A Step Towards Vat Girls?

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

In Medical First, Scientists Implant Lab-Grown Vaginas in Humans

<http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/10/in-medical-first-scientists-implant-lab-grown-vaginas-in-human-patients>
--
"To understand the workings of American politics, you have to
understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals
are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."
- Charles Krauthammer

[JRStern]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:48:58 -0500, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:

>In Medical First, Scientists Implant Lab-Grown Vaginas in Humans
>
><http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/10/in-medical-first-scientists-implant-lab-grown-vaginas-in-human-patients>

Well, you have to start somewhere.

J.

[Kurt Busiek]

One wonders where Quaddy is hoping to get one implanted, while he
awaits the fully-realized vatgirl.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[michael]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:52:23 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
wrote:

>One wonders where Quaddy is hoping to get one implanted, while he
>awaits the fully-realized vatgirl.
>
>kdb
>--

In Starmaker, of course.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <qr7lk9pf5j00385qk...@4ax.com>,

You realize you just wrote slash fan fiction?

Please pass the brain bleach.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[James Silverton]

On 4/13/2014 1:06 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <qr7lk9pf5j00385qk...@4ax.com>,
> michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:52:23 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One wonders where Quaddy is hoping to get one implanted, while he
>>> awaits the fully-realized vatgirl.
>>>
>>> kdb
>>> --
>>
>> In Starmaker, of course.
>
> You realize you just wrote slash fan fiction?
>
> Please pass the brain bleach.
>

I have trouble with "slash fan fiction". I remember "slash" as a British
word for "urinate".

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <proto-5FDA80....@news.panix.com>,

Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <qr7lk9pf5j00385qk...@4ax.com>,
> michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:52:23 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >One wonders where Quaddy is hoping to get one implanted, while he
> > >awaits the fully-realized vatgirl.
> > >
> > >kdb
> > >--
> >
> > In Starmaker, of course.
>
> You realize you just wrote slash fan fiction?
>
> Please pass the brain bleach.

How do we know Starmaker doesn't have one already?

[J. Clarke]

In article <proto-57DFAD....@news.panix.com>, pr...@panix.com
says...

>
> In article <proto-5FDA80....@news.panix.com>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <qr7lk9pf5j00385qk...@4ax.com>,
> > michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:52:23 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >One wonders where Quaddy is hoping to get one implanted, while he
> > > >awaits the fully-realized vatgirl.
> > > >
> > > >kdb
> > > >--
> > >
> > > In Starmaker, of course.
> >
> > You realize you just wrote slash fan fiction?
> >
> > Please pass the brain bleach.
>
> How do we know Starmaker doesn't have one already?

Well, its brains must have fallen out of _some_ orifice and that one is
pretty closer to their original location . . .

[Jessica]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:14:22 -0400, James Silverton wrote:

> I have trouble with "slash fan fiction". I remember "slash" as a British
> word for "urinate".

That's another kind of fiction altogether.

[Don Bruder]

In article <lieppn$ad5$1...@dont-email.me>, Jessica <m...@privacy.net>
wrote:

I think I still want a dose of brain-bleach...

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Sjouke Burry]

On 13.04.14 19:22, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <proto-5FDA80....@news.panix.com>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <qr7lk9pf5j00385qk...@4ax.com>,
>> michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 13:52:23 -0700, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One wonders where Quaddy is hoping to get one implanted, while he
>>>> awaits the fully-realized vatgirl.
>>>>
>>>> kdb
>>>> --
>>>
>>> In Starmaker, of course.
>>
>> You realize you just wrote slash fan fiction?
>>
>> Please pass the brain bleach.
>
> How do we know Starmaker doesn't have one already?
>

So what? He(she) would look even better equipped with
a host of them............

[Robert Carnegie]

...You mean like the mother-thing in IIRC _The Deathworms of Kratos_?

But, I think a line has been crossed in this discussion,
that is insulting to women.

Anyway, it's been possible for years to buy a plastic one.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:58:33 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Anyway, it's been possible for years to buy a plastic one.

And, given that, why on Earth waste the time of doctors whose business is to help unfortunate women who have fallen victim to injuries or birth defects?

In other news:

Several days have passed since Russia invaded the Crimea, and still there is not a line of NATO forces stationed on the Ukraine's border with Russia in the same manner as there was such a line on the border between West Germany and East Germany during the Cold War.

That, not the threat of sanctions, is what will positively prevent a Russian invasion of the Ukraine, which may or may not stop in the eastern areas with a majority of ethnic Russians.

The United States signed a treaty in which it pledged to guarantee the security of the Ukraine in exchange for its not taking up the option to have nuclear weapons. But its restraint in not retaking the Crimea is understandable; once there is a "fact on the ground", a U.S. invasion of territory that Russia, however falsely, claims as part of itself could trigger a thermonuclear war.

So it will be too late for the U.S. to meet its treaty obligations if Russian forces roll into the eastern Ukraine.

Too late for the U.S. to avoid losing all international credibility, and find the rest of the world rushing to make whatever accommodations it can with Russia and China.

Anyone who wishes may, of course, reply to my post expressing disagreement. I do not expect many more days to pass before I can post "I told you so".

Unfortunately.

John Savard

[Jessica]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:36:48 -0700, Don Bruder wrote:

> I think I still want a dose of brain-bleach...

Definitely. When I found out about that other kind of fiction I used up
all my ready supplies so I'm in the market for some more.

[J. Clarke]

In article <9225a893-e15c-462a...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:58:33 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
> > Anyway, it's been possible for years to buy a plastic one.
>
> And, given that, why on Earth waste the time of doctors whose business is to help unfortunate women who have fallen victim to injuries or birth defects?
>
> In other news:
>

> Several days have passed since Russia invaded the Crimea, and still
> there is not a line of NATO forces stationed on the Ukraine's border
> with Russia in the same manner as there was such a line on the border
> between West Germany and East Germany during the Cold War.

Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO why would NATO be involved?

