried to turn Prigozhin with a lot of money or something, and he started playing along with them. At one point , Russian intelligence got wind of it and made Prigozhin a deal he couldn't refuse and he became a double agent.

So they staged this entire march on Moscow in order to get people in the West all lathered up and saying over and over how Putin is toast, how Russia is being destroyed. and so on.

Meanwhile, out here in reality, Russia is crushing Ukraine, slowly but surely.

Granted, this is a theory, but Johnson said something that made me think it is closer to reality than anything I have seen so far.

The CIA gave members of Congress notice of Prigozhin's march well in advance of when it happened. That march was supposed to have been a surprise.

Johnson also said that if this was all theater as in his theory, Prigozhin will continue to walk the earth. If it was a real rebellion, he will not be with us for too much longer.

 

I looked at some of the other video in the article of the Ukrainian solders trapped in a minefield, not all of it. The message to me was that if you are in a minefield, you are screwed.

 

The conclusion I make is that the people running the Ukraine war from our side are so incompetent, it's painful. Along with all the embezzlement.

Michael

[anthony]

Knowledgable and experienced ex-soldier yet entirely wrong premises. Historical determinism, etc. Worst of all this discourse 'sets the stage' for some incendiary false flag event, to allow the West a virtuous "off-ramp"..

Repeat: the winning side has no motive for a nuclear escalation, the losing side does. The superior (conventional) weapons Russia has in quantity, and its bolstered army haven't even been fully employed yet--and they clearly had and have no intention to "carpet bomb" towns and cities and mega-deaths of civilians to achieve Ukr capitulation. Let alone - use a tactical nuke on one. Russia's "escalation" could occur in many small steps--long before nuclear. As for helping Ukraine recover lost territory - too late. The West eschewed with disdain the diplomatic route, implementing a minor - and agreed upon - concession for autonomy for the Donbas; many officials have stated e.g. Josep Borrell EU: this "will be decided on the battlefield" i.e. no negotiations to be entered into with Russia. (Premised on the fantasy of Ukraine beating Russia!). Now they will have to live by their macho talk.

 

[Peter]

From Wikipedia. There is a new, updated version. Peter

Nuclear War Survival Skills or NWSS, by Cresson Kearny, is a civil defense manual. It contains information gleaned from research performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory during the Cold War, as well as from Kearny's extensive jungle living and international travels.

Nuclear War Survival Skills aims to provide a general audience with advice on how to survive conditions likely to be encountered in the event of a nuclear catastrophe, as well as encouraging optimism in the face of such a catastrophe by asserting the survivability of a nuclear war.

The 2022 edition is entitled "Nuclear War Survival Skills Updated and Expanded 2022 Edition Regarding Ukraine Russia and the World: The Best Book on Any Nuclear Incident Ever ... New Methods and Tools As New Threat Emerge".

Water[edit]

The importance of water to basic survival is discussed, with the recommendation that "four or five quarts of drinking water per day are essential."^[11] Methods of storing, transporting, and purifying water are also explained, with plastic-lined earthen storage pits recommended for storing large quantities.^[11]

Food[edit]

A basic diet, vegetarian and consisting only of bulk staples, is presented, along with basic nutrition facts and special advice for the very young, very old, and sick. "And because of the remarkable productivity of American agriculture, there usually would be enough grain and beans in storage to supply surviving Americans with sufficient food for at least a year following a heavy nuclear attack.^[12] Take precaution when eating meat. Areas with enough fallout to make animals sick, become a high-risk area for contaminated meat. If it is a crisis situation, meat should be cooked until very well done.

Minimum Pre-Crisis Preparations[edit]

A list of recommended preparations are given for: shelter, shelter ventilation, water, food, fallout meters, sanitation, medicines, light, communications, etc.^[20]

[Marc]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

From Wikipedia. There is a new, updated version. Peter

Nuclear War Survival Skills or NWSS, by Cresson Kearny, is a civil defense manual. It contains information gleaned from research performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory during the Cold War, as well as from Kearny's extensive jungle living and international travels.

Nuclear War Survival Skills aims to provide a general audience with advice on how to survive conditions likely to be encountered in the event of a nuclear catastrophe, as well as encouraging optimism in the face of such a catastrophe by asserting the survivability of a nuclear war.

