|
|
| ||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 bob 0004How do you know that “most of them back then did NOT take the Genesis Creation Story literally? As for “St.” Augustine, yes, even in the 2nd century heresies were creeping in among believers. Constantine codified them into “law,” but that did not make them faithful to the Scriptures. ========================= 2. <Fleeing persecution' is one thing. But the response to that is often to set up the 'rules of society' that will not prevent the persecution, but reverse it. Try being a Catholic in Plymouth Colony in 1625! Or even an Episcopal Anglican! The desire to be in power rather than vulnerable to others in power might look to some like 'freedom of religion', but it is only freedom for ONE religion. > All this may be true, but it does not answer the question of why else they fled from Europe other than to escape religious persecution. 3. I am of the opinion that ALL signers of the DoI were believers, and a significant portion (probably nearly all) of the settlers were believers. Nobody today can account for the beliefs of all settlers and signers, but I do not believe that anyone who signed a document speaking of "all men" having been created by a Creator would sign a statement of that import if it contained a statement with which they had a fundamental disagreement. By including "settlers" my intention was not to go off on a tangent; it was merely to indicate that belief in a Creator was overwhelmingly held in the colonies even before the DoI. 4. By the way, the person who you meant to refer to was not zorroloco, but dmaestro. |
|||||||||||
|
GM Says you! You don’t know that… you believe it. “ I am thankful that they did what they did. If you are not thankful that they did, I would suggest that you find a country which supports your beliefs more affirmatively and move there” If? Why would you think I don’t? Because Im an atheist??? That’s bizarre. “Absent "someone stronger" to "decide differently" why do we not have "inherent rights?" What prevents those rights in the absence of man's power?” Lol. “Absent "someone stronger!?”” Sure… and absent death, we’d live forever. But we live in the real world, not a hypothetical one without bullies, tsunamis and hungry animals. |
|||||||||||
|
GM Study medieval Europe. Here’s a glimpse: en.m.wikipedia.org They were largely fleeing the four horsemen |
|||||||||||
|
GM “I am of the opinion that ALL signers of the DoI were believers, and a significant portion (probably nearly all) of the settlers were believers. ” I disagree. But it’s largely irrelevant. What’s is what they wrote. If I had been in such a position, I’d not be troubled by agreeing to “Creator,” as I would if God had been inserted. Very, very different. |
|||||||||||
|
GMF 17:50 Yes, you have indeed been consistent in that. Your error is assuming that war would have been avoided by doing that. In fact, the war was ALREADY under way, with the seizure of Crimea and most of two Ukrainian oblasts. So further talks would not have prevented a war that was already under way. At most, talks might have delayed the second phase of the war, but do you really think Putin would have eventually agreed to anything that respected Ukrainian sovereignty? Nor did terminating the talks 'force' Putin to attack. It was entirely within Putin's power to NOT invade any further than he had already done. There was no threat, neither immediate nor inevitable, that Russia was about to be attacked. Your use of the term 'warmonger' is entirely contrary to the facts. But you have also been consistent in that as well. |
|||||||||||
|
Zorro 1836 en.m.wikipedia.org They were largely fleeing the four horsemen> Medieval Europe existed from ca. 1400-1500. Settlers did not come to the New World in considerable numbers until about 100 years later. Conditions then were markedly improved. |
|||||||||||
|
zorro |
|||||||||||
|
GM But The Great Plague of 1665/66 killed an estimated 100,000 people—almost a quarter of London's population—in 18 months. |
|||||||||||
|
bob Crimea has traditionally been part of the Russian sphere of influence. I do not remember any bombings or artillery barrages going on when Russia took over. Perhaps you can tell me what the casualties were. As for the oblasts that the Russians supposedly controlled, why did they have to fight so hard to move into areas that they already controlled? I would think that if the Russians already controlled them that it would be the Ukranians that were conducting the offensives, not the Russians. |
|||||||||||
|