> That, not the threat of sanctions, is what will positively prevent a
> Russian invasion of the Ukraine, which may or may not stop in the
> eastern areas with a majority of ethnic Russians.

No, Ukraine having an alliance with somebody who the Russians don't want
to fight would do that. They were offered such alliance and chose to
reject it.

> The United States signed a treaty in which it pledged to guarantee the
> security of the Ukraine in exchange for its not taking up the option
> to have nuclear weapons. But its restraint in not retaking the Crimea
> is understandable; once there is a "fact on the ground", a U.S.
> invasion of territory that Russia, however falsely, claims as part of
> itself could trigger a thermonuclear war.

What treaty would that be? The only one I have found is the one in
which the US agrees not to invade Ukraine, which treaty the action you
propose would violate unless the Ukrainians asked for military
assistance.

> So it will be too late for the U.S. to meet its treaty obligations if
> Russian forces roll into the eastern Ukraine.

What treaty obligations would those be?

> Too late for the U.S. to avoid losing all international credibility,
> and find the rest of the world rushing to make whatever accommodations
> it can with Russia and China.

Why? This is Ukraine's mess. They got themselves into it by dumping
their nuclear deterrent and then refusing to join NATO. Let them get
themselves out of it.

> Anyone who wishes may, of course, reply to my post expressing
> disagreement. I do not expect many more days to pass before I can post
> "I told you so".

About what? The Russians getting their empire back?

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:30:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> No, Ukraine having an alliance with somebody who the Russians don't want
> to fight would do that. They were offered such alliance and chose to
> reject it.

Yanukovitch chose to reject it. Let's get our subjects right. Also, the Ukraine has been under pressure from Russia not to join NATO and so on before the present crisis.

Basically, the United States, to be true to its principles, must be allied with all free people who face the threat of aggression.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:30:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> About what? The Russians getting their empire back?

"Their" empire? The Russian empire was never the legitimate property of the Russian nation.

But then, hazy notions about property rights and where they come from are, I suppose, something to be expected from someone who comes from the country that produced the Dred Scott decision.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <8eb2ae09-d278-4ec7...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:30:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > No, Ukraine having an alliance with somebody who the Russians don't want
> > to fight would do that. They were offered such alliance and chose to
> > reject it.
>

> Yanukovitch chose to reject it. Let's get our subjects right. Also,
> the Ukraine has been under pressure from Russia not to join NATO and
> so on before the present crisis.

Yanukovitch, the Easter Bunny, or the Wicked Witch of the West, it
doesn't matter who rejected it, it was rejected. As for being under
pressure, so what? They gave into pressure, appeased Russia, and now
they're paying the penalty for appeasement.

> Basically, the United States, to be true to its principles, must be
> allied with all free people who face the threat of aggression.

If those people reject the alliance there's not much the US can do about
it. What do you want us to do, conquer Ukraine for its own good in
violation of that treaty you were touting earlier?

[J. Clarke]

In article <bceea6f2-fd33-4b8c...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:30:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > About what? The Russians getting their empire back?
>
> "Their" empire? The Russian empire was never the legitimate property of the Russian nation.

The Russians didn't see it that way.

> But then, hazy notions about property rights and where they come from
> are, I suppose, something to be expected from someone who comes from
> the country that produced the Dred Scott decision.

If you're trying to get Americans to support your argument, that's not a
very effective way to go about it.

Maybe we should send an elite special ops team to Canadan to kidnap you
and sent you to Ukraine to fix the problem.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 9:30:35 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> What do you want us to do, conquer Ukraine for its own good in
> violation of that treaty you were touting earlier?

Not at all. Of course NATO troops would only enter the Ukraine with the permission of the current government. I just didn't imagine there would be much problem securing that permission - indeed, this is the sort of thing they presumably are wishing for in the current situation, but it is too much for them to hope for.

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote in
news:lic926$fqd$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 2014-04-12 19:24:45 +0000, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
> said:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:48:58 -0500, "David V. Loewe, Jr"
>> <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In Medical First, Scientists Implant Lab-Grown Vaginas in
>>> Humans
>>>
>>> <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/04/10/in-medical-firs
>>> t-scientists-implant-lab-grown-vaginas-in-human-patients>
>
> Well,
>>>
>> you have to start somewhere.
>
> One wonders where Quaddy is hoping to get one implanted, while
> he awaits the fully-realized vatgirl.
>

His right palm, presumably.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[David Johnston]

On 4/14/2014 8:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:30:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> About what? The Russians getting their empire back?
>
> "Their" empire? The Russian empire was never the legitimate property of the Russian nation.

And who exactly would make that determination?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:lihea3$ko6$2...@dont-email.me:

Well, Quddie, of course. Who else?

[Sjouke Burry]

Some(or a lot of) Kalasknikovs?

[James Silverton]

Was the British Empire the legitimate property of the British nation?
Still, fairly recently the British rescued their ex-colony Sierra Leone
from a rather nasty civil war but did not attempt to retake the place.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-04-14 20:27:45 +0000, James Silverton

<not.jim....@verizon.net> said:

> On 4/14/2014 3:52 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 4/14/2014 8:05 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 14, 2014 7:30:07 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> About what? The Russians getting their empire back?
>>>
>>> "Their" empire? The Russian empire was never the legitimate property
>>> of the Russian nation.
>>
>> And who exactly would make that determination?
>
> Was the British Empire the legitimate property of the British nation?
> Still, fairly recently the British rescued their ex-colony Sierra Leone
> from a rather nasty civil war but did not attempt to retake the place.

Everything in the world needs to be filtered through the values Quaddy
imagines to be American, except when America doesn't live up to them,
in which case they're unutterable fools, good for nothing but forcing
the values Quaddy approves of onto the rest of the world at gunpoint.
Because freedom.

[J. Clarke]

In article <d5269dcc-a005-4a6a...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

What does NATO have to do with anything? Are you laboring under the
misconception that NATO is some kind of US expeditionary force?

