"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Regarding "mockery, sarcasm, and insult", such is to be expected with so many members having been in the military. I was aware of this long before I joined and have been the subject of same, most of it justified.

It's GI jargon, more usually leavened with a fair bit o' cussin'. I shudder to think what crisis that might have triggered.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've seen the inside of Government and it's a scary place...but only because of how incompetent it is, not because it's some evil nexus for everything bad in the world.

Hanlon's Razor is a valid concept, especially when regarding governmental decisions and acts.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

People who know me on this forum also know I'm a pretty balanced guy who tries to apply experience and reason....so throw rocks at my so-called lack of free-minded thinking if you wish. However, here are a few points for you.

I started reviewing your "evidence" with the intent of countering each point made...but I had to give up because it would have occupied pages and pages of contradictions to push back on the nonsense. A democratic, Western-leaning Ukraine is in US and European best interests. It's what the Ukrainian people voted for (and why they evicted Yanukovich in the first place). I've actually worked at US European Command HQ in Stuttgart and I've never, EVER seen any sort of plan that discusses aspirations for US bases in Ukraine. Back in 2014, USEUCOM's primary mission was funneling forces into the USCENTCOM region so to suggest that, somehow, USEUCOM was planning for Ukrainian bases in 2014 is ludicrous.

It's funny how all the commentary is about the Obama administration and its ties to Yatsenyuk and yet no mention is made of the in-person visit by Republican John McCain where he met with Yatsenyuk. Again, if the coup was an American conspiracy under the Obama administration, why would McCain, who was Obama's competitor for the office of President in 2008, buy into it? Surely McCain would be screaming about such a conspiracy?

There is so much spin and glib commentary in these videos. They prove NOTHING except that the US State Department actively works to promote US interests overseas. To suggest that the State Dept can foment regime change covertly at a national level is, frankly, laughable. To think that somehow this was a great conspiracy that a few YouTube video bloggers have managed to uncover is even more ridiculous. In order for such actions to succeed, it would require (a) the US Govt to be incredibly effective and integrated, and (b) that it has direct influence over the daily lives of the people in foreign countries. Neither of those requirements are met. If you've ever worked in or near US Govt, you'll know how dysfunctional it can be. Also, as we've seen with Russia, there's the law of unintended consequences. The actions you take may not work out the way you want. The whole idea that the US fomented the coup in Ukraine and that it came of flawlessly is simply unrealistic. Look at the US invasion of Iraq which was a disaster because the US Govt failed to plan for the peace, assuming that the Iraqi people would welcome US forces with open arms. Look at the pull out from Afghanistan which was equally disastrous. Look at the Libyan Embassy disaster, Arab Spring, and the failure in Syria...and we're supposed to believe that, somehow, the coup in Ukraine was designed and implemented by America without a single glitch?

Some of these videos repeat other conspiracy theories, for example throwing George Soros into the mix. Let's suppose, for a moment, that Soros was involved in fomenting the coup in Ukraine in 2014. Two years later, Trump became President. Why did he not order an investigation of their actions? Why was the charitable status of Soros' various humanitarian organizations not revoked? Let's face it, the rhetoric within certain quarters of the Republican party seeks to burn George Soros at the stake and, yet, when in power they took no action against him. Why is that? Is Soros so powerful that he can face down the Department of Justice, the State Department and even the President? Or is it, perhaps, that the rhetoric about him is merely that...rhetoric with no evidence to back it up?

I've worked in and alongside government for well over 30 years under politicians of multiple different stripes. Regardless of political bent at the time, the one universal trait is the uncanny ability of governments to demonstrate, all too frequently, that they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. The US Government isn't nearly as powerful as many Americans think it is. It isn't some all-knowing hive-mind. It's a bunch of civil servants, most of whom are massively underpaid. The presence of a few, high-profile, individuals does not change the fundamental nature of the bureaucracy because, ultimately, those same civil servants remain in their posts. Yes, the political appointees change but the underlying processes don't. That's why progress within government is such damned hard work...and it's a problem I work every single day of my professional life, so please don't throw conspiracy nonsense at me. I've seen the inside of Government and it's a scary place...but only because of how incompetent it is, not because it's some evil nexus for everything bad in the world.

 

[MiTasol]

You meant Airbus - right?

You left the Sc off the front

 

[Glider]

I hate saying it, but it looks as if as we suspected Germany isn't supporting Ukraine. Or the Poles who have passed equipment onto Ukraine on the promise from Germany to backfill the donation

MSN

www.msn.com

This quote sums it all up
Mr Scholz has been under fire at home and abroad for failing to deliver full support for Ukraine. Germany's opposition leader Friedrich Merz visited Ukraine in early May, saying Mr Scholz's appeasement policy was weak and insecure.

