Jump to content

Fire and Jace

Members
  • Posts

    15,755
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fire and Jace

  1. The God-Emperor Leto II will send his Fish Speakers to deal with these upstart Space Mans. Thence they shall suffer the fate of a stone dropped upon the sea; they shall simply disappear.
  2. Normal soldier worries about what organs they might lose and still survive. In Putin's Russia a soldier worries about how many more they can grow and still survive.
  3. When he rolls down that ramp and sighs... Lmfao
  4. In serious countries coups don't play out on TV. That's the whole point of the coup.
  5. Goddamn, that almost sounds like a silver lining to me. Agitation for increased public spending? That's good news. Unfortunately they'll probably earmark it for the building of profit prisons and rerouting roads to center on Amazon warehouses, but let's enjoy this sixty seconds of common cause. For the sake of goodwill and all that.
  6. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. But I sure do like seeing them kill each other. Go get 'em Elon. Charge that machine gun nest for all humankind. Let's just the rest of us hang back and see how this shakes out. Preserve the tactical modularity of the situation if you know what I mean (I don't, so please tell me what I mean if you know what I mean).
  7. Paul, this is your father's... *ring*. He gave it, to me, before he died. And y'know, he knew, the Harks would take it away. If they found it. So... *Alternatively, your father's... Spice, Harvester...
  8. People don't look at effect and conclude "shit happens." They start at effect and reverse engineer until sufficient causes they can identify and understand line up enough to satisfy their curiosity. That is how conclusions are achieved from historical observance. And no strategist, politician, chief of staff, or dad at the dinner table wants to tell the people they answer to "shit happens man." Welcome to the 2nd age of nuclear armsmanship™. You'll pine for the days of the Kaiser and his High Seas Fleet. Hell, you'll pine for the days when there were only two serious players at the table and we called it MAD.
  9. As Kal just explained; revisionist history doesn't work that way. Ukraine giving up their ICBMs was a triumph for international peace and goodwill among former foes... In the 90s. If Putin nukes Kyiv or uses threats to do so in order to make Ukraine agree to peace under ruinous terms tomorrow then it was a mistake.
  10. For want of more thanks buttons. We had almost eighty years of pretty good limits on warfare and I think it numbed people to the rotten ice we've all been living on since the fifties. And it's gonna get worse, much worse, in the next few decades as resource scarcity starts to bite. I expect nations such as listed above to explain their need for nuclear capacity based on not getting completely shafted by the likes of U.S.A and China when it comes to trade. Which will be a matter of life and death in the 2050s. Keeping that toothpaste in the tube for as long as possible is the only intelligent play in a game full of deathtraps. So that's why you don't let the new Sick Man of Europe bite off chunks of their neighbors with little more than muttered threats. Because then everyone is gonna expect the game to be played that way, and everyone is gonna base their strategies on the idea that if you know someone with nukes who doesn't like you you need to have some yourself or else you're fucked because the rest of the world ain't gonna have your back if it endangers them.
  11. This is an offshoot of the discussion I was attempting to bring up the other day before I got completely derailed by what I can -most charitably - call stupid dumb whiny shit over absolutely nothing that not only failed to contribute to productive conversation but actively murdered any such chance before it could be begun. If the rules of war are allowed to become "we have nuke. You don't. Give me this, that, and one other thing just because." That opens the door to that kind of nuclear coercion for everyone. Do you think the North Koreans would watch the world sell away Ukrainian territory and political sovereignty -specifically because of fear of nuclear escalation- to Russia and not say "hey, we're literally starving to death, let's try what they tried!"
  12. And now all the world gets to see that that was a mistake. Are you taking notes Iran? This will be on the escalation dominance test.
