sfhand

So, to be clear, you are saying that disagreeing on geopolitics is a bannable offense here now? Well I'm not gonna recant but I am not trying to offend your geopolitical sensibilities. By the way, I'm not conspiring with anyone. I feel like I've been thrown back into the 1950s.

Do you know why the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was enacted. Do you know how many consecutive terms FDR held the presidency? Those elections weren't competitive, per se. Are you implying the US was under a dictatorial rule then? Link here: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/franklin-d-roosevelt-public-approval

Did you read the actual agreement, particularly points 9 - 11? If so, what does restoring territorial integrity to the Ukraine mean to you? The referendums on territorial autonomy were very messy, see here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27360146 Of course the west supports these types of referendums, i.e. splitting territory from established countries, when it supports their agenda, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Croatian_independence_referendum Like I said, I don't have a dog in the fight and have no interest in justifying any state actions, including our own, but to say these types of events aren't driven by rational reasoning given the state of the world seems a bridge too far for me. Of course I don't expect you or anyone else here to agree, which I am 100% okay with. Enjoy your evening...

Baneman, how are you? Well I hope. Long time no see. Before you think I am dodging you please stop to consider the bandwidth of comments directed at me. I am definitely not addressing all of them, in part because I question the motives of many of the posters, due mainly to their belligerence. Due to our history I will take the time to respond to you now. I am going to be very brief... 1. Are dictators elected over and over again? I say no. You may say the elections there are rigged and you are welcome to that opinion. I'm more concerned, along with both major political parties in the US depending on who's ahead in the polls, about rigged elections in the US. I do believe Putin is increasingly less tolerant of dissent, so I said partially true on that. Do I need to point out our leadership, I would say in the "West", is growing less tolerant of anything that questions their legitimacy? See free speech laws in Europe. Obviously you are free to draw your own conclusions. Hopefully you know it is not my way label you for holding them. 4. The tripping point here is unprovoked and without rational justification. To answer your questions about the treaties see: Minsk 1 and Minsk 2. The German chancellor was caught on tape admitting Minsk 2 was entered into to buy time for Ukraine to build up an army revealing that the diplomatic actions undertaken to protect the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from continued attacks, and allow for autonomy to prevent a civil war in Ukraine, were duplicitous and served to buy time in the preparation for war against the east's ethnically Russian population. Couple this with the fact the CIA, US foreign policy establishment, and intelligence services, along with Senators McCain, Klobuchar, and Graham, were operating in Ukraine in a realized effort to overthrow the democratically elected president of the Ukraine, who still had a year on his term. After the goon squad was done overthrowing the president they went east to kill all who opposed the coup. Russia responded to this by militarily supporting the ethnic Russians. These are my current understandings of the situation back then. Of course I am open to changing my opinion should compelling information come to my attention, but as it stands the Russians acted rationally, way more rationally than the US and its allies did when invading Iraq. So, grading on a curve... And yes, one man's goon squad are another mans freedom fighters, who just incidentally overthrew a democratically elected government. Be well Baneman, it's good to see you still around. All my best to you brother.

I appreciate it, it happened while I was responding to Steve, or I would have used it as an example of the type of response my question was meant to elicit.

Thanks for posting your answer to my question, it is greatly appreciated.