The 2022 edition is entitled "Nuclear War Survival Skills Updated and Expanded 2022 Edition Regarding Ukraine Russia and the World: The Best Book on Any Nuclear Incident Ever ... New Methods and Tools As New Threat Emerge".

Water[edit]

The importance of water to basic survival is discussed, with the recommendation that "four or five quarts of drinking water per day are essential."^[11] Methods of storing, transporting, and purifying water are also explained, with plastic-lined earthen storage pits recommended for storing large quantities.^[11]

Food[edit]

A basic diet, vegetarian and consisting only of bulk staples, is presented, along with basic nutrition facts and special advice for the very young, very old, and sick. "And because of the remarkable productivity of American agriculture, there usually would be enough grain and beans in storage to supply surviving Americans with sufficient food for at least a year following a heavy nuclear attack.^[12] Take precaution when eating meat. Areas with enough fallout to make animals sick, become a high-risk area for contaminated meat. If it is a crisis situation, meat should be cooked until very well done.

Minimum Pre-Crisis Preparations[edit]

A list of recommended preparations are given for: shelter, shelter ventilation, water, food, fallout meters, sanitation, medicines, light, communications, etc.^[20]

Or we can just have a fair election.

[Peter]

8 hours ago, Marc said:

Or we can just have a fair election.

Marc, when did you become a U.S. citizen? Are you talking about crooked Canadian politics? 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not into chain-letter-like things for social media viral campaigns, but this video is pretty well done. To wit, it is NOT the most important thing yada yada yada bullshit. But it is well done as one plausible projection if things unravel.

So it is something to keep in mind as the Predator Class plays its Ukraine-Russia gangster games with nuclear weapons.

Michael

[anthony]

"The benignant sympathy of her example".

As fresh, today

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjD0Z-BjPz_AhWaSPEDHXRWDJ4QFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmillercenter.org%2Fthe-presidency%2Fpresidential-speeches%2Fjuly-4-1821-speech-us-house-representatives-foreign-policy&usg=AOvVaw0xW2IMcTWtgHZPY-ZGS17g&opi=89978449

"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."

[anthony]

On 6/28/2023 at 1:46 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

T,

My vote is that.

From living in a another country for over 30 years, I know for a fact that what we read here in the US has little to do with what people in other countries read.

Sometimes I see Tony, for example, get frustrated because I know what he reads in South Africa is different--often by a lot--than what the people he talks to are accustomed to.

Jimmy Dore always says that Americans are the more propagandized people on earth.

 

Not really, Michael. The same indoctrination goes on here. The same 'innocent Ukraine is winning' and superficial Russia vilification by reporters, Press and a public with fixed prejudices who seem not to know any background and don't want to know. I took the trouble over a year ago to find dozens of alternative sites and channels I regularly check for (greater) factual truth content. The West's war propaganda machine is either unreliable, or false and outright lying, in what it does NOT inform viewers - as well as what it simply fabricates. And is monolithic, fed outwards into the world from a very few state sources, Kyiv to Washington to London, etc. all constructing a single narrative, often with identical wording.

Especially by the corporate-owned media (once considered more trustworthy- but who've sold out, aligned with government interests).

A Swiss research group, pre-war in 2019, came up with a study: The Propaganda Multiplier. Worth a read, the graphic tells a tale.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_zZHUnfz_AhV9SvEDHbTBBmsQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fswprs.org%2Fthe-propaganda-multiplier%2F&usg=AOvVaw24vszEFMwjKtGcJVMnHFw5&opi=89978449

[Peter]

Some questions to ask someone who has really studied the “situation.” Why did Ukraine invade Russia? Who is winning the war? Why is the Russia’s military performing so wonderfully? What has the war meant for ordinary Russians and Ukrainians? What do Ukrainians think about the war? Can the war end with Ukraine becoming a sub-state of Russia once again? Is the Soviet Union reemerging?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

We can probably start here, from Trump's own account at Truth Social.

 

 

Guess which one of these guys never made a dime off of military issues involving Russia and Ukraine? There's only one among those four.

 

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote, “Guess which one of these guys never made a dime off of military issues involving Russia and Ukraine?”

Impressive! And now, for some of my world class sarcasm. Has there been any retribution for bribe taking for Bush, Obama or Biden (BOB for short)? Have you found any account of how much they were paid and where the money was spent or saved? Why haven’t any of them gotten a nickname like “Tricky Dicky” yet? Has the press gotten “ahold” of this? As Beevis said, “Not that I disbelieve you, but gee willikers.” Or as auto correct would say instead of gee willikers, "Am I jay walking?”