  13. More like the Russian Con Air Force
  14. Wachuwantmetosayimdrunk? We're all fucked. Live fast.
  15. You're talking about the man who is going to defeat Biden and become the next Reagan. "Eh, California can do as it pleases regarding abortion." Is gonna win him sixty percent of the vote. (I'm exaggerating, but not as much as you'll wish I were.) "What a moderate." They'll say. "Downright reasonable." Will be the commentary. "An adult in the office, but not one who's been an adult for sixty years." Is what we will hear. And the most fucked up thing? That'll probably be true. He won't have to run as any kind of psychotic Trumpist. Trump already went out and cannon foddered through all the grimy work of winding back the clock. All Ryan has to do is walk in and not literally foam at the mouth and shit on the bed and even Democrats will be forced to admit "he's not Trump." And that'll be all he needs. He can even set about to purging the Qists and be hailed as the savior of the Republic. Yaaay democracy, eh?
  16. Memes? MEMES??? We're looking to memes for favorable portents now? Forget darkness; democracy died on Twitter.
  17. And you're not even pretending to engage with my stated opinion in any of my comments. You're isolating single lines of broader points and trying to... I don't know, discredit me? I'm not very credible to begin with, so that's an odd choice. Just from the outside; it looks like you don't know how to explain that I'm wrong so you're attacking me. You don't even respond to the things you quote. I defined appeasement -in the section YOU quoted- as "having to give the tyrant something that isn't his so that he will stop trying to take something that isn't his" and you countered with Saddam... And when I picked the wings off that lazy fly-by rebuttal in less time than it took me to enter the grocery store and find the cat litter you come back with a list of things Ukraine could do maybe to appease Putin so that he ends his illegal incursion into their territory. Yo, you're sitting there acting like appeasement is Chamberlain in '38. It ain't that, man. It's a word. A word that describes accurately any process of agreeing to the belligerent's demands for promises of ceasing their belligerence. Off-ramp, Face Saving, Exit Strategies... Those are all weak misspellings of the idea that you gotta give the bully something to go away. And that's all I was trying to bring into the discourse before you started acting like I'm screaming from a balcony in Munich. Words matter. Their context matters. Discourse is improved by accurate descriptions of the events or ideas in question and using soft language to describe completely unfair and (almost certainly likely) outcomes dilutes the very real unjustness in something like Ukraine having to renounce its territory and ability to join alliance groups that Russia doesn't like. I'm not here saying Ukraine should fight to the last man. I'm not saying that they shouldn't agree to terms such as have been discussed on this board if that's what they want to do to get the fighting to stop. I'm saying that some people could choose their words more effectively when discussing these things because saying things like 'off-ramp' and 'face saving' lays the ground for observers in countries Ukraine is depending on for war aid to think that they're being unreasonable if THEY decide that Putin doesn't get what he wants or not as much as he wants. I'm sorry that it looked like I was sniping at you in my first post. That was absolutely not my intention and I apologized for it immediately. I wanted to share my concerns about how discourse can and will effect the way people view future occurrences, and treating things with matter-of-factness and passive language that are not in your control sets the stage for confusion and resentment towards people who absolutely don't deserve it. I mean look at how you reacted to me asking a question about how we frame these things THEN APOLOGIZING immediately when I realized I'd accidentally suggested something of you that I did not intend. Common wisdom has an inertia that can make people very very reactive when things go differently than they'd expected, and all I set out to discuss is that the common wisdom of places very very far from Russian aggression probably doesn't match the feelings of people who are not in safe and secure locations. Sorry I did that, I guess.
  18. America didn't give parts of Kuwait to Iraq and declare victory. We murdered the entire (almost, lest you freak the fuck out that I'm not being factual) Iraqi army from the sky as it retreated from the formerly occupied areas. I ain't been saying Putin has to be deposed for a Ukrainian victory, merely that surrendering territory and accepting diplomatic neutering is, let me check my notes... Surrendering. And dressing the bad man's victory in language that makes it sound hollow is, itself, the hollowest of victories. I can't believe I have to explain this to a guy as smart as you. And are you really, really, gonna pretend that the majority of Ukrainian victory conditions discussed on this board haven't included the giving away of occupied territories (occupied for a long time, but still) and clipped diplomatic wings? C'mon man.