GMF 18:21 1. <How do you know that “most of them back then did NOT take the Genesis Creation Story literally?> Because I have read a considerable amount of the writings of significant theologians over the last 2,000 years. Some have taken Augstine's attitude of 'dies ineffibiles' (= 'days about which nothing can be said'), some took them as symbolic/allegorical, and some spoke of them as conveying moral/ethical/theological significance. I know of none that asserted that they were intended to be understood as literal, narrative days in what we would call a 'historical' sense. If you would care to cite a few that might run counter to my reading, lease list them. 2. <All this may be true, but it does not answer the question of why else they fled from Europe other than to escape religious persecution.> Perhaps you should read that part of my post again. Hint; "The desire to be in power rather than vulnerable to others in power might look to some like 'freedom of religion', but it is only freedom for ONE religion." To put it even more bluntly, they fled Europe to find a place where they could be the persecutors, not the persecuted. 3. <By including "settlers" my intention was not to go off on a tangent; it was merely to indicate that belief in a Creator was overwhelmingly held in the colonies even before the DoI.> Your acknowledgement and correction is noted and accepted. 4. <By the way, the person who you meant to refer to was not zorroloco, but dmaestro.> I confess my error, and I apologise to all concerned. |
|||||||||||
|
bob Perhaps you should read that part of my post again. Hint; "The desire to be in power rather than vulnerable to others in power might look to some like 'freedom of religion', but it is only freedom for ONE religion." To put it even more bluntly, they fled Europe to find a place where they could be the persecutors, not the persecuted.> Yes, I read your entire post; I just did not think that you were serious about that. Establishing a community where like-minded people can worship in their own way is not the equivalent of wanting to oppress anyone. Limiting membership in the community to others who accept the ways of the community is not persecution; it is merely saying, "We believe such-and-such and prefer to limit our community to others who believe this way." It reminds me of how non-observers were treated during the 40 years in the wilderness. The people of Israel were told to put evil out of the land. |
|||||||||||
|
GMF 19:10 So it's only an invasion if the defenders resist? It was illegal! Whether or not mass slaughter occurred is irrelevant. By-the-way, I could agree that Ukrainian control of Crimea was inappropriate, but we all have to live with the starting position history gives us. That particular starting position was agreed to by Putin himself in the 1990's, so even he accepted that at the time. If Putin wanted an adjustment, then he should have negotiated it. Well might you say that Zelensky broke off negotiations, but doesn't that indicate to you that Putin wasn't offerring an appropriate quid pro quo? One side making demands that the other side won't accept is not a 'negotiation'. 2. <As for the oblasts that the Russians supposedly controlled, why did they have to fight so hard to move into areas that they already controlled?> You seem to have forgotten 2014. Russian forces moved into most of those two eastern oblasts that had been recognised as Ukrainian territory in the 1990's. 3. < I would think that if the Russians already controlled them that it would be the Ukrainians that were conducting the offensives, not the Russians.> a) The Russians DIDN'T already control them prior to the 2014 invasion. The 'hard fighting' w to extend their area of occupation. b) <it would be the Ukrainians that were conducting the offensives,> This argument lapses because it is based on a false premise that Russian occupation and the extension of Russian occupation was legitimate. But to clarify by reference to specifics; tell me which areas recognised as Russian territory have been invaded and occupied by Ukrainian forces. Then tell me which areas recognised by treaty as Ukrainian territory are currently occupied by Russian forces. That should indicate reasonably clearly who is conducting the offensives. To put it bluntly, your whole thesis that Ukraine is the aggressor is complete fantasyland fiction and transparently absurd. Russia might or might not have grounds for a pre-emptive assault, so feel free to debate that until the cows come skating home over the frozen Sahara, but give up on claiming that Ukraine attacked Russia. |
|||||||||||
|
bob Now YOU're moving the goalposts. You originally said, "In fact, the war was ALREADY under way, with the seizure of Crimea and most of two Ukrainian oblasts." It takes two parties to make a war. An unopposed invasion is not a war; it is an invasion. ==================== <but doesn't that indicate to you that Putin wasn't offerring an appropriate quid pro quo? One side making demands that the other side won't accept is not a 'negotiation'. > Do you have knowledge of what was said in the negotiations? Do you know for a fact that it was the proverbial "offer that you can't refuse?" ===================== <In fact, the war was ALREADY under way, with the seizure of Crimea and most of two Ukrainian oblasts.