Kiev Is Burning

[mkenny]

33 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is the man that fucked the Soviet Union.

This is the man that fucked Nazi Germany.

This is the man that fucked the Kaiser.

This is the man that fucked the ottomans.

Point made?

Churchill was the man the British public told to 'fuck off' in 1945 and I am pretty sure Lawrence was on the receiving end of some Ottoman 'fucking'.

'Joey have you ever been in a Turkish prison..............'

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Churchill was the man the British public told to 'fuck off' in 1945 and I am pretty sure Lawrence was on the receiving end of some Ottoman 'fucking'.

'Joey have you ever been in a Turkish prison..............'

The fact that Churchill lost the election doesn't mean that his decision to fight instead of surrendering was wrong.

And given what has become of the Ottoman Empire, largely due to Lawrence's actions, I'm pretty sure that he got the last laugh in the end.

[mkenny]

7 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

The fact that Churchill lost the election doesn't mean that his decision to fight instead of surrendering was wrong.

Churchill was not the one who took the 'decision to fight'.

That was Chamberlain.

[sunday]

9 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

The fact that Churchill lost the election doesn't mean that his decision to fight instead of surrendering was wrong.

I am afraid we will never know that for sure.

[urbanoid]

24 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Churchill was not the one who took the 'decision to fight'.

That was Chamberlain.

Churchill also made that decision, more than once, by rejecting 'peace offers' from Herr Hitler. Somehow he decided that throwing in the towel is not the most optimal course of action, which made him both victorious and not a surrender monkey.

22 minutes ago, sunday said:

I am afraid we will never know that for sure.

I know for sure, after all Germany was defeated and I'm alive and live in an independent country, although it took some decades to achieve actual independence. 

Edited September 27 by urbanoid

[urbanoid]

Hehehehehehehe

 

[mkenny]

15 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Churchill also made that decision, more than once, by rejecting 'peace offers' from Herr Hitler.

 

Churchill's role was as a figurehead. He did not make policy on his own. There was no realistic s 'surrender' faction in The UK in 1940.

[Roman Alymov]

Another video of pro-Russians using "thermite shower" drone to burn forest belt that covers pro-Ukrainians, This technology is delivering effective videos. but is relatively short-living: today is the first rain in Moscow since probably mid-summer, soon forest belts in South Russia will be bare wet branches, as autumn comes https://t.me/infomil_live/10538

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

Churchill was the man the British public told to 'fuck off' in 1945 and I am pretty sure Lawrence was on the receiving end of some Ottoman 'fucking'.

'Joey have you ever been in a Turkish prison..............'

Actually that is a remarkable  misreading of the history. A survey reportedly revealed that in 1945 the British people wanted a Labour Government, but still wanted Churchill as Prime minister. Impossible to achieve in a parliamentary system, but clearly achievable in a Republic. Whether Churchill would have wanted any part of that is another matter.

I should stick with Gladiator movies if I was you....

[Stuart Galbraith]

47 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Churchill was not the one who took the 'decision to fight'.

That was Chamberlain.

I'm pretty sure that was Hitler actually...

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Churchill's role was as a figurehead. He did not make policy on his own. There was no realistic s 'surrender' faction in The UK in 1940.

Yes there was. It was Chamberlain vaguely backing Halifax.

The Churchill movie didn't get a lot right, but that you can take to the bank.

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I'm pretty sure that was Hitler actually...

No, he was just forced to go to war because someone finally told him no. Like Putin in Ukraine.

If only everyone kept saying 'yes, Herr Hitler', so many people would have lived instead of dying. Damn warmongers, not knowing when to surrender.

Edited September 27 by urbanoid

[urbanoid]

Yay, there's an update!

 

[R011]

12 hours ago, Soren Ras said:

The moment Trump is in the White House, any signal that the US is weak and ineffectual will translate into Trump being weak and ineffectual, and this would only be exacerbated once it turns out that the Russians are not going to stop the war in short order just because Trump says so. 

I expect at that point that someone will tell Trump that letting the Ukrainians handle the weapons and the dying is actually a pretty great deal for the US, and he may well discover that this is in fact a brilliant idea that he will claim as his own, and involved zero US casualties, unlike Biden's BAD Afghanistan disaster. And then, just as Biden continued Trumps' policy towards China, it will turn out that Trump will continue Biden's policy towards the Ukraine war. 