Steve, I never said I have the answer to figuring it out... That is one of the reasons I asked. I remember your response to the question in my first post, it was something like "I don't just rely on the government and media for my information, I have other sources". I thought that was a cool answer. I didn't take you to task for it internally or externally. In my view it is okay to not know everything and ask others how they know what they know, especially in this media environment. (I'm hoping you aren't inwardly doing Jack Nicholson's bit in a Few Good Men right now.) At that point the pile on started (not complaining one bit) and the conversation started drifting. You participated in the drift as well. The fact that I only responded in the thread to you and Capt was an attempt to minimize the amount of time required. I have already spent way more of it than I would like on what I consider to be a fundamental misunderstanding, and if I feel that way I can only imagine what a pain in the butt this has been for you. Trust me in this, I would have been more than happy if people had responded in a way that said something to the effect of "I understand why you might find the information issue to be so overwhelming and challenging, here's how I deal with it." We all know nothing like that happened, other than in your initial post, or maybe in some subsequent posts by others I missed. If anyone did post something to that effect I thank you and apologize for missing it. I'm not happy you can't find any coherence in my words. As the writer I will accept my part in that, it is my failure. It would be dishonest to say the reader has no part in this misunderstanding as well. You can make of that what you will, but considering your bandwidth I will cut you a huge amount of slack. The others? Not so much... You also labeled me a troll while misconstruing my posts to do so. That lead me to consider the possibility of a banning. I was sad to think you might do that, based on my understanding of and respect for you over the years. But life can have its disappointments, especially when it comes to people. Of all my faults you might consider standing on principle one of them, I don't know how you feel about it. But I certainly see it as my anchor in the world. I don't consider trolling a principled activity. You don't know me, you have no way of knowing the truth of this, just as you have no way of knowing how arrogant I may be, the knife cuts both ways. If you missed my posted apology on my misuse of the term "meta" I will do my best to repeat it here. I interpreted the word contextually (heuristics in action) and was incorrect in its meaning. Based on the actual definition of the word my posts were not really meta at all, in the sense that we all rely on our senses and thought facilities in some part to form our opinions and conclusions. This error on my part can potentially explain the charges of arrogance. This conversation could have gone differently had I not misused the word. For any misunderstanding my incorrect use of the word may have caused I apologize. In summation, I have never said anyone of you is wrong about the war, or full of it as you wrote above. I have also never said you are right. That doesn't mean I think you are right or wrong. I'm not questioning your certainty, I was asking how you came by it. (you already answered this in your first reply which I greatly appreciated) In my view the rest is the result of projection on your part and my poor writing skill. Perhaps you could consider thinking my heart is in the right place and see if your opinion on any of this situation changes. I mean what in my history leads you to believe I am more of an agent of chaos than any other poster? Sorry you find my expressions of thought incoherent and not up to your standards. With that being the case, the possibility exists that you may not have understood any of the unfortunate wall of text above, which is why I bolded what I considered to be the the more important points above. With that, thanks for your valuable time and consideration.

I reject wholeheartedly your mischaracterization of my one and only question. Yes, it was a question as follows, in this age of misinformation, How do you know what you know about the war? Initially you did acknowledge that, see your first reply. But since then you have been spinning a false story about what I said and what my motives are. You do what you need to do, I will not be slandered so disingenuously by the guy with the ban stick. And yes, part of me thinks you are purposefully lying about what I wrote to get your desired result. A ban at this point, after I said I am bowing out, will make that point clear. And everything here is predictable, your actions and statements included. You don't need to be Nostradamus to to see it. Seriously, I hope you have a great day.

And there in lies the rub. I don't think this thread is the Magnum Opus of the war. I know you and a lot of similar minded people spent countless hours writing it and think it is more right than wrong, if not 100% right, one poster even said Historians will reference it. That sounds an awful lot like hubris to me, but what do I know, time will tell. And yes, this mindset does remind me of this place during the Iraq war, hat tip to panzermartin. Since you choose to brand me as a troll it is clear what you have in mind. As a result I will leave this thread and most likely the forum with the knowledge that my opinion only matters to you when I support your business or when I agree with your politics. Note to those who can't differentiate between one stating their intended course of action and a promise, this is not a promise. You have a great day Steve, I'm out. (my consistent use of this type parting remark is intended to convey that I respect you as a human being and that we are all more than what we write on the internet, apparently I am alone in this thinking as well)

My how nice. For me it is important to note the post in question is not really a counter-position. This does not mean I don't appreciate the writer's message and the way it was delivered. I also appreciate his license to write the post the way he wanted to write the post. But thanks for letting me know what you think is proper. The quality that makes it not a counter-post in this thread is that it is not pro-Russia. That would be a counter-post in this thread. I suspect if the post was pro-Russia you would have forgotten all about me. Well, maybe not, because apparently it is a Cardinal Sin in these parts to ask how people determine the truth in these times of mis-information (not unlike the rest of human history replete with top down mis-information). What the writer didn't say is that the time for personal attacks and vilification over political disagreements should come to an end. I'm not saying he should have but I definitely noticed it was not there. I will now acknowledge that I've been incorrectly using the term meta. My posts are not really meta any more so than anyone else's. I am a participant not the subject. As a result I can understand how my misuse of the term might lead someone to assume I am arrogant. For that I apologize. This is definitely not "all about me."

