Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I abandoned my New Year’s resolution to show more empathy for imperialist dictators who invaded neighboring sovereign nations for the purpose of annexing said nation by committing war crimes and genocide by February 24. Try as I might I just can’t get past the indiscriminate murder of men, women and children by targeting apartment buildings, schools, churches, daycares, and homes. Mass rape, torture and the abduction of children as an instrument of war is also a dealbreaker.

Then I take it you have withdrawn your support to Israel decades ago? And made it known to your representatives?

The annoying know-it-all kid ftom middle school who never seems to know what the smart kids are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:It’s awesome how Trump turned the GOP into the anti-war, anti big-pharma, pro working man party.

the growth positions. What happened to the democrats?

Anonymous wrote:It gets even better (worse!) … PBS now reporting the U.S. believes that it’s likely that the damage in Poland was caused by a Ukrainian missile (from a missile defense system) gone astray.

Yep - our “friend” Zelensky rushed to push the world to the brink of nuclear destruction after what all indications now appear to have been his own missile accidentally hitting Poland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you want your entire family vaporized in a nuclear holocaust, my little DC Urban Moms and Dads friends?

If not, you need to let your voice be heard -- tell "our" government to STOP MESSING AROUND WITH RISKING WORLD WAR 3 for some godforsaken border somewhere in a corrupt country that most people cannot even find on a map.

This. Is. Insane.

NO WAR FOR UKRAINE
NO WAR FOR POLAND

My American children deserve LIFE.

Sorry, but the US has a commitment to its NATO allies. Your naïveté is shocking. Do you not know how WWII started? Germany and Russia invaded Poland while the world turned a blind eye. Never again.

Also, never forget how many Soviet Jews were killed by the Germans.
Never forget Kursk.
Never forget Stalingrad.
Russians killed the most German troops: 75%

And never forget Katyn. Please, use diplomacy to bring this to an end

Never forget the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact or the Munich Agreement of 1938.

Never forget that Russia would have been defeated without convoys of supplies and military hardware from the US.

Never forget Stalin’s love for “rootless cosmopolitans” snd “Zionists” sent to the gulags.

Never forget that an untold number of Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Slovakians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Georgians, Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians — not to mention French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians and Finns — collaborated with the Nazis and were complicit in the Holocaust[/b].

LOL my dear in your rush to list all the collaborators you missed two big groups. Yuge ones!

1) Ukrainians, with whose hands the Babiy Yar massacre was carried out,

and

You seem confused. It it your medication?

2) Americans, who after the war took dozens of Nazi scientists and commanders to the US and gave them nice cushy jobs.

Yep. Sure. OK.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you want your entire family vaporized in a nuclear holocaust, my little DC Urban Moms and Dads friends?

If not, you need to let your voice be heard -- tell "our" government to STOP MESSING AROUND WITH RISKING WORLD WAR 3 for some godforsaken border somewhere in a corrupt country that most people cannot even find on a map.

This. Is. Insane.

NO WAR FOR UKRAINE
NO WAR FOR POLAND

My American children deserve LIFE.

People on DCUM don’t care. Rich kids don’t go fight in wars. It’s the poor people who can’t figure out how to get out of the draft who go and die in wars.

Um, we don't have a draft in this country. The US military is purely voluntary.

Anonymous wrote:I think a good response would be to carpet bomb Russian soldiers in Ukraine. That way we aren’t attacking within the national borders of Russia but we are hitting them in retaliation for attacking a NATO country. We can’t possibly allow an attack like this to happen without a retaliation or it shows we aren’t willing to defend our Allie’s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I abandoned my New Year’s resolution to show more empathy for imperialist dictators who invaded neighboring sovereign nations for the purpose of annexing said nation by committing war crimes and genocide by February 24. Try as I might I just can’t get past the indiscriminate murder of men, women and children by targeting apartment buildings, schools, churches, daycares, and homes. Mass rape, torture and the abduction of children as an instrument of war is also a dealbreaker.

Then I take it you have withdrawn your support to Israel decades ago? And made it known to your representatives?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can all of you people who want war with Russia just go over there and join the fight instead of trying to drag the rest of us into this?