Ukraine has a treaty with the US that says that the US will respect its
sovereign territory. That is all. There is no treaty that says that
the US will defend it. Ukraine has no treaty with NATO whatsoever and
NATO is under no obligation to lift a finger, further the individual
NATO members are very unlikely to seek out a confrontation with Russia
over this. So what is the basis for providing assistance?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in
news:MPG.2db63afa9...@news.newsguy.com:

> In article
> <d5269dcc-a005-4a6a...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>
>> On Monday, April 14, 2014 9:30:35 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > What do you want us to do, conquer Ukraine for its own good
>> > in violation of that treaty you were touting earlier?
>>
>
>> Not at all. Of course NATO troops would only enter the Ukraine
>> with the permission of the current government. I just didn't
>> imagine there would be much problem securing that permission -
>> indeed, this is the sort of thing they presumably are wishing
>> for in the current situation, but it is too much for them to
>> hope for.
>
> What does NATO have to do with anything? Are you laboring under
> the misconception that NATO is some kind of US expeditionary
> force?

Er, that's more or less what Quaddie suggested, with the "too much
for them to hope for" part. Dumbass. Letting Savard look like teh
smart one.

>
> Ukraine has a treaty with the US that says that the US will
> respect its sovereign territory. That is all. There is no
> treaty that says that the US will defend it. Ukraine has no
> treaty with NATO whatsoever and NATO is under no obligation to
> lift a finger, further the individual NATO members are very
> unlikely to seek out a confrontation with Russia over this. So
> what is the basis for providing assistance?
>

It all depends on what happnes with the natural gas pipelines going
_through_ Ukraine. Western Europe buys a whole lot of Russian
natural gas, half of which goes through Ukraine, or did until they
shut down the pipelines.

NATO only gets involved if a member gets involved, but it's
plausible that a NATO member will. From there, it gets really
politically complicated, and messy, for everyone.

[Cryptoengineer]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA30FAA3D7C5...@69.16.186.7:

One of the levers the US could use would be to ease the permitting
of the export of natural gas from the US, and expedite the building of
LNG terminals. Exporting US NG to the rest of the world would impact
Russia's main source of foreign revenue.

We drove the Moscow bankrupt once before. We could do it again.

pt

[David DeLaney]

Perhaps they've actually read historical accounts of what happens when you let
US troops into your smaller country?

Dave, perhaps
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Robert Bannister]

The Crimea was a different story. Unfortunate for the few remaining
Tartars, but there weren't many left. It has been largely Russian for a
long time. Eastern Ukraine is different and the highly organised,
trained men who form the "popular uprising" are very suspect. When the
West didn't move into Syria, I realised it had lost its will in
Afghanistan. Don't expect the USA or NATO to attack anything more than a
wandering nomadic tribesman over the next few years.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:21:17 PM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:

> Perhaps they've actually read historical accounts of what happens when you let
> US troops into your smaller country?

They've lived through what happens when you let Russian troops into your smaller country.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 5:36:18 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> So what is the basis for providing assistance?

Why does the U.S. help Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea?

The basis is that if the Ukraine falls, the rest of world will lose faith in the resolve of the United States to come to the defense of free men wherever they face aggression, and so it will rush to make deals with Russia and China.

A world in which the United States is isolated would not be pretty.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <dd3efcdc-f7cd-43c6...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

They have? When did that happen? Do you mean when the Russians, ably
assisted by millions of Ukrainians, tossed the Nazis out? Or are you
laboring under the misconception that Ukraine became part of the Soviet
Union by conquest?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Monday, 14 April 2014 12:06:31 UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 12:58:33 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > Anyway, it's been possible for years to buy a plastic one.
>
> And, given that, why on Earth waste the time of doctors
> whose business is to help unfortunate women who have
> fallen victim to injuries or birth defects?

Oh, the plastic ones aren't for women. It's instead of.

[J. Clarke]

In article <46ff3d52-ed17-4bcd...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 5:36:18 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> > So what is the basis for providing assistance?
>
> Why does the U.S. help Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea?

The US helps South Korea because there is a mutual defense treaty in
force. The US has not at any time intervened militarily to help Israel
or Taiwan.

> The basis is that if the Ukraine falls, the rest of world will lose
> faith in the resolve of the United States to come to the defense of
> free men wherever they face aggression, and so it will rush to make
> deals with Russia and China.

The US does not now have and at no time in the past had any "resolve to
come to the defense of free men wherever they face aggression". The US
does have an obligation to honor its treaties. There is no treaty with
the Ukraine, so the US is under no obligation to do diddly-squat for
them.

> A world in which the United States is isolated would not be pretty.

However the current world is one in which Ukraine has isolated itself
and given the US absolutely no legal basis for military intervention.

Tell us what LAW allows the US to intervene. Tell us of a treaty, a UN
resolution, ANYTHING that would provide a legal pretext. You can't.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 11:21:27 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> They have? When did that happen? Do you mean when the Russians, ably
> assisted by millions of Ukrainians, tossed the Nazis out? Or are you
> laboring under the misconception that Ukraine became part of the Soviet
> Union by conquest?

It's true that unlike the Baltics, the Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire before the Revolution.

Early in the Revolution, though, there was a briefly independent Ukrainian state.

http://www.infoplease.com/country/ukraine.html

In any event, prior to Russia helping to save the Ukraine from the Nazis, it first took actions in the Ukraine that led the Ukrainian people to hope at first that the Nazis might be liberators (they didn't trust the Soviet mass media):

http://www.holodomorct.org/history.html
http://www.ucc.sk.ca/en/about/about-ukraine/holodomor
http://www.holodomor.org.uk/

John Savard

[Cryptoengineer]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in

news:MPG.2db691958...@news.newsguy.com:

Foreigners such as Quaddie are often under the misapprehension that
Presidential promises is sincere:

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
liberty." - from JKF's inaugural address.

pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA31057A4AD...@216.196.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

But even there he left a loophole. What has Ukraine done for us lately
that makes it a friend?

[J. Clarke]

In article <060a626a-325e-43fd...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

Which has what to do with your contention that Ukraine was occupied by
Russian soldiers?