> If Russia already had seized most of the two Ukranian oblasts, then why was all the combat necessary? If you look at this map, www.aljazeera.com. It indicates areas held by separatists, not Russia. And the area is not "most" of the oblasts, as you claim. See also this updated map. www.reuters.com it indicates that now Russia controls most of Luhansk, but less than half of Donetsk. And this is after two years of combat. So this would indicate that Russia, although it has taken a lot of territory, has had to attack in order to achieve this control. ==================== <You seem to have forgotten 2014. Russian forces moved into most of those two eastern oblasts that had been recognised as Ukrainian territory in the 1990's. > So then why did they need to move more forces into those territories? If they were already in the oblasts then why all the bloodshed? Were the Ukrainians moving in to push them out? That is not what the media reported. ==================== <To put it bluntly, your whole thesis that Ukraine is the aggressor is complete fantasyland fiction and transparently absurd.> That was NOT my position. I made it pretty clear that it was an attempt to point out the absurdity of your argument that Russia was already in control of those oblasts. Note that I said "WOULD BE" and "IF." If one country controls an area that another country wants to contest, the contesting country must attack. If Russia controlled the two oblasts as you state, then Ukraine must attack. Russia did NOT control those areas, so it was Russia which had to go on the offensive to attain control of them. |
|||||||||||
|
Negotiations Both Boris Johnson and President Zelensky deny breaking off any negotiations with Russia. Those talks would have been pointless anyway, honored as much as Trump honored the Iran Deal. Zelensky noted Russia rejected any measures guarantee their compliance. Putin wanted war, and nothing short of invasion would appease his war lust. |
|||||||||||
|
GMF 20:18 Under that definition, it is always the side defending itself against invasion that must be deemed the 'warmonger'! What a warped view! <Do you have knowledge of what was said in the negotiations?> Nor do you. But it is reasonable to expect that had Putin offerred any quid pro quo that was acceptable, NOBODY would have walked away. Further evidenced by the events of 2014, when Russia seized Crimea. What id Putin provide in exchange? Oh, that's right; he saved Ukraine the expense of having to govern the Donbas! Seriously, you can't expect anyone to believe that Russia was making an offer that would have been to the nett benefit of BOTH parties compared to the staus quo ante. <If Russia already had seized most of the two Ukranian oblasts, then why was all the combat necessary?> A good question! The answer is "Because Russia wanted still more!" <If you look at this map, www.aljazeera.com. It indicates areas held by separatists, not Russia.> 'Separatists' means 'Russian puppets or agents'. <If Russia controlled the two oblasts as you state, then Ukraine must attack.> Then who attacked in the areas of Kviv and Kharkiv in 2022? And whose army is currently holding the Donbas? Oh, that's Right! Russians were invited in by the Separitists! Their own agents! that makes it all respectable. <So this would indicate that Russia, although it has taken a lot of territory, has had to attack in order to achieve this control.> Yes. Russia has been on the attck. It didn't 'have to attack' as such, but it 'had to attack' to achieve the result we now see. Thank you for agreeing that Russia must be the attacker. <So then why did they (i.e., Russians) need to move more forces into those territories?> Again, Russia didn't 'need to' do anything. It CHOSE to do so. The reason? to take even more ground. <I made it pretty clear that it was an attempt to point out the absurdity of your argument that Russia was already in control of those oblasts.> Then you failed in your purpose. First, because I never claimed that Russia was already in control of those two oblasts, only that it was in control of a large expanse of Ukrainian territory within those two oblasts. Secondly, how much territory does an invader have to occupy before it's reasonable to call it an invasion? I notice that you were very careful indeed to go nowhere near my challenge, which I will now repeat for clarity:- "Tell me which areas recognised as Russian territory have been invaded and occupied by Ukrainian forces." As I said in my earlier posts, feel free to argue that Russia felt justified in a preemptive attack. That might possibly be a defensible position. But you can't argue that it WASN'T an attack. |
|||||||||||
|
Come Into My Home I’m likely going to shoot intruders, especially if they threaten harm. Can you blame me? My neighbors came down to my place all heavily armed to check on potential thieves. I deeply respect that, and would do the same for them. We are just being good neighbors to Ukraine. Estonia and Finland help them more than we do. We are a ways down the list. Kind of shitty neighbors. “Oh, your house is being burglarized? Yeah, that petty tyrant has murdered a lot of people. Well, good luck. We would wish you well but don’t want to take sides. The nasty little runt’s ancestors used to live in your home years back, when he beat your relatives, and is probably entitled to your belongings.” |
|||||||||||
|