"The chancellor answered all the questions no one asked, and he has not answered a single one of the questions we asked him," Mr Merz said at the time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You left the Sc off the front

"Fly by wire, die by fire"

 

[Greg Boeser]

People who know me on this forum also know I'm a pretty balanced guy who tries to apply experience and reason....so throw rocks at my so-called lack of free-minded thinking if you wish. However, here are a few points for you.

I started reviewing your "evidence" with the intent of countering each point made...but I had to give up because it would have occupied pages and pages of contradictions to push back on the nonsense. A democratic, Western-leaning Ukraine is in US and European best interests. It's what the Ukrainian people voted for (and why they evicted Yanukovich in the first place). I've actually worked at US European Command HQ in Stuttgart and I've never, EVER seen any sort of plan that discusses aspirations for US bases in Ukraine. Back in 2014, USEUCOM's primary mission was funneling forces into the USCENTCOM region so to suggest that, somehow, USEUCOM was planning for Ukrainian bases in 2014 is ludicrous.

It's funny how all the commentary is about the Obama administration and its ties to Yatsenyuk and yet no mention is made of the in-person visit by Republican John McCain where he met with Yatsenyuk. Again, if the coup was an American conspiracy under the Obama administration, why would McCain, who was Obama's competitor for the office of President in 2008, buy into it? Surely McCain would be screaming about such a conspiracy?

There is so much spin and glib commentary in these videos. They prove NOTHING except that the US State Department actively works to promote US interests overseas. To suggest that the State Dept can foment regime change covertly at a national level is, frankly, laughable. To think that somehow this was a great conspiracy that a few YouTube video bloggers have managed to uncover is even more ridiculous. In order for such actions to succeed, it would require (a) the US Govt to be incredibly effective and integrated, and (b) that it has direct influence over the daily lives of the people in foreign countries. Neither of those requirements are met. If you've ever worked in or near US Govt, you'll know how dysfunctional it can be. Also, as we've seen with Russia, there's the law of unintended consequences. The actions you take may not work out the way you want. The whole idea that the US fomented the coup in Ukraine and that it came of flawlessly is simply unrealistic. Look at the US invasion of Iraq which was a disaster because the US Govt failed to plan for the peace, assuming that the Iraqi people would welcome US forces with open arms. Look at the pull out from Afghanistan which was equally disastrous. Look at the Libyan Embassy disaster, Arab Spring, and the failure in Syria...and we're supposed to believe that, somehow, the coup in Ukraine was designed and implemented by America without a single glitch?

Some of these videos repeat other conspiracy theories, for example throwing George Soros into the mix. Let's suppose, for a moment, that Soros was involved in fomenting the coup in Ukraine in 2014. Two years later, Trump became President. Why did he not order an investigation of their actions? Why was the charitable status of Soros' various humanitarian organizations not revoked? Let's face it, the rhetoric within certain quarters of the Republican party seeks to burn George Soros at the stake and, yet, when in power they took no action against him. Why is that? Is Soros so powerful that he can face down the Department of Justice, the State Department and even the President? Or is it, perhaps, that the rhetoric about him is merely that...rhetoric with no evidence to back it up?

I've worked in and alongside government for well over 30 years under politicians of multiple different stripes. Regardless of political bent at the time, the one universal trait is the uncanny ability of governments to demonstrate, all too frequently, that they couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. The US Government isn't nearly as powerful as many Americans think it is. It isn't some all-knowing hive-mind. It's a bunch of civil servants, most of whom are massively underpaid. The presence of a few, high-profile, individuals does not change the fundamental nature of the bureaucracy because, ultimately, those same civil servants remain in their posts. Yes, the political appointees change but the underlying processes don't. That's why progress within government is such damned hard work...and it's a problem I work every single day of my professional life, so please don't throw conspiracy nonsense at me. I've seen the inside of Government and it's a scary place...but only because of how incompetent it is, not because it's some evil nexus for everything bad in the world.

Dude! Shut up! Your giving away TOP SECRET info to our enemies.
I remember my army days. We were constantly being reminded that we were the most highly trained military in the world. All I could think was "God help the rest of them."

 

[Jagdflieger]

You left the Sc off the front

Ah... jealousy starting to reign in ..

 

[at6]

Is it possible to add voting option for banning irritating persons from discussion??? Let say 5 votes for ban and such person is out??