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 15 April 2014 12:51:53 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <46ff3d52-ed17-4bcd...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
> > On Monday, April 14, 2014 5:36:18 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> > > So what is the basis for providing assistance?
> >
> > Why does the U.S. help Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea?
>
> The US helps South Korea because there is a mutual defense
> treaty in force. The US has not at any time intervened
> militarily to help Israel or Taiwan.

Has so. But the U.S. "helps" where and whom it pleases.
The same as any other country does, that can. And it
isn't always pleasant to be "helped".

Obviously it doesn't have to be "legal" either.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair>

As for Ukraine... the U.S. "helps" where and whom it pleases.
And I am not expecting to be called up.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:36:55 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> Foreigners such as Quaddie are often under the misapprehension that
> Presidential promises is sincere:
>
> "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
> pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
> oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
> liberty." - from JKF's inaugural address.

Well, even if this is hyperbolic, it is the sort of thinking to which the United States and the other free countries of the world had better rededicate themselves too, and soon.

However, it does contain a loophole.

Not the word "friend", but instead "to assure the survival and the success of liberty" - so, indeed, if the Ukraine is not in the "vital interests" of the United States, if liberty for everyone else will survive nicely with the Ukraine thrown to the wolves, then supporting the Ukraine won't be necessary for that reason.

I'm not so sure that Putin won't grab all the Ukraine, or that liberty will survive for long with the credibility of the U.S. shot down in flames, but YMMV.

But if you really want a debate, there are other things to point out.

I can say that I will say "I told you so" after Russia invades the Ukraine despite the threat of sanctions.

But the other side of the debate wouldn't get the same opportunity except under more extreme circumstances.

You see, it just costs a few tax dollars, and a few other annoyances, to station troops on the border of the Ukraine with Russia, lined up like they were on West Germany's border with East Germany in the Cold War. Presumably, unlike the threat of sanctions, this will prevent an invasion of the Ukraine, if Putin is playing by the old rulebook.

But suppose he isn't. Suppose Putin calls the play. Suppose the Russian tanks come anyways.

Now, *at that point*, suggesting that the troops should be quietly withdrawn rather than letting the missiles fly, is a position I can understand. The Ukraine is quite far away, and mushroom clouds outside one's living room window are quite uncomfortable.

But objecting to at least making a minimum effort of stationing some troops there and at least planting some doubt in Putin's mind about the missiles flying? Don't you care about the Ukrainians at all?

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:09:01 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> As for Ukraine... the U.S. "helps" where and whom it pleases.

As is understandable. It isn't my bitch. I merely suggest that helping the Ukraine is in the self-interest of the United States.

But perhaps after the discovery of Pluto, and Eris, and Sedna, and now 2012 VP113, it is time to retreat to the safety of a new dark age.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:03:48 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> But even there he left a loophole. What has Ukraine done for us lately
> that makes it a friend?

Thought for today:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. - Winston Spencer Churchill

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:09:10 PM UTC-6, Kurt Busiek wrote:

> Everything in the world needs to be filtered through the values Quaddy
> imagines to be American, except when America doesn't live up to them,
> in which case they're unutterable fools, good for nothing but forcing
> the values Quaddy approves of onto the rest of the world at gunpoint.
> Because freedom.

Here is something I recently posted to sci.astro.amateur; perhaps it will help.

(Edited slightly to form a single post.)

<begin quote>
The Holocaust is evidence that these mysterious "natural rights" aren't being respected by everyone, or enforced by anything beyond other human beings.

But it is often cited by _advocates_ of natural rights - because it is (emotionally persuasive?) evidence that even when the local government says otherwise, actions that are "wrong" are still "wrong".

The semantic content of the phrase "natural rights" must be clearly understood. It may not be far different from the semantic content of the phrase you've used, "humanist principles".

In the natural world - the world of plants and the lesser beasts - no moral law seems to be evident. Instead, creatures follow their impulses; evolution has shaped these impulses for their survival. It seems that there indeed is no law beyond "eat or be eaten", on first glance.

However, many animals exert effort to raise their young.

Many animals work together in groups as part of their mode of survival.

Humans are... what they are.

They are animals which have these two characteristics listed above, leading to their having instinctive emotional bases inclining them to some forms of cooperation and even altruism.

As well, they are much more clever than any other animal.

This characteristic has, of course, made them the deadliest hunters on the planet. They've also protected themselves against predation very well. As with any other animal that is experiencing local success due to a temporarily abundant food supply, their numbers are increasing beyond what their habitat can support.

However, on multiple occasions in the development of humanity, after an epoch of misery, some new technological innovation comes along - agriculture is one of the first to be really noticeable - that ratchets up the carrying capacity of the Earth for humans another notch.

Their cleverness led them to try and make sense of the world and Universe in which they found themselves.

This led to science and technology, which work rather well. It led to magic and astrology, which don't.

It led to religion, which I won't comment upon for the moment for fear of giving offence not required by my argument.

And it led to philosophy.

I think that philosophy, for all its obvious limitations, is a valid mode of reasoning; it's the best we can do when we try to make sense of things which aren't as solidly graspable as the aspects of reality on which science and technology are built.

Now to get to the nitty-gritty.

What does the term "natural rights" mean? And is it so different from what the term "humanist principles" means?

Here is an attempt at a definition of sorts, but it may be flawed.

Viewing an instance of interaction between individual humans, a disinterested (one who doesn't have a stake in the interaction; this differs in meaning from "uninterested") human observer may form an opinion about that interaction with respect to concepts commonly termed "fairness" or "justice".

It has been observed (an observed fact! We're getting somewhere) that there is a tendency towards consistency among humans - even, to some extent, across cultures; and some of the differences between cultures are merely due to the condition of "disinterested" not being met - in these judgments.

When human societies decide they need to _codify_ a set of rules for the behavior of their members (this is often associated with a concept called the "rule of law"; one aspect of this is the need to have the rules set down in advance, to make it more fair to expect people to abide by them) one step in this process may be to abstract out certain regularities in the moral judgments of disinterested observers noted above.

