Is a peace that involves allowing Russia to do whatever they want a peace worth having?
Well CSB Has Chosen to Live (Succeed) or Sink(Fail) with His Crew(Coaches)
- Thread starter Crazy Cock 89
- Start date
I can imagine the peace agreement that Conservatives would gladly accept that allowed Mexico to take back part of the United States.
I'm sure they would be agreeable to that as they expect Ukraine to be.
but, but- did you see the favorable terms of it? LOL
Fair- but we don't know the options had to replace them. The folks he retained might be much better for us.
Comedy? Did we really need to shove Ukraine into NATO? Like that was super important.
New "Conservatives" are now those who don't want to incite WWIII half way around the world.
Look at the lives lost. Look at the money spent. Look at the end result.
Last edited:
ST were awful last season. I don't think we'll be missing another performance like that.
I agree with that assessment. BUT, if you look at the body of work of both Lembo and Clayton White, you'd find that they have produced quality results most of their career. Mickey Mantle, as great as he was, struck out at times.
Yes, but it's good to have coaches that other programs want as head coaches. It's a bit of a nice change.
Those things make it a bit easier to land quality coaches in the near future.
Straw man argument. Ukraine was not going to be "shoved" or admitted to NATO. Just the opposite was happening- NATO member countries ignored Ukraine when they even brought up the subject. It just wasn't on the drawing board.
Putin knew that of course.
Sweden was admitted to NATO as a result of Putin's war. Russian's response? Almost nothing. They complained some but as Peter Dickinson has written, Russia and Putin basically ignored it.
Same thing for Finland and NATO - with Russia offering "vague commitments to strengthen its own military" - something they say routinely regardless. Otherwise, they've done nothing, not even really protested it.
"Putin and other Kremlin leaders told the world that the escalating crisis was due to years of provocative NATO expansion, while warning that deepening ties between the Alliance and Ukraine represented a red line.
In reality, however, Ukraine in early 2022 was not even remotely close to joining NATO. Far from pursuing Ukraine, the Alliance had repeatedly sidestepped appeals from Kyiv for a Membership Action Plan, refusing to offer even a clear signal regarding future accession. On the eve of Russia’s invasion, the most optimistic forecasts indicated that Ukraine’s dream of joining NATO was still decades away." - Peter Dickinson
Did Jake Tapper tell you that? A peace agreement has been on the table several times, Dave. You can posture as if you're for human rights but you are a very confused individual if you believe our intervention into the Ukraine conflict was just. All it did was cost needless lives, drain taxpayer money, and fan the flames of WW3. And for what exactly?
No. I don't need Jake Tapper to tell me anything.
But I don't listen to the fools you listen to- conspiracy nuts that they are.
Yes, I've already read you mention the peace agreement that you talked about. LOL
It's laughable you expect a country to just cede major portions of its territory and then consider a "peace agreement."
I even like the idea that you take Russia's word for how they were all for these peace agreements. How perfect - for Russia. You are a stooge.
You are also a buffoon - and that's being generous.,
How do you reconcile the fact you've been wrong over and over again in these types of conversations?
No one is wrong but you - again- and again- and again. You are a buffoon.
It's laughable you expect a country to just cede major portions of its territory and then consider a "peace agreement."
I even like the idea that you take Russia's word for how they were all for these peace agreements. How perfect - for Russia. You are a stooge.
One thing is always clear- you are always, always wrong.
"Russia has twice guaranteed the sanctity of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, including Crimea—once in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and a second time in the 1997 Ukraine-Russia friendship treaty.
It is now clear that Putin never intended to abide by the Minsk agreements that were supposed to bring peace after the first Russian-Ukrainian war in 2014
Those calling for an immediate negotiated settlement are thus making an extremely risky bet. History, comparison, and much of theory isn’t on their side.
Effectively, they are advising Ukraine to put its survival on the line—in exchange for the flimsy hope that Russia will behave exactly as one tiny set of academics expect it to, according to their theory.
That doesn’t guarantee that they are wrong, but the overwhelming evidence from historical precedent, regime behavior, national ideology, and international relations theory suggests that no durable negotiated peace is on offer."
Why We Should Not Bet on a Peaceful Russia
The idea that a deal with Moscow will bring peace in Ukraine is based on very flimsy assumptions.
foreignpolicy.com
One thing is always clear- you are always, always wrong.
"Russia has twice guaranteed the sanctity of Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, including Crimea—once in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and a second time in the 1997 Ukraine-Russia friendship treaty.
It is now clear that Putin never intended to abide by the Minsk agreements that were supposed to bring peace after the first Russian-Ukrainian war in 2014
Those calling for an immediate negotiated settlement are thus making an extremely risky bet. History, comparison, and much of theory isn’t on their side. Effectively, they are advising Ukraine to put its survival on the line—in exchange for the flimsy hope that Russia will behave exactly as one tiny set of academics expect it to, according to their theory.
That doesn’t guarantee that they are wrong, but the overwhelming evidence from historical precedent, regime behavior, national ideology, and international relations theory suggests that no durable negotiated peace is on offer."
Why We Should Not Bet on a Peaceful Russia
The idea that a deal with Moscow will bring peace in Ukraine is based on very flimsy assumptions.
The FP group is owned by the Washington Post. You're basically quoting a US Military Industrial Complex sales sheet. Your level of gullibility is sad at this point.
Do a little research about what the former leader of Germany said about the 2022 peace deal.
Or this below.
Last edited:
You are always wrong- always.
The writer doesn't work for the Post. They just published his article - and they routinely post articles that aren't favorable to the US Military, defense contractors or anyone else related to them.
You just have no damn idea what you are talking about. You make up lies.
As usual, you didn't refute the writer's points.
For example, you ignored the writer's correct point about how Russia didn't honor previous commitments to Ukraine regarding their border.
or the evidence we have that Putin never planned to honor those commitments anyway (he's backed out, or just not followed through with numerous commitments he's made to other countries).
Now, you whine like a 2 year old that Ukraine should have accepted Russia's peace plan after they invaded them. Hypocrite.
You simply don't have a clue, That's your real problem. All your nonsense flows from that fact.
The Washington Post owns ForeignPolicy.com. How many times do we need to go round and round like this?
You leap at clickbait. You want more CNN than what they can produce on a regular schedule, etc.
I understand that at your age it's difficult to digest the fact you've been spoonful lies by the same media outlets you've held close to your heart for all of these years..but that's what's happening and you're one of the last I know who still hasn't figured it out. It's honestly wild. Don't be lazy if you're going to engage people with this type of rhetoric. Take it to the source or as close as possible. Verify > Trust.
Last edited:
You are always wrong- always.
The writer doesn't work for the Post. They just published his article - and they routinely post articles that aren't favorable to the US Military, defense contractors or anyone else related to them.
You just have no damn idea what you are talking about. You make up lies.
As usual, you didn't refute the writer's points .You are a conspiracy nut job. Everything you write is 100% baloney.
You expect a country to accept an invasion that takes part of their territory to enter into an "agreement" with a country that has repeatedly violated prior agreements about their sovereignty. You have a severe problem with hypocrisy and mental instability.