Not saying this is in any ways certain, but I do think it is plausible. Of course, it might require Zelensky grovelling in another perfect phone call, but that is easy enough. 

 

--
Soren

If Trump hasn't figured out yet that Ukraine's survival is in America's interests, he won't be changing his mind come January 20 next year.  He might once Putin starts the next round in a couple of years, but who would be deterred by anything he says then?

[R011]

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

The fact that Churchill lost the election doesn't mean that his decision to fight instead of surrendering was wrong.

And given what has become of the Ottoman Empire, largely due to Lawrence's actions, I'm pretty sure that he got the last laugh in the end.

And the guy who beat Churchill in 1945 was fully supportive in continuing the war in 1940 as was the Labour Party.  

[R011]

3 hours ago, Murph said:

There is a point here:

 

As silly as electing a B-movie actor as President of the United States.  How did that work out?

[urbanoid]

22 minutes ago, R011 said:

If Trump hasn't figured out yet that Ukraine's survival is in America's interests, he won't be changing his mind come January 20 next year.  He might once Putin starts the next round in a couple of years, but who would be deterred by anything he says then?

He's in perpetual campaign mode, and with the polarization level of US politics, it's normal to be 'against the current thing' simply because it's the other side doing it. 

My take is that he may go either way. 

I, for one, still remember liberal 'Russia, Russia, Russia' liberal seething in 2016 and afterwards, while in reality he was anything but pro-Russian as president. 

[R011]

2 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

He's in perpetual campaign mode, and with the polarization level of US politics, it's normal to be 'against the current thing' simply because it's the other side doing it. 

My take is that he may go either way. 

I, for one, still remember liberal 'Russia, Russia, Russia' liberal seething in 2016 and afterwards, while in reality he was anything but pro-Russian as president. 

Perhaps, but I'm inclined to believe that he honestly thinks any deal is better than no deal and the deal on the table is a worse deal than he thinks.  I don't expect more from Harris  than we're getting from Biden, but I don't expect less either.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, urbanoid said:

No, he was just forced to go to war because someone finally told him no. Like Putin in Ukraine.

If only everyone kept saying 'yes, Herr Hitler', so many people would have lived instead of dying. Damn warmongers, not knowing when to surrender.

Not entirely, he issued an ultimatum that if we didn't hear that he was going to withdraw from Poland, we would be at war. That was the obligation of the defence treaty. Chamberlain didn't even want war then, as you can perhaps detect in his speech.

I'll say this, he drew a line in the sand and honoured the threat. Statemen today could learn something, if they weren't all fucking idiots.

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Not entirely, he issued an ultimatum that if we didn't hear that he was going to withdraw from Poland, we would be at war. That was the obligation of the defence treaty. Chamberlain didn't even want war then, as you can perhaps detect in his speech.

I'll say this, he drew a line in the sand and honoured the threat. Statemen today could learn something, if they weren't all fucking idiots.

I meant Poland saying no, but ok.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ah, sorry, It happened for you too of course.🤐

[mkenny]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes there was. It was Chamberlain vaguely backing Halifax.

 

No it was not. Chamberlain Declared War not Churchill.  Not a lot of people seem to know that.

And of course you seem not to understand the 'realistic' qualifier I used. 

 

 

Edited September 27 by mkenny

[mkenny]

1 hour ago, R011 said:

And the guy who beat Churchill in 1945 was fully supportive in continuing the war in 1940 as was the Labour Party.  

What has that got to do that the British Public booted Churchill (and his ilk) out the first chance they got?

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, mkenny said:

No it was not. Chamberlain Declared War not Churchill.  Not a lot of people seem to know that.

And of course you seem not to understand the 'realistic' qualifier I used. 

 

 

Read what I said, the declaration of war was dependent upon Hitler not doing something. Ergo, for us (Not for Poland clearly), Hitler created the war by not acquiesing to our demands.

Yeah, you should look up realistic, I dont think it means what you think it means.

8 hours ago, mkenny said:

What has that got to do that the British Public booted Churchill (and his ilk) out the first chance they got?

Once again, the public booted out Churchill's party, which considering it was their mismanagement that led to the war seems entirely reasonable enough. Churchil could always have become a Socialist.....

[ink]

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes there was. It was Chamberlain vaguely backing Halifax.

Strong claim! I imagine you have some evidence for that. Everything I've ever read suggests that Halifax and Chamberlain grew increasingly distant as war approached - and especially after Churchill became PM.