For the tenth time, no one is going to be drafted to fight a NATO-Russia conflict.

It would take an act of Congress.

No one will be drafted because a NATO vs Russia war will quickly escalate to nuclear weapons and we will all be dead. And those that survive will envy the dead.

Why do countries have nuclear war? This board is full of people spouting “Putin is evil” and “Putin is hitler” rhetoric … um, if you believe that maybe DON’T let us blithely walk into war against him?

Or let me put it this way for the people who can’t seem to snap out of their WW2 fantasies …

If Hitler had access to thousands of thermonuclear weapons as he was surrounded and facing imminent defeat in his bunker in Berlin in 1945, what do you think he would have done?

Why risk this insanity?

ok so if Putin wants to take over the US I guess we should let him or else he'll nuke the US and we'd be dead. Better to live under Putin's regime than be dead, right?

No - we save nuclear weapons ONLY for use as necessary to save the nation from an existential threat. So, if any country launched and invasion of the United States (laughably insane) AND if conventional forces couldn’t stop them, only then would use of nuclear weapons be on the table.

What people need is EMPATHY with Russia. Not sympathy — empathy. Put yourself in their shoes. They are fighting a war on their border. If we push their backs against the wall with overwhelming them by conventional forces — that’s an existential threat to them - that’s precisely when they would use nuclear weapons. The war is way, way, way more important for Russia - it’s existential for them. We should be doing all we can to DEESCALATE this.

Because I really don’t want my family to die for Donbass.

Again, all you people with the overwrought Putin-as-Hitler tropes don’t seem to be asking the obvious question: what would Hitler have done with thousands of thermonuclear weapons? What would he have done if the German state was collapsing and he knew he would soon be killed and all he had to do was push a button and bring the whole temple down like Samson?

Think, people.

That's not why we used them last time.

Do you know that?

Yes, I’m well aware of that. We used two nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945 when neither the territorial integrity of the United States, or the survival of the U.S. government, were seriously threatened. We firebombed 67 Japanese cities and killed millions of Japanese civilians, in a war that was kicked off by losing about 3,000 U.S. military servicemen at Pearl Harbor (a territory of the USA at the time).

Should we have firebombed all those civilians to death? And then dropped nuclear weapons on them when we were no longer facing an existential threat (if indeed we ever were vis-a-vis Japan)? I don’t know. Here’s what the hippy peacenik Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense who also served in WW2 thought about it:

https://youtu.be/gekdt0QwFQw

In any case — we firebombed and nuked Japanese cities when we were under far less pressure and duress than one can easily see Russia will be under if NATO goes to war with them.

Remind me again why Putin is more saintly than Americans in 1945? Why wouldn’t he vaporize American cities as well? Especially if his back is against the wall or if he’s facing imminent defeat and death?

I don’t think there can be “victory” against a global nuclear power. Hence the need for diplomacy.

The kindergarten level of understanding being displayed by the war-mongers would be laughable if it didn’t risk getting us all killed.

That's the world we live in. There are no decisionmakers on this board, including you. So you may as well quit your feckless handwringing and whining.

This whole message board is feckless handwringing and whining, then.

Call your congressional representatives and tell them to push the State Dept to do it’s job and engage in diplomacy to end this conflict and—more importantly and above all—keep us out of a catastrophic war with Russia.

The simplemindedness of this makes me sad. Ukraine is an independent nation. The US doesn’t get to dictate how much of its pre-2014 territories Ukraine should cede to Putin. The Ukrainians are fighting this war in the name of their sovereignty and rule of law. Last I checked there are no US or other NATO forces directly engaged in hostilities with Russia or its client states. And yet Biden and the State Department have built greater cohesiveness among our NATO slluesxwhile committing to a common defense of Europe and democratic principles. It’s something that China is watching carefully.

Ukraine has the upper hand in terms of the battlefield and a cessation of hostilities would benefit nobody other than Putin in terms of his domestic standing. His army is on the brink of collapse with mobilized troops being used as little more than cannon fodder. They are being paid by their regional governments. They are being properly trained or equipped. They aren’t being fed. Giving Russiavany breathing room only ensures that it can attempt to reconstitute its forces with reserves to strengthen its hand after the adoring thaw. The idea Putin will accept terms less than all of the “annexed” lands in which he sponsored a sham referendum is incredibly naive. His biggest fear is losing Crimea snd its Black Sea warm weather ports and yet Ukraine is about to be able to sever all land routes needed to resupply Crimea. I wonder why you’re so intent on lending a helping hand to a cruel, murderous dictator?