I personally think you are quite accomplished in many ways. Paradoxically, you don't know me at all yet you think you do and somehow you think I am the arrogant one here. That amazes me to no end, but to each his own. Personally, I don't put much stock in people taking other peoples inventory whether it's coming or going. You know what heuristics are right? In your assessment of me, my "motives", and my underlying psychology, you are relying on heuristics not knowledge, and while heuristics can be one of humankinds greatest strengths heuristics are frequently one of our biggest weaknesses, as aptly illustrated by you above. I know myself far better than you or anyone here, the same can be said of us all. Knowing this as fact is not arrogance. Now if we spent any significant period of time together your opinion of me would have more weight but would still be your opinion and not fact. The biggest flaw with heuristics is logical fallacy. Unlike you and many others here, I know ad hominem as argument is a logical fallacy as well. I am not alone in this knowledge, many other average everyday people are well aware of it, not to mention anyone who has ever studied debate whether in high school or college. Feel free to keep rocking with it though, it is your forum and you can do and say anything you want here. Do you know the boy's description of the ghosts in the 6th Sense? He said "They see what they want to see, most of them don't even know they're dead". I find that to be the perfect description of humanity. The ghosts were so caught up in seeking gratification it clouded their experience of reality, they didn't even know they were dead. Theoretically this could be what you and some others here are doing when you evaluate a stranger's character and assume the worst. You would see what you want to see and as a result you would feel superior. As in "Gee, I'm so glad I'm not arrogant like X." Which to me means it is possible your views on the war suffer from similar personal prejudice. Note I said possible, only you can say if it might be true. Frankly I don't care either way. Then again, I don't have any aspect of myself tied to the war. None. That I think is the big divide here, you've got 3000 some odd pages of investment here. However, as a US taxpayer sadly I do have a financial stake in this war and all the others. Enough with the meta, to the chase: In the face of the current situation in Ukraine I find it absurd to say Russia is currently getting their *** kicked while Ukraine advances to the rear. The thing is, one doesn't need to study war their entire life to reach this conclusion. Nor does one need to agree with this conclusion to be a legitimate human being with valid opinions on the matter. See how easy that is? Agree to disagree and leave personal attacks out of it. Which brings up your statements forming your narrative that you asked my views on. I didn't just arrogantly offer my views on the statements, you asked me for them. Instead of following up you then write your hagiography and attack my character. I can guess at your motives behind the switcheroo but that's not me. To each his own. Look man, I don't need to keep this going. Unlike some here I can agree to disagree and move on. This isn't about my honor or integrity despite the many accusations and efforts to make it be so. Like always, even when we disagree like now, I sincerely hope you have a great day.

And here, no evidence of a good faith discussion to be found. Start out assuming the worst possible motive and ATTACK!!! And I am a kid? How old are you? I'm betting I am older, and better looking to boot. Really, have a great day!

Hey, slow down. Stating ones intentions is not making a promise. Conspiracy stuff? I'm supposed to believe the Pentagon Papers were, how do you guys say it, a nothingburger? Not gonna happen. It's okay if its not your thing. I sincerely hope you have a great day.

Steve, I'm sure you appreciate my being a loyal customer of BF. You've stated so on this forum on more than one occasion if I remember correctly. So let me get this right, the hostility here, not necessarily from you, has nothing to do with my support for your business and my enjoyment of your products but over a political question? Really? In my first post by design I did not address the topics of your current statements. Living in the US I have been exposed to all of the statements you put forward in some form or another. I have also been exposed to ideas that run counter to those statements. To get to the point, there are a few things that are ubiquitous in every war. Those things include death, suffering, and propaganda. I like to avoid all 3 when I don't have a dog in the fight, and in this case I don't have a dog in the fight. In short, I don't have a problem with anyone believing or disbelieving in the narrative you laid out. I note and applaud you for having done the work to earn a degree in History with a particular concentration on the Soviet Union and Russia. Unless I am mistaken, on this topic you disagree with Prof. John Mearsheimer whose credentials are as impressive as yours, if not more so. On to the statements according to my current understanding of the world: 1.partially true partially false 2. disproven by brics 3. sure 4.partially true partially false in part depending on what one considers a provocation (not universal; see individuals per inverse Plato's Republic) and what one considers violations of treaties and ethnic cleansing 5.I am not going to look up the UN definition of Genocide, a bridge too far, sorry, I am not a human rights lawyer 6.purely speculative Now about that hostility. This is not directed at you Steve. Like the rest of you I have my big boy pants on. Like the rest of you I don't really give a rats behind what your opinions are about anything other than Combat Mission, and in most cases even that's questionable. What I was curious about is how so many can be so certain while living in a world so riddled with disinformation and propaganda. A few have resorted to varying forms of ad hominem, keep it up it reveals who you are and the absence of any cogent argument you might make, but most importantly the thinness of your skin. I sincerely hope everyone is having a great day!

Thanks for the thoughtful response, I love almost all of it... except your notion of people like me... I am not a bunker and aluminum hat kind of guy. I also don't understand the "weird string of political conspiracies" bit (which both the political right and left engage in here in the good old USA, especially during election season) I used to be a part of "the reality based community" until they lost there minds along with their attempt to be reality based. I tend to try to stand on principle. That means I don't fit into the American political scene or the notions of many posters here. We are all human. Just grains of sand on the beach of humanity (we all are, regardless of bunkers or social aspirations, they are us). Unlike all yet like all. Our greatest strengths are also our greatest weaknesses. As for myself, I accept reality as I understand it and am open to new insights. Thanks again, have a great day!!!