  19. Again, I'm not trying to come after you here so much as this baked-in concept that Russia gets to get war prizes for being incompetent. And that's totally what people mean when they say off-ramp. The accepted assumption that Putin has to be given something that isn't his so he will stop trying to take something that isn't his. There used to be a word for this: APPEASEMENT I don't like it when common terms spring up to replace existing language. 'Off-ramp' and 'face saving' sound a lot less egregious than appeasement, and are therefore easier to posit as a necessary precursor to peace. I suspect because of the -entirely superficial- implication that Putin is a loser. If he walks away with territory and political concessions that leave Russia better off than it was the day before there's a word for that: Winner. If Ukraine can accept that they beat him but he still gets to win, that's their business. But I don't like the assumption that they have to. Especially not when they're doing so well. Half the comments I read in these threads make me feel like I'm watching parents in the stands opine that the Mighty Ducks have done a great job standing up to the Hawks but they shouldn't come out of the locker room after halftime because what if the Hawks run up the score or start firing indiscriminately into the crowd? And that's no way to react to people who have done nothing wrong fighting to preserve their lives and freedoms.
  20. I was just using you two as a stepping off point, I didn't mean to repudiate you specifically. I only quoted the posts because they both mentioned the off-ramp concept, I didn't intend at all to reference them beyond the accepted term that I find so feckless. I could have denoted that I suppose. The comment was supposed to be in a much broader scope than individual comments. Apologies for singling you out like that, it wasn't what I intended.
  21. Personally I'm not sure why Russia should get an off-ramp. Especially one that allows them to diminish the victim of their attacks. I think that sets a horrific precedent wherein a nuclear armed state can be essentially defeated in the field and yet still carve off chunks of their victim while ALSO getting appeased by the international community in the form of eliminated sanctions and strategic concessions regarding alliances and defense agreements. If the Ukrainians want to surrender -and that's what this 'off-ramp' talk is, surrender with a pretty face - that's their business. Ain't nobody nowhere with a decent reason to say otherwise. But I think it worth bringing up for all of my nervous friends that when faced with leaving your own people in the hands of a tyrant (not some nebulous others you've never encountered), announcing defeat despite the deaths and valor of your own defending troops, and then diminishing your own geopolitical freedoms (you CAN join this alliance you CAN'T join this one, all at Russia's discretion of course)... Vague fears of escalation are not going to seem so scary when your own people are already dying and actually defeating the invader. The greater fear of those who decry Ukrainian efforts at self determination appears to be that the Russians will use, in response to their continuing non-victories, nuclear weapons against Ukrainian cities or positions in the field. This completely hypothetical and absolutely unprecedented possibility is so terrifying to many, it seems, that the disincorporation of vast swathes of someone else's homeland is taken completely for granted when discussing 'off-ramps' and other capitulatory efforts to appease the murderous tyrant. I fear that so much discussion of exit ramps and face saving for the invader sets the stage for people to feel that Ukraine is in the wrong if they don't want to give him that in return for their blood that has been spilt. In return for their cities that have been reduced to nothingness. And in return for their territory and national sovereignty that gets stripped away. It's easy to write off costs for peace when you aren't the one paying the bill. Furthermore the absolute inundation of these predetermined giveaways makes me suspicious of Russian bots and web agents (since even before the invasion) priming the most gullible parts of the Twitterverse with Russian-centric conditions for peace, again, to sap international support for Ukraine if they should refuse hard terms from the side that is basically losing. It's the kind of long term planning that the late period Romans would have used, if they'd had the internet in the 10th century, and something I seriously hope the U.S. would consider when it's done transforming into a fascistic hellscape. "I only want a little this, a little that... Is it really worth all this badness?" Is a pretty good abusive technique in relationships, and I contend we've already seen that such an arrogant and lazy declaration from population stealing, hospital bombing, conscript using treachers is like honey in the ears of some folks. Anything to get the terrible realities of violent and aggressive polities far far away where it belongs. Pay attention; American fascists of the future. If Russia isn't using the technique I've hypothesized above, you should. Could probably peel off entire states at a time from Mexico while your Twitter agents complain that Russia made you do it by killing Trotsky.
  22. I'm pretty sure they write, shoot, edit the trailers and then look into making a pilot script.
×
×
  • Create New...