LOL ask every single American administration that has gleefully supplied Al-Saud with weapons and intelligence. Cruel murderous dictator big deal.

Anonymous wrote:I abandoned my New Year’s resolution to show more empathy for imperialist dictators who invaded neighboring sovereign nations for the purpose of annexing said nation by committing war crimes and genocide by February 24. Try as I might I just can’t get past the indiscriminate murder of men, women and children by targeting apartment buildings, schools, churches, daycares, and homes. Mass rape, torture and the abduction of children as an instrument of war is also a dealbreaker.

Anonymous wrote:




Trolls are all over this thread Because it’s so consequential.

So just ignore or report them and keep discussing.

It is very likely that nothing will come of this: because no one wants to invoke article 5 over a mistake.

However: this bolsters Ukraine’s case significantly and hardens nations against Russia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can all of you people who want war with Russia just go over there and join the fight instead of trying to drag the rest of us into this?

For the tenth time, no one is going to be drafted to fight a NATO-Russia conflict.

It would take an act of Congress.

No one will be drafted because a NATO vs Russia war will quickly escalate to nuclear weapons and we will all be dead. And those that survive will envy the dead.

Why do countries have nuclear war? This board is full of people spouting “Putin is evil” and “Putin is hitler” rhetoric … um, if you believe that maybe DON’T let us blithely walk into war against him?

Or let me put it this way for the people who can’t seem to snap out of their WW2 fantasies …

If Hitler had access to thousands of thermonuclear weapons as he was surrounded and facing imminent defeat in his bunker in Berlin in 1945, what do you think he would have done?

Why risk this insanity?

ok so if Putin wants to take over the US I guess we should let him or else he'll nuke the US and we'd be dead. Better to live under Putin's regime than be dead, right?

No - we save nuclear weapons ONLY for use as necessary to save the nation from an existential threat. So, if any country launched and invasion of the United States (laughably insane) AND if conventional forces couldn’t stop them, only then would use of nuclear weapons be on the table.

What people need is EMPATHY with Russia. Not sympathy — empathy. Put yourself in their shoes. They are fighting a war on their border. If we push their backs against the wall with overwhelming them by conventional forces — that’s an existential threat to them - that’s precisely when they would use nuclear weapons. The war is way, way, way more important for Russia - it’s existential for them. We should be doing all we can to DEESCALATE this.

Because I really don’t want my family to die for Donbass.

Again, all you people with the overwrought Putin-as-Hitler tropes don’t seem to be asking the obvious question: what would Hitler have done with thousands of thermonuclear weapons? What would he have done if the German state was collapsing and he knew he would soon be killed and all he had to do was push a button and bring the whole temple down like Samson?

Think, people.

That's not why we used them last time.

Do you know that?

Yes, I’m well aware of that. We used two nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945 when neither the territorial integrity of the United States, or the survival of the U.S. government, were seriously threatened. We firebombed 67 Japanese cities and killed millions of Japanese civilians, in a war that was kicked off by losing about 3,000 U.S. military servicemen at Pearl Harbor (a territory of the USA at the time).

Should we have firebombed all those civilians to death? And then dropped nuclear weapons on them when we were no longer facing an existential threat (if indeed we ever were vis-a-vis Japan)? I don’t know. Here’s what the hippy peacenik Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense who also served in WW2 thought about it:

https://youtu.be/gekdt0QwFQw

In any case — we firebombed and nuked Japanese cities when we were under far less pressure and duress than one can easily see Russia will be under if NATO goes to war with them.

Remind me again why Putin is more saintly than Americans in 1945? Why wouldn’t he vaporize American cities as well? Especially if his back is against the wall or if he’s facing imminent defeat and death?

I don’t think there can be “victory” against a global nuclear power. Hence the need for diplomacy.