ls Absolutely not! As a holder of a "Lifetime Concealed Carry Permit," I'd probably help you in your "war" - unless, of course, the "invaders" were the police coming in to arrest you for holding my kid hostage. <My neighbors came down to my place all heavily armed to check on potential thieves. I deeply respect that, and would do the same for them. We are just being good neighbors to Ukraine.> Have you looked at a map lately? Our neighbors are Canada and Mexico (and perhaps island nations in the Caribbean). <Estonia and Finland help them more than we do.> That is their choice. If I lived in one of those countries I would probably object. <We are a ways down the list. > As we should be. Europeans have been fighting each other for centuries. We have not been asked by anyoe to be the world's policeman. Had we stayed out of WWI, the Central Powers would have won, and there would have been no Versailles Treaty, and probably no Hitler, and no WWII. Would Europeans have eventually created another war? Probably. But we would have been justified in staying out of that one too. War is not fun to get involved in. |
|||||||||||
|
bob 2318 Bob, please do not consider the fact that I do not answer every single comment of yours to be avoidance. Your postings are long and detailed and are not the only postings that I alone must answer. I do have a life outside of GK's forum. I have no other poster on my side to answer the various arguments. That said, I did not avoid your challenge; I merely overlooked it. Of course, there is no territory that fits the criteria that I mentioned with the possible exception of Crimea and the bridge. The Nordstream pipeline is not Ukranian territory. Do you consider drone attacks to be "invasions?" How about Moscow theaters? I will TRY to get to the other issues after I feed my "girls." |
|||||||||||
|
bob 2318 (2) <Under that definition, it is always the side defending itself against invasion that must be deemed the 'warmonger'! What a warped view! >> I called no party a warmonger. Please do not invent absurdities and ascribe them to me. An invasion is, of course, an act of war, but if it is not opposed, there is no war. My ojection was to the characterization of what took place prior to 2022. =========================== <<Do you have knowledge of what was said in the negotiations?> Nor do you. But it is reasonable to expect that had Putin offerred any quid pro quo that was acceptable, NOBODY would have walked away. >> I never claimed that I did. My point was that neither of us did, but you are the only one who appeared to "know." Your "reasonable expectations" are your speculations, nothing more. The fact is that the negotiations were in progress. Neither party asked for anyone else to intervene. Had everyone minded their own business and the negotiations broken down and Russia invaded, there would have been some justification for those nations who chose to intervene to do so. But as it occurred, we have no way of knowing what the parties were saying. It is conceivable that Putin's main demand was that Ukraine agree not to become part of NATO and/or not permit NATO missiles to be installed on its territory. Maintaining neutrality is not always a death sentence. ===================== <<If Russia already had seized most of the two Ukranian oblasts, then why was all the combat necessary?> <A good question! The answer is "Because Russia wanted still more!" > You are, of course, free to speculate as you wish, but you don't KNOW what Russia wanted. My speculation is that the main concern of the Russians was that Ukraine would join NATO and allow NATO missiles to be installed there. When we installed missiles in Turkey, the Cuban missile crisis resulted. War was avoided and the missiles removed from Cuba after JFK agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey. The Russians have the same fears about Ukraine that they had about Turkey. The fear is not unreasonable. ====================== <'Separatists' means 'Russian puppets or agents'.> Maybe. Maybe just speculation. It is also possible that when the Ukranian SSR was created, the border was incorrectly drawn or that the ethnic background of the residents of the two oblasts changed. ======================== <Then who attacked in the areas of Kviv and Kharkiv in 2022?> Negotiations were halted and Russians attacked. Had negotiations been permitted to continue, who knows how much bloodshed would have been avoided. =================== And whose army is currently holding the Donbas? > Bob, you have already said that Russia held most of Donbas prior to 2022. So why is this an issue to debate? ===================== <Oh, that's Right! Russians were invited in by the Separitists! Their own agents! that makes it all respectable.> Respectable? Since when is war "respectable?" War is the result of failure of diplomacy. Diplomacy was ongoing until it was interfered with in this case. ======================= <Thank you for agreeing that Russia must be the attacker. > I never disagreed with that position, so thanking me is irrelevant. =========================== <Again, Russia didn't 'need to' do anything. It CHOSE to do so. The reason? to take even more ground.