Not having a particularly well-developed epistemology, or contact with intelligent alien life, terms such as "natural rights" were applied to one form of such regularities without, perhaps, a great deal of thought about the kinds of issues you've raised. Obviously, a term like "humanist principles" could be applied as well to such common sentiments of humanity.

But the notion that these sentiments aren't something that humans chose freely to have, and could have agreed to choose something completely different... or the notion that even intelligent alien life is likely to have something analogous, and perhaps even largely congruent to them... does not strike me as ludicrously implausible.
<end quote>

There we go. Natural law doesn't have to be written by me.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <1c123bec-a9e4-454f...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:36:55 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
> > Foreigners such as Quaddie are often under the misapprehension that
> > Presidential promises is sincere:
> >
> > "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
> > pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
> > oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
> > liberty." - from JKF's inaugural address.
>
> Well, even if this is hyperbolic, it is the sort of thinking to which the United States and the other free countries of the world had better rededicate themselves too, and soon.
>
> However, it does contain a loophole.
>
> Not the word "friend", but instead "to assure the survival and the success of liberty" - so, indeed, if the Ukraine is not in the "vital interests" of the United States, if liberty for everyone else will survive nicely with the Ukraine thrown to the wolves, then supporting the Ukraine won't be necessary for that reason.
>

> I'm not so sure that Putin won't grab all the Ukraine, or that liberty
> will survive for long with the credibility of the U.S. shot down in
> flames, but YMMV.

You seem to be the only one seeing a "credibility" issue here. If there
was a treaty with Ukraine that was ignored then there would be a
"credibility" issue, but there is no reason whatsoever for the US to
raise a single finger to help Ukraine. They were offered a treaty, they
rejected it, fuck 'em.

> But if you really want a debate, there are other things to point out.
>
> I can say that I will say "I told you so" after Russia invades the Ukraine despite the threat of sanctions.

"I told you so" only works if anybody is disagreeing with you. If
Russia wants to make Ukraine part of Russia, they will. Why should
anyone in the US care? Because some Canadian who is known to be a
crackpot thinks that the US will "lose credibility"?

> But the other side of the debate wouldn't get the same opportunity
except under more extreme circumstances.
>

> You see, it just costs a few tax dollars, and a few other annoyances,

Annoyances such as persuading the nations on that border to allow
themselves to effectively be occupied by the US.

> to station troops on the border of the Ukraine with Russia, lined up
> like they were on West Germany's border with East Germany in the Cold
> War. Presumably, unlike the threat of sanctions, this will prevent an
> invasion of the Ukraine, if Putin is playing by the old rulebook.

It seems to have escaped your notice that East Germany was solidly a
part of the Soviet bloc, and those forces were to prevent them from
moving into WEST Germany. For your continued harping on this to have
any credibility you should be demanding that US forces be stationed
INSIDE UKRAINE on the RUSSIAN border. But there's a little problem with
that. The Ukrainians have not asked for such troop placement and to do
it without their invitation would be violating the one treaty that does
exist.

> But suppose he isn't. Suppose Putin calls the play. Suppose the Russian tanks come anyways.

Then you blow the world to Hell.

> Now, *at that point*, suggesting that the troops should be quietly
> withdrawn rather than letting the missiles fly, is a position I can
> understand. The Ukraine is quite far away, and mushroom clouds outside
> one's living room window are quite uncomfortable.

ROF'L. Want to destroy US credibility that's the way to do it. If you
are going to make a threat you better be prepared to carry it out.

>

> But objecting to at least making a minimum effort of stationing some
> troops there and at least planting some doubt in Putin's mind about
> the missiles flying? Don't you care about the Ukrainians at all?

No. Why should anyone in the US care about the Ukrainians?

>
> John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <9f90f33c-ca74-400b...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

So according to you the options are "Don't start a nuclear war over a
country that one has absolutely no obligation to defend" or "start a new
dark age"?

You are seriously out of touch with reality.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA30FDBF763...@216.196.97.131:

We could, but it won't happen, or even be discussed, during the
current White House administration.

[J. Clarke]

In article <6e1c1b37-920d-42b2...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:03:48 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > But even there he left a loophole. What has Ukraine done for us lately
> > that makes it a friend?
>
> Thought for today:
>
> If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without
> bloodshed;

Uh, Quadi, this is RUSSIA we're talking about. NOBODY "easily wins
without bloodshed" in a fight with RUSSIA. You have heard of Napoleon
have you not? And Hitler?

> if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly;

The end of all life on earth seems pretty costly to me.

> you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the
> odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.

Which is exactly what happened to the last couple of outfits that
started shooting wars with Russia.

> There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no
> hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as
> slaves. - Winston Spencer Churchill

I wasn't aware that modern Russia practiced slavery. Do tell us more.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 15 April 2014 16:50:47 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <9f90f33c-ca74-400b...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
> > On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:09:01 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > > As for Ukraine... the U.S. "helps" where and whom
> > > it pleases.
> >
> > As is understandable. It isn't my bitch. I merely
> > suggest that helping the Ukraine is in the
> > self-interest of the United States.
> >
> > But perhaps after the discovery of Pluto, and Eris,
> > and Sedna, and now 2012 VP113, it is time to retreat
> > to the safety of a new dark age.
>
> So according to you the options are "Don't start a nuclear war over a
> country that one has absolutely no obligation to defend"

> for "start a new dark age"?

>
> You are seriously out of touch with reality.

Well, I think he's saying that those two are the same
option. And maybe the only option (therefore not an
option but inevitable). And I'm not saying that I
disagree.

But I don't expect America to get off its bum and put
the world right, with or without a Coalition of Not
Mentioning What Happened Last Time. And I fear the
consequence if it does, as well as if it doesn't.
I don't see President Obama as a white knight...

Having said that, we shouldn't have forgotten that
"appeasing" a land-grabbing demagogue doesn't work
either.

Does taking The Crimea - and taking more or all of
Ukraine - make President Putin stronger? If so,
then I say it's a bad thing.