The kindergarten level of understanding being displayed by the war-mongers would be laughable if it didn’t risk getting us all killed.

That's the world we live in. There are no decisionmakers on this board, including you. So you may as well quit your feckless handwringing and whining.

This whole message board is feckless handwringing and whining, then.

Call your congressional representatives and tell them to push the State Dept to do it’s job and engage in diplomacy to end this conflict and—more importantly and above all—keep us out of a catastrophic war with Russia.

The simplemindedness of this makes me sad. Ukraine is an independent nation. The US doesn’t get to dictate how much of its pre-2014 territories Ukraine should cede to Putin. The Ukrainians are fighting this war in the name of their sovereignty and rule of law. Last I checked there are no US or other NATO forces directly engaged in hostilities with Russia or its client states. And yet Biden and the State Department have built greater cohesiveness among our NATO slluesxwhile committing to a common defense of Europe and democratic principles. It’s something that China is watching carefully.

Ukraine has the upper hand in terms of the battlefield and a cessation of hostilities would benefit nobody other than Putin in terms of his domestic standing. His army is on the brink of collapse with mobilized troops being used as little more than cannon fodder. They are being paid by their regional governments. They are being properly trained or equipped. They aren’t being fed. Giving Russiavany breathing room only ensures that it can attempt to reconstitute its forces with reserves to strengthen its hand after the adoring thaw. The idea Putin will accept terms less than all of the “annexed” lands in which he sponsored a sham referendum is incredibly naive. His biggest fear is losing Crimea snd its Black Sea warm weather ports and yet Ukraine is about to be able to sever all land routes needed to resupply Crimea. I wonder why you’re so intent on lending a helping hand to a cruel, murderous dictator?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can all of you people who want war with Russia just go over there and join the fight instead of trying to drag the rest of us into this?

For the tenth time, no one is going to be drafted to fight a NATO-Russia conflict.

It would take an act of Congress.

No one will be drafted because a NATO vs Russia war will quickly escalate to nuclear weapons and we will all be dead. And those that survive will envy the dead.

Why do countries have nuclear war? This board is full of people spouting “Putin is evil” and “Putin is hitler” rhetoric … um, if you believe that maybe DON’T let us blithely walk into war against him?

Or let me put it this way for the people who can’t seem to snap out of their WW2 fantasies …

If Hitler had access to thousands of thermonuclear weapons as he was surrounded and facing imminent defeat in his bunker in Berlin in 1945, what do you think he would have done?

Why risk this insanity?

ok so if Putin wants to take over the US I guess we should let him or else he'll nuke the US and we'd be dead. Better to live under Putin's regime than be dead, right?

No - we save nuclear weapons ONLY for use as necessary to save the nation from an existential threat. So, if any country launched and invasion of the United States (laughably insane) AND if conventional forces couldn’t stop them, only then would use of nuclear weapons be on the table.

What people need is EMPATHY with Russia. Not sympathy — empathy. Put yourself in their shoes. They are fighting a war on their border. If we push their backs against the wall with overwhelming them by conventional forces — that’s an existential threat to them - that’s precisely when they would use nuclear weapons. The war is way, way, way more important for Russia - it’s existential for them. We should be doing all we can to DEESCALATE this.

Because I really don’t want my family to die for Donbass.

Again, all you people with the overwrought Putin-as-Hitler tropes don’t seem to be asking the obvious question: what would Hitler have done with thousands of thermonuclear weapons? What would he have done if the German state was collapsing and he knew he would soon be killed and all he had to do was push a button and bring the whole temple down like Samson?

Think, people.

That's not why we used them last time.

Do you know that?

Yes, I’m well aware of that. We used two nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945 when neither the territorial integrity of the United States, or the survival of the U.S. government, were seriously threatened. We firebombed 67 Japanese cities and killed millions of Japanese civilians, in a war that was kicked off by losing about 3,000 U.S. military servicemen at Pearl Harbor (a territory of the USA at the time).