> Again, you speculate. How about speculating on this.....what do you think would have happened if Ukraine had agreed not to apply for or accept NATO membership and to refuse NATO missiles? ======================== <Then you failed in your purpose. First, because I never claimed that Russia was already in control of those two oblasts, only that it was in control of a large expanse of Ukrainian territory within those two oblasts.> I believe that you used the word "most." See here: <You seem to have forgotten 2014. Russian forces moved into most of those two eastern oblasts that had been recognised as Ukrainian territory in the 1990's. > And here: <In fact, the war was ALREADY under way, with the seizure of Crimea and most of two Ukrainian oblasts. > =========================== < As I said in my earlier posts, feel free to argue that Russia felt justified in a preemptive attack. That might possibly be a defensible position. But you can't argue that it WASN'T an attack.> This has been my position consistently. I never argued that it was not an attack. |
|||||||||||
|
GM To quote a great nan: “This aggression will not stand!” |
|||||||||||
|
zorro If you were in Putin's shoes and NATO was slowly creeping closer and closer despite the "great man's" promise not to come an inch closer if only Germany were allowed to reunite, what would you do? |
|||||||||||
|
GM Putin’s choice didn’t help, did it? |
|||||||||||
|
Sweden was accepted. “Sweden became NATO's newest member in March. Their accession brought an end to longstanding military nonalignment by the two Nordic countries, as Russia's aggression once again threatened peace and stability on Europe's eastern flank.” Google Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia all border Russia, and none of them sport nukes, US or NATO. Does NATO even have nukes? We like to pretend these are defensive, but they aren’t, really. No one in Russia wanted this war, certainly not the Russian cannon fodder fertilizing Ukraine’s fields. No one but Putin, who murders everyone who opposes him. |
|||||||||||
|
zorro 0651 And as for a depleted military, we must never forget that it was the Russians who suffered more casualties than anyone in WWII - by far. And yet, they replaced their military quickly to engage us in the Cold War. I believe that the Ukranian military has been depleted to a much greater degree than the Russian military. |
|||||||||||
|
GM |
|||||||||||
|
I don’t believe NATO itself has control over any nuclear weapons. As I understand it these MIGHT be rolled out only in an invasion of the U.S., England, or France—and only conventional forces deployed to repel the invasion of any ally. Of course, Trump’s recalcitrance honoring article 5 puts all that into question. Putin wants NATO dissolved, and Trump has been eager to appease and comply. |
|||||||||||
|
GM No, it doesn’t. We have 30-40% of our population willing to put idiot, narcissistic ignorant belligerent trump in office. A would be tyrant who thinks the constitution should be shredded and flushed and who finds democracy a bothersome and irrelevant detail to be worked around, rather than the most foundational tenet of our country. |
|||||||||||
|
It had teeth until Trump defanged it at Putin’s behest. “I would encourage Russia to do whatever they want. You gotta pay your bills.” (Not an exact quote.) <<Negotiations WERE ongoing until Boris Johnson and the US advised Zelensky to withdraw from them.>> Again, that information comes from Putin. Boris and Zelensky both deny it. Do I need to cite sources again? Why would they lie about this? Putin would lie. <<At that point, Putin had no option to negotiate.>> He also had no business waging war. “You don’t accede to my demands, say ‘hello’ to my little friend.l <<I agree that the further enlargement of NATO by the admission of Sweden and Finland made Russia's encirclement more of a reality, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking.>> It isn’t like anyone couldn’t see that coming. Plus, the AH Putin has been lobbing missiles into Odessa, Kiev, Liev, and Mariupol. I have never been to Kiev, but why bomb hospitals and old folks homes? Putin bombed a theater emblazoned with “children” with missiles on which they wrote, “dlya detee.” For children. Evil SOBs. I’m glad Ukraine can now reach deeper into the supply lines in Crimea. Sadly I no longer communicate with my Russian friends to see how things are really going. I seriously doubt it is as rosy as Tucker Carlson paints. |
|||||||||||
|
ls 0713 Do you believe that Poland or Ukraine would refuse to join this group? I would like NATO to go the way of the Warsaw Pact too. |
|||||||||||
|
zorro You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but consider the much less degree of war going on during Pres. Trump's administration. The only saber-rattling going on was by North Korea, and he went back into his shell when told that we have a bigger button, and it works. |
|||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