What Should those three have done? If Russia tries that sort of shenanigans when Donald Trump is President again, what would he do to avert that scenario?

I think the pattern you are seeing is clear proof that Russia is the villain in all those tragedies. And yes, I agree there is Still, a military / industrial complex. I recently started contributing to Donald J. Trump again. I think that when I typed in his donaldjtrump web site it directed me to winred or some such site. Peter     

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

What Should those three have done?

Peter,

Easy.

They should have stopped being part of the Deep State.

They were only part of the Deep State because they WANTED to be there. They were not forced to be there. They wanted it.

 

I keep hearing Putin, Putin, Putin, but I saw Hillary Clinton sell a good chunk of US uranium to Putin. If you had asked me at the time what was my proof, I would not have had any. It took Peter Schweizer renting the downtime of a massive computer to scan the dark web for months to uncover the paper trail. Once he did and presented it to the world, nobody denied it. They just stopped talking about it.

That's the way it goes with the other three: cutouts, the money trails to their family members, cover-ups galore and so on.

Back to the question. You asked what these three should have done. I have an even easier answer than the one I gave above.

They should have done like Trump did.

Stop promoting death.

 

 

Trump was asked what he wants to do with Ukraine. The first thing out of his mouth was that he wants people to stop dying. There's too much death. The second thing out of his mouth was that he will get the war shut down in 24 hours.

He may miss by a few hours, but does anyone doubt he can do it?

The other three have never minded people dying, they never minded endless wars for profit, just so long as the Deep Beast got fed...

Also, they never produced anything of value to humanity. Just politics. So they had to get their money from something. Dead bodies work well for politicians.

I'm not on board with that.

Michael

[anthony]

On 7/7/2023 at 7:37 PM, Peter said:

 Who is winning the war?

consequentialism

noun

Philosophy

noun: consequentialism

1. the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.

    

   ---

    

   Unsaid, the domain of this war is all about who's perceived to hold the "moral high ground". (The major aim of propaganda ).

    Who is killing more, holding more ground and therefore "winning this war"? (Not in doubt, despite msm propaganda).

   This alone determines the "mhg" for most people - the reason that casualty counts have been fanatically top of the public agenda.

   Everyone sort of understands subconsciously from much fiction, selected history and religious teaching -

   if "we" are righteous "we" will be victorious.

   Corollary:

   When we are victorious, we must by necessity be the morally righteous.

    

   That seems to govern the illogical moral thinking that is escalating the west's leaders' increasingly reckless actions. While (immorally) deterring peace talks.

    

   Therefore, the desperate collective West must not be seen to militarially- or morally - lose in Ukraine, expending all efforts up to the max.

   The Ukrainians serve only to be sacrificed for that cause.

   Throw the last human fodder to the cannons to maybe gain a little battlefield gain for daily headlines. Their lives matter little. Ultimate moral supremacy will be "judged solely by consequences".

    

   And if it goes the other way, the Russians aren't turfed out and emerge winners, overall, would this mean "they" have the righteous cause-- and that "we" were immoral? Yes, to be consistent with consequentialism doctrine.

   Ha, cognitive dissonance, a mental "flat spin" describes the lot of those fervently pro-Ukraine who try to resolve this contradiction.

   So much for "might makes right".

    

    

    

    

[Peter]

William Dwyer once wrote, "Murder" is the premeditated and ~aggressive~ killing of another human being (who possesses the right to life); it is the ~initiation~ of physical force.

And William Dwyer wrote: “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.

Jeff Riggenbach wrote, "Self defense" is all the actions one might resort to *while under attack* in an effort to kill, disable, or repel one's attacker.