But here's thinking outside the box: let the West
nuke Ukraine now until it's glowy. Then nobody
has it, and Russia never got it. I do see drawbacks,
and I suppose I hope that our masters do, too.

[Greg Goss]

Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>But here's thinking outside the box: let the West
>nuke Ukraine now until it's glowy. Then nobody
>has it, and Russia never got it. I do see drawbacks,
>and I suppose I hope that our masters do, too.

Sarah has stated that a nuclear America shouldn't allow an
expansionist Russia. I'm not sure if she has a coherent strategy, or
if that's it. We really dodged a world war or two when her and her
even more warmongery running mate fell apart on the hustings.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Cryptoengineer]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:br566o...@mid.individual.net:

Well, perhaps a nuclear Russia would not want to allow an
expansionist America. How do you think Putin views seeing
NATO and the EU creep ever closer to Russia's borders?

pt

[Robert Carnegie]

Ouch, what did I do to you? Now I have to decide whether
to retract the word "thinking". What a low blow.

[David V. Loewe, Jr]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 04:06:31, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>In other news:

Why not start a new thread for all of this "other news"?
--
"And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our souls"
- Robert Plant

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:50:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> No. Why should anyone in the US care about the Ukrainians?

What a strange question to ask. The Ukraine is inhabited by human beings.

'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:28:51 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Well, I think he's saying that those two are the same
> option.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. While a global thermonuclear war might well also start an even darker new dark age, I was presenting the two opposing alternatives - the new dark age coming from world domination by Russia, China, and other enemies of liberty.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:48:18 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> Well, perhaps a nuclear Russia would not want to allow an
> expansionist America. How do you think Putin views seeing
> NATO and the EU creep ever closer to Russia's borders?

I don't really care. It's not as if this choice was forced on the countries bordering Russia by American, European, or other Western military force or threats. The Ukraine is a sovereign state, and should be free to conduct its foreign relations as it sees fit.

If Russia wants the Ukraine's friendship, it should earn it. Seizing the Crimea is going about it the wrong way.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 4/15/2014 1:33 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:50:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> No. Why should anyone in the US care about the Ukrainians?
>
> What a strange question to ask. The Ukraine is inhabited by human beings.

So's Rwanda. Try harder.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:51:52 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

> But perhaps after the discovery of Pluto, and Eris, and Sedna, and now 2012
> VP113, it is time to retreat to the safety of a new dark age.

Incidentally, if anyone missed the reference, it is to this famous literary passage:

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

(H. P. Lovecraft, _The Call of Cthulhu_)

But I see my memory was playing tricks on me, and this quote is not associated with a remark of the danger posed to humanity by the discovery of Pluto, also known as Yuggoth.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:42:35 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> So's Rwanda. Try harder.

Well, I was in favor of intervening in Burundi.

John Savard

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On 2014-04-15 15:33:02 -0400, Quadibloc said:

> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:50:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> No. Why should anyone in the US care about the Ukrainians?
>
> What a strange question to ask. The Ukraine is inhabited by human beings.

Actually, according to Robert E. Howard, that part of the continent was
originally the home of the serpent-men. "Ka nama kaa lajerama!"




--
I'm serializing a new Ethshar novel!
The nineteenth chapter is online at:
http://www.ethshar.com/ishtascompanion19.html

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 15 April 2014 19:58:44 UTC+1, David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 04:06:31, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >In other news:
>
> Why not start a new thread for all of this "other news"?

Because no one would read that off-topic thread.

Having said that, about Ukraine and all that: be prepared
for global internet interference and SCADA attacks from
guess-where.

[J. Clarke]

In article <d9e1fbc1-ad12-461a...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:50:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > No. Why should anyone in the US care about the Ukrainians?
>
> What a strange question to ask. The Ukraine is inhabited by human beings.

And that means we should care because?

> 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You
sick, or in prison, and come to You?' The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

Maybe you should be whining to this king whoever he might be.

[J. Clarke]

In article <e86d96d6-2a7f-4094...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

And the US not violating international law will bring about this dark
age because?

[J. Clarke]

In article <491df6d4-7049-4115...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

If Ukraine wanted to be free it should have either (a) kept the world's
third largest nuclear deterrent or (b) joined an alliance with somebody
mean enough to keep the Russians at bay. The Ukraine did neither and
now you're crying that people that the Ukraine rejected should help them
anyway.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in

news:MPG.2db78be04...@news.newsguy.com:

> In article
> <d9e1fbc1-ad12-461a...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:50:46 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > No. Why should anyone in the US care about the Ukrainians?
>>
>> What a strange question to ask. The Ukraine is inhabited by
>> human beings.
>
> And that means we should care because?

Because the inability to feel empanthy or compassion is a sign of a
psychotic personality.

[Robert Carnegie]

Whatever they could do, they'd die in the cold next winter if
Russia didn't like it and cut off the fuel supply. And the same
for Europe latterly.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:37:39 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> If Ukraine wanted to be free it should have either (a) kept the world's
> third largest nuclear deterrent

Not doing that was what the United States wanted them to do; they did not want nuclear weapons in more countries, especially ones still getting organized.

> or (b) joined an alliance with somebody
> mean enough to keep the Russians at bay.

Yanyukovich was the Russians' guy. So he didn't want to join NATO. But the Ukrainians deposed him, and one of the reasons was to join the EU. NATO would have been next on the list - if this wasn't seen as creating a crisis by offending Russia.

> The Ukraine did neither and
> now you're crying that people that the Ukraine rejected should help them
> anyway.

I view this as a dishonest attempt to rationalize and justify an unsound course of action. Russia must not be allowed to think it can profit by engaging in bullying.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 4/15/2014 6:24 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:37:39 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> If Ukraine wanted to be free it should have either (a) kept the world's
>> third largest nuclear deterrent
>
> Not doing that was what the United States wanted them to do; they did not want nuclear weapons in more countries, especially ones still getting organized.

Yeah. Listening to the United States was a bad call on the Ukranian's
part. They gained nothing and lost a great deal.

[Moriarty]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 11:03:48 PM UTC+10, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <XnsA31057A4AD...@216.196.97.131>,
>
> treif...@gmail.com says...