Should we have firebombed all those civilians to death? And then dropped nuclear weapons on them when we were no longer facing an existential threat (if indeed we ever were vis-a-vis Japan)? I don’t know. Here’s what the hippy peacenik Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense who also served in WW2 thought about it:

https://youtu.be/gekdt0QwFQw

In any case — we firebombed and nuked Japanese cities when we were under far less pressure and duress than one can easily see Russia will be under if NATO goes to war with them.

Remind me again why Putin is more saintly than Americans in 1945? Why wouldn’t he vaporize American cities as well? Especially if his back is against the wall or if he’s facing imminent defeat and death?

I don’t think there can be “victory” against a global nuclear power. Hence the need for diplomacy.

The kindergarten level of understanding being displayed by the war-mongers would be laughable if it didn’t risk getting us all killed.

That's the world we live in. There are no decisionmakers on this board, including you. So you may as well quit your feckless handwringing and whining.

This whole message board is feckless handwringing and whining, then.

Call your congressional representatives and tell them to push the State Dept to do it’s job and engage in diplomacy to end this conflict and—more importantly and above all—keep us out of a catastrophic war with Russia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can all of you people who want war with Russia just go over there and join the fight instead of trying to drag the rest of us into this?

For the tenth time, no one is going to be drafted to fight a NATO-Russia conflict.

It would take an act of Congress.

No one will be drafted because a NATO vs Russia war will quickly escalate to nuclear weapons and we will all be dead. And those that survive will envy the dead.

Why do countries have nuclear war? This board is full of people spouting “Putin is evil” and “Putin is hitler” rhetoric … um, if you believe that maybe DON’T let us blithely walk into war against him?

Or let me put it this way for the people who can’t seem to snap out of their WW2 fantasies …

If Hitler had access to thousands of thermonuclear weapons as he was surrounded and facing imminent defeat in his bunker in Berlin in 1945, what do you think he would have done?

Why risk this insanity?

ok so if Putin wants to take over the US I guess we should let him or else he'll nuke the US and we'd be dead. Better to live under Putin's regime than be dead, right?

No - we save nuclear weapons ONLY for use as necessary to save the nation from an existential threat. So, if any country launched and invasion of the United States (laughably insane) AND if conventional forces couldn’t stop them, only then would use of nuclear weapons be on the table.

What people need is EMPATHY with Russia. Not sympathy — empathy. Put yourself in their shoes. They are fighting a war on their border. If we push their backs against the wall with overwhelming them by conventional forces — that’s an existential threat to them - that’s precisely when they would use nuclear weapons. The war is way, way, way more important for Russia - it’s existential for them. We should be doing all we can to DEESCALATE this.

Because I really don’t want my family to die for Donbass.

Again, all you people with the overwrought Putin-as-Hitler tropes don’t seem to be asking the obvious question: what would Hitler have done with thousands of thermonuclear weapons? What would he have done if the German state was collapsing and he knew he would soon be killed and all he had to do was push a button and bring the whole temple down like Samson?

Think, people.

That's not why we used them last time.

Do you know that?

Yes, I’m well aware of that. We used two nuclear weapons on Japan in 1945 when neither the territorial integrity of the United States, or the survival of the U.S. government, were seriously threatened. We firebombed 67 Japanese cities and killed millions of Japanese civilians, in a war that was kicked off by losing about 3,000 U.S. military servicemen at Pearl Harbor (a territory of the USA at the time).

Should we have firebombed all those civilians to death? And then dropped nuclear weapons on them when we were no longer facing an existential threat (if indeed we ever were vis-a-vis Japan)? I don’t know. Here’s what the hippy peacenik Robert McNamara, former U.S. Secretary of Defense who also served in WW2 thought about it:

https://youtu.be/gekdt0QwFQw

In any case — we firebombed and nuked Japanese cities when we were under far less pressure and duress than one can easily see Russia will be under if NATO goes to war with them.

Remind me again why Putin is more saintly than Americans in 1945? Why wouldn’t he vaporize American cities as well? Especially if his back is against the wall or if he’s facing imminent defeat and death?

I don’t think there can be “victory” against a global nuclear power. Hence the need for diplomacy.

The kindergarten level of understanding being displayed by the war-mongers would be laughable if it didn’t risk getting us all killed.

You probably don't even realize the irony of your post.

I didn't see any irony, either. Care to point it out for us?