From “Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff. The Initiation of Physical Force as Evil. Rationality requires the exercise of volition, which is the metaphysically given faculty of reason. Human beings must exercise reason (and therefore volition) in order to live. Because thought is an individual and not a collective process, different individuals may draw different conclusions about how to live. Two or more people who disagree about this issue have only three ways to resolve the dispute. The first is simply to go their separate ways; the second, to use persuasive argumentation; and the third, to initiate direct physical force (or its indirect version, fraud), which renders the victim's reasoning irrelevant and therefore impotent. Because individual human life is the standard of value and the individual's own reasoning and property is his proper method of sustaining that value, the initiation of physical force or fraud against the individual or his property is the basic moral wrong and evil. This holds true even if an individual's conclusions about how he should run his life eventually prove to be self-destructive, since he is the exclusive owner of his life and he alone will pay the price for his own mistakes. end quotes

[Peter]

17 hours ago, anthony said:

noun: consequentialism

While looking for old letters discussing force I found these two letters from Barbara Branden which are interesting, though not necessarily about war and I don’t think I correctly cut and pasted them. Peter

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The Hallmark of the Objectivist Ethics Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 01:44:54 EDT. I scarcely know where to begin responding to what  seems like the infinite number of posts that have come in about the Objectivist ethics. I shall try to handle the most relevant posts one at a time, unless some of them overlap and can be answered together.

Let me say that Bill Dwyer gave me my first laugh during all of this discussion by referring to me as "someone who considers herself a pillar of Objectivism."  Somehow, I've never seen myself as a pillar of anything. Besides, Ayn Rand would say that I disagree with too many of her ideas for her to appoint me a "pillar."

Luka, I'll begin with your comments. You wrote, "My point is that if a person is acting in a way that they think will best promote their self-interest, then they cannot be morally condemned. Not from their perspective. "

You said this--and I appreciate it--in response to my question about whether or not one should morally condemn the actions of a Nazi, or a White Supremacist, or a bank robber if they thought their actions to be serving their . . . .

From: BBfromM To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The Objectivist Ethics Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:22:42 EDT. I had said that I would respond to each of the posts disagreeing with my position on ethics. That clearly has become impossible. It has also become unnecessary, since so many of you who agree with my position have advanced arguments for it that I would have made. So I shall here present the essence of my position, and leave it at that. If any of you think I've failed to respond to questions or objections in your posts, that is not my intention; but these last weeks are all the time I have to give to the issue.

The defenders of Consequentialism (which I see as a species of Utilitarianism applied to individuals) do appear to grant that human rights supersede considerations of short or long-range benefits to individuals. But why is that?  It's because the concept of rights derives from the nature of man. And so does the Objectivist moral code.  Morality, according to Objectivism, derives from the fact that we survive to the extent that we exercise reason. The monsters of this earth are not evil because they misperceive their self-interest, but because they are anti-life, anti-reason, anti-man.

(It's relevant to add, in response to I forget whom, that the word "evil" is one I almost never use, except for axe-murderers and their equivalents.  I always intensely disliked the fact that the word was thrown at people so recklessly and unfairly in the early days of Objectivism, and sometimes in the not-so-early days.)

Morality is not a function of what I think is good for me or you think is good for you. The Consequentialist argument approaches the issue of morality in midair, not at its root; its root, as Ayn Rand made so clear, is the nature of human life and survival.  The Consequentialist argument contains the same internal contradiction as Utilitarianism: after one says that one should choose the greatest good for the greatest number, how does one establish what IS the greatest good for the greatest number? Similarly with Consequentialism: after one says that morality requires that one follow one's self-interest, the question becomes: What IS to one's self-interest? Ayn Rand pointed out that when we say "This is good for me" or "This is bad for me," we must be prepared to answer the question "BY WHAT STANDARD?" And the standard is the life of the kind of being we are. This formulation is Ayn Rand's enormous contribution not just to the content of a moral system but to the entire approach to morality.  It bypasses and goes far deeper than either Consequentialism or deontologicalism. How do we decide what is good or bad for us except with reference to our survival as man? I have said before that Nazis, Communists, bank robbers and . . . .

[Peter]

I think Russia’s brutal assault on Ukraine has hardened the perceived need of the countries near Russia to join NATO or strengthen their ties to NATO. Sweden and Finland want to join NATO for their protection from the Russian wolf. These three quotes originated in the small countries of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Amid the Russian military offensive in Ukraine, Lithuanian Prime Minister Ingrida Simonyte on Friday, 22 April, called on the international community to make efforts to bring the people involved in "war crimes" to justice. According to Simonyte, the situation in Ukraine is a "struggle between tyranny and freedom," LRT.LT reported.  Addressing a press briefing with her Latvian and Estonian counterparts in Riga, Simonyte stressed that the war in Ukraine will show how the 'world' and 'Europe' will look like in future. 