>
> >
>
> > "J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in
>

> > news:MPG.2db691958...@news.newsguy.com:
>
> >
>
> > > In article <46ff3d52-ed17-4bcd...@googlegroups.com>,

>
> > > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
> > >>
>
> > >> On Monday, April 14, 2014 5:36:18 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > >> > So what is the basis for providing assistance?
>
> > >>
>

> > >> Why does the U.S. help Israel, Taiwan, or South Korea?
>
> > >
>
> > > The US helps South Korea because there is a mutual defense treaty in
>
> > > force. The US has not at any time intervened militarily to help Israel
>
> > > or Taiwan.
>
> > >
>
> > >> The basis is that if the Ukraine falls, the rest of world will lose
>
> > >> faith in the resolve of the United States to come to the defense of
>
> > >> free men wherever they face aggression, and so it will rush to make
>
> > >> deals with Russia and China.
>
> > >
>
> > > The US does not now have and at no time in the past had any "resolve to
>
> > > come to the defense of free men wherever they face aggression". The US
>
> > > does have an obligation to honor its treaties. There is no treaty with
>
> > > the Ukraine, so the US is under no obligation to do diddly-squat for
>
> > > them.
>
> > >
>
> > >> A world in which the United States is isolated would not be pretty.
>
> > >
>
> > > However the current world is one in which Ukraine has isolated itself
>
> > > and given the US absolutely no legal basis for military intervention.
>
> > >
>
> > > Tell us what LAW allows the US to intervene. Tell us of a treaty, a UN
>
> > > resolution, ANYTHING that would provide a legal pretext. You can't.

>
> >
>
> > Foreigners such as Quaddie are often under the misapprehension that
>
> > Presidential promises is sincere:
>
> >
>
> > "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
>
> > pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,
>
> > oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
>
> > liberty." - from JKF's inaugural address.
>
>
>

> But even there he left a loophole. What has Ukraine done for us lately

The aqueduct?

-Moriarty

[J. Clarke]

In article <430234b0-d737-4af1...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:37:39 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > If Ukraine wanted to be free it should have either (a) kept the world's
> > third largest nuclear deterrent
>

> Not doing that was what the United States wanted them to do; they did
> not want nuclear weapons in more countries, especially ones still
> getting organized.

And how does that make getting rid of if a good decision for Ukraine?

> > or (b) joined an alliance with somebody
> > mean enough to keep the Russians at bay.
>

> Yanyukovich was the Russians' guy. So he didn't want to join NATO. But
> the Ukrainians deposed him, and one of the reasons was to join the EU.
> NATO would have been next on the list - if this wasn't seen as
> creating a crisis by offending Russia.

The Ukrainians should have thought of that before the elected him.

> > The Ukraine did neither and
> > now you're crying that people that the Ukraine rejected should help them
> > anyway.
>

> I view this as a dishonest attempt to rationalize and justify an
> unsound course of action. Russia must not be allowed to think it can
> profit by engaging in bullying.

War with Russia is an unsound course of action. Period. And that is
what you are foaming at the mouth to bring about.

I am curious, did you play "Fallout" through enough times that you want
to live in a post-nuclear-armageddon world or something?

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-04-15, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 15 April 2014 16:50:47 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:

>> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>> > But perhaps after the discovery of Pluto, and Eris,
>> > and Sedna, and now 2012 VP113, it is time to retreat
>> > to the safety of a new dark age.
>>
>> So according to you the options are "Don't start a nuclear war over a
>> country that one has absolutely no obligation to defend"
>> for "start a new dark age"?
>>
>> You are seriously out of touch with reality.
>
> Well, I think he's saying that those two are the same
> option. And maybe the only option (therefore not an
> option but inevitable). And I'm not saying that I disagree.

...Wait. Perhaps he's saying that with the recent successful interval in our
public and private space programs, we should mount a robot expedition to Eris,
armed with secret nanotech, and REORBIT IT to become A BORN-AGAIN meteor of
doom aimed at the relevant portion of the Ukraine?

Dave, sorry about the caps, some possibilities invoke them automagically
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

Fortunately, mathematical PROOF has recently been developed that said dark age
can be REDUCED to only a THOUSAND YEARS! If we take the correct steps _now_,
while it is still possible...

Dave, step seven is sending a copy of the Wikipedia Foundation "to the ends of
the earth"

[Cryptoengineer]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:491df6d4-7049-4115...@googlegroups.com:

Quaddie, your lack of self-reflection is legendary.

Do you also think the US's blockade of Cuba in 1962 was unjustified?

pt

[Robert Carnegie]

On Wednesday, 16 April 2014 03:20:59 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <430234b0-d737-4af1...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

> > Yanyukovich was the Russians' guy. So he didn't want
> > to join NATO. But the Ukrainians deposed him, and
> > one of the reasons was to join the EU. NATO would
> > have been next on the list - if this wasn't seen as
> > creating a crisis by offending Russia.
>
> The Ukrainians should have thought of that before
> the elected him.

I hesitate to revive this discussion, but: did they?
Just asking.

I guess he got more support from the Crimea. So now...
um... like with Oscar Pistorius, I'm glad that someone
else has to decide. But I still may disagree with
the decision.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:29:27 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> Yeah. Listening to the United States was a bad call on the Ukranian's

(sic)

> part. They gained nothing and lost a great deal.

It is a very bad call on the United States' part to ever let listening to it be a mistake. And it is entirely reasonable for the Ukraine not to have anticipated either this or Russia's outrageous aggression.

But now that it has been proven that the United States' word is worthless, and that Russia is willing to conquer any non-nuclear country, I hope that Canada - and Norway, and Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, and Australia - all draw the obvious lesson, and take the appropriate action.

At least this way, we will be able to contribute more significantly to NATO.

Also, there will need to be a little discussion about the Suez crisis; you really cannot deny your allies the right to defend their interests the same way you defend your own. So if you are going to make a fuss about a nickel mine in Cuba, then there are oil wells in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and many other countries that are in a similar position.