I've been corrected here for comments that inadvertently offended a few people. Even the moderators have justifiably called me on the carpet a few times and the voting option would have banned me a long time ago. I'm not always right and I can get mean and nasty sometimes.

 

[at6]

I keep hearing calls for Ukraine to cede land to Russia to end the war. That would be giving Putin his victory. Anyone trying force such a solution on Ukraine needs to be slapped so hard that the Chinese will be scraping their faces off of the Great Wall.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't like the idea of voting for bans. That would encourage cliques and perhaps even groupthink.

The rules are clear, and yes, the mods should have to vote in order to prevent bias amongst themselves (barring the obvious porn/spam etc -- that should be click and kill), but the wider readership voting a member in or out? I don't think that's a good idea.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I keep hearing calls for Ukraine to cede land to Russia to end the war. That would be giving Putin his victory. Anyone trying force such a solution on Ukraine needs to be slapped so hard that the Chinese will scraping their faces off of the Great Wall.

Agreed. Given that the Ukrainians are the only ones with skin in the game, the victory conditions are for them alone to decide.

Our decision in the West will be how long we're willing to support them, and that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I've been corrected here for comments that inadvertently offended a few people. Even the moderators have justifiably called me on the carpet a few times and the voting option would have banned me a long time ago. I'm not always right and I can get mean and nasty sometimes.

I'm one of those who have called you out, but I would not vote for your banning, not because I agree with you, but because you give voice to feelings I don't feel but still should know about.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I don't like the idea of voting for bans. That would encourage cliques and perhaps even groupthink.

Agreed

The rules are clear, and yes, the mods should have to vote in order to prevent bias amongst themselves (barring the obvious porn/spam etc -- that should be click and kill), but the wider readership voting a member in or out? I don't think that's a good idea.

I can assure that we Mods do not take the banning of anyone lightly. It is never easy, and it is always a last resort (outside of the obvious porn/spam, etc. you refer to).

We have an Admin/Mod section that is only accessible to the Admin/Mod team, and we always discuss these actions as a team. I can tell you that we are also human and have differences amongst ourselves. We don't always agree, but we discuss any issue as a team and come together on an agreed upon team consensus. That is why we have a team made up of multiple members (rather than just one or two), and we also ensure that team is an international one (that way it is not US or Eurocentric).

I think for the most part we do a pretty decent job. I know we try to be impartial, even when we agree with a certain position. We are human though, and we too can make mistakes and even "lose our cool" from time to time.

For me personally, it is about preserving this place and the friendships I have made here. This forum got me through some dark days when I was in Iraq. I joined the Mod team while I was there. I consider everyone here a friend (and even my online family), even those I have a hard time agreeing with or those I want to smack across the face.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed



I can assure that we Mods do not take the banning of anyone lightly. It is never easy, and it is always a last resort (outside of the obvious porn/spam, etc. you refer to).

We have an Admin/Mod section that is only accessible to the Admin/Mod team, and we always discuss these actions as a team. I can tell you that we are also human and have differences amongst ourselves. We don't always agree, but we discuss any issue as a team and come together on an agreed upon team consensus. That is why we have a team made up of multiple members (rather than just one or two), and we also ensure that team is an international one (that way it is not US or Eurocentric).

I think for the most part we do a pretty decent job. I know we try to be impartial, even when we agree with a certain position. We are human though, and we too can make mistakes and even "lose our cool" from time to time.

For me personally, it is about preserving this place and the friendships I have made here. This forum got me through some dark days when I was in Iraq. I joined the Mod team while I was there. I consider everyone here a friend (and even my online family), even those I have a hard time agreeing with or those I was to smack across the face.

I was a mod at a freethought forum for a while and we had that same mod-section thread for discussing poster issues. I was diligent about recusing myself if I was involved in the discussion, and from that experience and my time here I think that the moderation is generally very good.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Freethought?
Does that mean it's not worth a damn?

 

[MiTasol]

No - that is freedumb

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Freethought?
Does that mean it's not worth a damn?

No, it means you didn't have to pay for the right to express it.
(Other than a few years of your life to Uncle)

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Freethought?
Does that mean it's not worth a damn?

I had a drummer in a band one time who wouldn't stencil our band's name on the head of his kick-drum. Instead, he'd stenciled "Your opinion of me is none of my business."

That's freethought, and worth every penny you've paid for it!

 

[at6]

Freethought?
Does that mean it's not worth a damn?

No. It means that it's a freeby. How ever, you must include a self addressed and stamped envelope.