Latvia’s leader Egils Levits has urged Western countries to step up their military support for Ukraine. He believes that Ukraine needs more support to resist a potential new Russian offensive. The Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have also called on Germany to send its main battle tanks to Ukraine, putting further pressure on Berlin to move faster on aiding Kyiv in its war against Russia.

Estonia is not at war. However, it has been one of Ukraine’s strongest allies in the war². Estonia has given “the full spectrum” of military assistance, such as tanks, to Kyiv. The Estonian government has said that while it sees no direct military threat for the country, “every person and organization” should nevertheless anticipate an impact from military action in Ukraine. Estonia’s Rescue Board and the foreign ministry have sent equipment to Ukraine to deal with the flood.

[Peter]

I wondered about the comedians and artists of Russia. What are their views about the war in Ukraine? Peter

From a Russian column about comedians. Jokes are a reason for persecution for Russian and Belarusian stand-up comedians who openly opposed the war in Ukraine. More than 200 artists signed an appeal to Vladimir Putin calling for an end to the bloodshed. Many of the signatories have already left Russia. For such political positions both in the Russian Federation and in Belarus, you can get into jail. What is it like to be a comedian, and humorist in a totalitarian state, see in the material.

From Culture / Russian Federation. . . .Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the orders of President Vladimir Putin, the conflict is now in its fifth day, and casualties on both sides are growing. Many of Russia's prominent stars in and outside of the country are speaking out against the war. Others, have been keeping mum. New York City's Metropolitan Opera announced on Sunday that it would cut ties with pro-Putin artists. Other opera houses around the world are reacting similarly. One of the stars directly affected by the decision is opera singer Anna Netrebko, who has ties to the Russian president and was once pictured with a flag used by some Russian-backed separatist groups, as reported by the New York Times. 

She is scheduled to appear in Puccini's opera "Turandot" on April 30. One of her concerts, planned for February 25 in Aarhus, Denmark, was already cancelled after pressure to denounce ties with Putin. Two days later, Netrebko and her Azerbaijani husband, singer Yusif Eyvazov, released a joint statement denouncing the war, without however naming Putin: "I want this war to end and for people to be able to live in peace. This is what I hope and pray for."

She also added, "forcing artists, or any public figure to voice their political opinions in public and to denounce their homeland is not right." "This should be a free choice. I am not a political person. I am not an expert in politics," the statement reads.

Yakov Naumovich Pokhis, better known as Yakov Smirnoff, is a Ukrainian-American comedian, actor and writer. He began his career as a stand-up comedian in the Soviet Union, then immigrated to the United States in 1977 in order to pursue an American show business career, not yet knowing any English. He’s been in movies, television, on Broadway and is also from Ukraine. Some of his family has fled from the country and others are still there. He’s known for his catchphrase “What a country!” However, with war breaking out in Ukraine it’s taking on a new feeling. He said they’ve helped some family get over the border but others remain.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Peter,

What takes philosophical precedence for you? Reason or non-initiation of force?

In other words, does reason derive from non-initiation of force, or does non-initiation of force derive from reason?

As a follow-up, is the Ukrainian government a government of reason? Or a government of fraud and violence?

I ask because you always infer that Ukraine has some kind of moral standing over Russia that I fail to see.

And just to be a smart-ass, was Stalin morally superior to Hitler because Hitler invaded Russia?

 

Michael

[Peter]

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I ask because you always infer that Ukraine has some kind of moral standing over Russia that I fail to see.

  

[Peter]

yada yada

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At least Biden is now sending a few cluster bombs to Ukraine to kill off children in the future.

Some of the cluster bombs that will be deployed by Ukraine will not explode and later children will pick them up and play with them like with a toy until they blow themselves to smithereens.

At other times in other places, elephants have stepped on one and blown their legs off.

And so on...

According to Biden, the US is low on ammo right now. There are certainly not enough cluster bombs going over to Ukraine make any difference in the war.

 

 

Democrats used to call the use of cluster bombs "war crimes."

Now cluster bombs are just part of the grift.

Makin' dat money from death...

Glory hallelujah... 

 

Thank God for these free market people selling laissez-faire war that Trump ain't there. He would have backed Putin down without war and what then? Who could make dat government money off of dem cluster bombs then? What a buzzkill...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 7/7/2023 at 2:15 PM, Peter said:

If Russia tries that sort of shenanigans when Donald Trump is President again, what would he do to avert that scenario?

Peter,

I didn't get to this.

Let's look at what just one of the others did with war, and let's look at what Trump did.

Obama saw Isis growing and called them the "junior varsity." Then they started taking over large portions of Syria and Iraq. And Obama ramped up drone warfare, which costs an arm and a leg. And still Isis grew.

They chopped off heads on video, burned people alive and so on. But the war profits were rolling in, so to extend the war, but make it look like he was fighting for justice, Obama made the military refer to them as Isil and did a whole lot of namby-pamby bullshit like that as the bombs flowed. Obama literally bombed so much, he ran out of bombs.

And the Deep State, especially the military-industrial complex wing, loved him.

Then Trump came in. He looked at Isis and said that could not continue. First order of business, he cut off their money. Second order, he brought in the competent warriors and killers in the military, not the woke-ass generals, and asked them what they needed to win the war. They told him, he provisioned it, he then let them loose and Isis was no more.

The Pentagon contractors were not amused. They wanted more war.

 

Obama played around controlling the narrative as the war machine fed on dead bodies and government money.

Trump dealt with reality.

 

Regardless of what Putin did or did not do, those other three Presidents controlled the narrative, forgot about reality, and turned the money-tap on full blast. 

When Trump was President the first time, he dealt with reality and Putin did not do shit. And the money tap was turned off.

I expect Trump will do the same in the future--deal with Putin according to reality, not narrative. And people who are of the ilk if the other three Presidents, should one get in, will go back to selling dead bodies so their friends and family can get rich.

 

My objection to supporting Ukraine is that Biden is doing what Obama did 10 times over. The war machine loves both of them, too. They kill your kids in order to send their own kids to good schools.

Also, I think they love Biden more than Obama because Trump had outfitted the military with the best of everything. That means the equipment was not degrading fast. And, as Trump did not cause any new wars, the equipment was not being blown up.

Biden took the easy way out. He gave all the military equipment to the Taliban by leaving it behind in a withdrawal. And the military-industrial complex went, "Huzza!"

 

After all, they got to replace what got left behind in Afghanistan. And the money flowed and flows.

What's more, with Ukraine, the blood of the young flows, too. Back to blowing shit up and replacing it. And even more, the military-industrial complex and Deep State in general will get to rebuild Ukraine after hostilities settle down. Man, what a windfall!

Things are back to normal, God is in his Heaven and all is right with the world.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh yeah... I forgot. Our military is now concerned about being inclusive, transgendered and so on. Woke.

As the warriors and killers are being phased out.

I think Russia and China are thrilled.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is Trump dealing with reality.

 

QUOTE:
Joe Biden should not be dragging us further toward World War III by sending cluster munitions to Ukraine—he should be trying to END the war and stop the horrific death and destruction being caused by an incompetent administration. These unexploded cluster munitions will be killing and maiming innocent Ukrainian men, women, and children for decades to come, long after the war—we pray—has ended. If, as Biden inadvertently admitted, the reason for sending cluster bombs now is that the United States is “running out of ammunition” (a great breach of classified information), that only further emphasizes the urgency of immediately deescalating this bloody, dangerous, and out of control conflict. It certainly means we should not be sending Ukraine our last stockpiles at a time when our own arsenals, according to Crooked Joe Biden, are so perilously diminished. 

There could be no more vivid proof that Joe Biden’s policy of endless war in Ukraine has tremendously weakened the United States than the humiliating admission that the USA is now out of ammo, something our enemies are undoubtedly salivating over. This "admitted" weakness is an invitation to enemies all over the world. Joe Biden is needlessly and dangerously leading us into World War III, which would be a nightmare beyond imagination—obliteration! 

We must stop this insanity, immediately end the bloodshed in Ukraine, and return to a focus on America’s vital interests. Most importantly, we must completely rebuild our depleted military so it is once again so strong—like it was just 3 years ago when I rebuilt it—that no nation would even think of threatening our people. We must have "PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH" and in a short time, the Presidential election of 2024 will produce that result. 
END QUOTE

 

Incompetent and corrupt people cannot fight a war and win.

Urging Biden & Co. to fight against Russia in a nuclear war is the same thing as urging the USA to surrender to Vladimir Putin.

Or worse, surrender to China when it joins in the fun.

 

When you fight wars, you must fight to win. That's rational.

You do not fight to prolong the war and embezzle money. That's irrational, no matter how much one may hate the enemy.

Michael