John Savard

[John Savard]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 22:20:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> War with Russia is an unsound course of action. Period. And that is
> what you are foaming at the mouth to bring about.

I merely ask that the United States act in concert with the Ukraine so
that a further invasion would be an unsound course of action for Putin. I
am not asking for an invasion of the Crimea; to have the Crimea returned,
we would limit ourselves to sanctions.

The presumption is that Putin is invading the Ukraine only because he can
get away with it, and he is not mad enough to seek war with the United
States.

John Savard

[John Savard]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 17:13:05 -0700, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Whatever they could do, they'd die in the cold next winter if Russia
> didn't like it and cut off the fuel supply. And the same for Europe
> latterly.

It is expected that Europe will immediately begin construction of
sufficient nuclear power generating capacity to cover all their existing
electrical needs, and to permit all their home heating to be converted to
electricity. As a bonus, this will help address global warming.

In the mean time, they can be shipped liquid natural gas.

John Savard

[John Savard]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:37:36 -0500, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> We drove the Moscow bankrupt once before. We could do it again.

And, indeed, successful completion of the Strategic Defence Initiative
would do much to address one of the most basic objections to standing up
to Russia.

Of course, there are those who claimed that the ambitious goals for the
SDI made it on-topic for this newsgroup.

John Savard

[John Savard]

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:50:46 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <1c123bec-a9e4-454f...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>> Now, *at that point*, suggesting that the troops should be quietly
>> withdrawn rather than letting the missiles fly, is a position I can
>> understand. The Ukraine is quite far away, and mushroom clouds outside
>> one's living room window are quite uncomfortable.
>
> ROF'L. Want to destroy US credibility that's the way to do it. If you
> are going to make a threat you better be prepared to carry it out.

I was pointing out that I hadn't explicitly said America wouldn't be
bluffing, in response to accusations that I was seeking a nuclear war.

But I didn't explicitly say now that it would be, either.

In any case, withdrawing troops lined up on the Ukrainian border could be
spun as the United States deciding, at the last extremity, to accept this
tragic and humiliating defeat in the interests of the survival of
humanity... after the Russian leadership put the world at risk of nuclear
war.

That would go some towards isolating Russia, I would have thought.

John Savard

[Greg Goss]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>But now that it has been proven that the United States' word is worthless,

What word? What explicit promises did the US make that have been
violated? WHICH word is worthless?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:

>If Ukraine wanted to be free it should have either (a) kept the world's

>third largest nuclear deterrent or ...

Did they ever have the CODES for the missiles stationed there?

[Cryptoengineer]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:d36d4753-ff55-4b07...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:21:42 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:491df6d4-7049-4115...@googlegroups.com:
>

>> > I don't really care. It's not as if this choice was forced on the
>> > countries bordering Russia by American, European, or other Western
>> > military force or threats. The Ukraine is a sovereign state, and
>> > should be free to conduct its foreign relations as it sees fit.
>
>> > If Russia wants the Ukraine's friendship, it should earn it.
>> > Seizing the Crimea is going about it the wrong way.
>
>> Quaddie, your lack of self-reflection is legendary.
>
>> Do you also think the US's blockade of Cuba in 1962 was unjustified?
>

> I'm sorry, did you think that Cuba was a democratic nation with a free
> press?
>
> It is written: "That to secure these rights, governments are
> instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
> the governed".
>
> The only nations that have a sovereignty that anyone is morally (as
> opposed to practically) obliged to take seriously are functioning
> genuine democracies.

'It is written'? So now the DoI is raised to the status of a divinely
inspired text? You're turning religious on us.

I'm quite sure Putin's gang feel equally self-rightous and justified
on the issue of protecting ethnic Russians in the near-abroad.

I want to see the West prevail. I think its a better system. But
I won't claim that my enemy is evil.

Here's something else which is 'written':

"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind;
it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill
him without hate--and quickly. " - RAH

pt




pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <lim2j0$qe1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, quadibloc@barney-
mail.invalid says...

>
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 22:20:59 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > War with Russia is an unsound course of action. Period. And that is
> > what you are foaming at the mouth to bring about.
>
> I merely ask that the United States act in concert with the Ukraine so
> that a further invasion would be an unsound course of action for Putin.

Then I suggest you go to Ukraine and persuade them to sign a treaty
requiring that the US provide such action.

I
> am not asking for an invasion of the Crimea; to have the Crimea returned,
> we would limit ourselves to sanctions.

Then what will US military forces in Poland, etc accomplish?

> The presumption is that Putin is invading the Ukraine only because he can
> get away with it, and he is not mad enough to seek war with the United
> States.

But you are trying to put the US into the position of challenging him to
start such a war over territory with which the US has no defense treaty.

[J. Clarke]

In article <3e958a36-68f9-49cb...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:29:27 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Listening to the United States was a bad call on the Ukranian's
> (sic)
> > part. They gained nothing and lost a great deal.
>

> It is a very bad call on the United States' part to ever let listening
> to it be a mistake. And it is entirely reasonable for the Ukraine not
> to have anticipated either this or Russia's outrageous aggression.

Only in the bizarro universe.

> But now that it has been proven that the United States' word is
> worthless,

What "word"? I want you to quote a statute, treaty, or any other
official document in which the United States promises to defend Ukraine.
For one's "word" to be worthless one must first have uttered that word.

> and that Russia is willing to conquer any non-nuclear
> country, I hope that Canada - and Norway, and Luxembourg, and the
> Netherlands, and Australia - all draw the obvious lesson, and take the
> appropriate action.

They did. They joined NATO. All of them except Australia, which joined
ANZUS instead.

> At least this way, we will be able to contribute more significantly to NATO.

Who is this "we"?

> Also, there will need to be a little discussion about the Suez crisis;
> you really cannot deny your allies the right to defend their interests
> the same way you defend your own. So if you are going to make a fuss
> about a nickel mine in Cuba, then there are oil wells in Saudi Arabia,
> Iraq, and many other countries that are in a similar position.

What, they're being occupied by Russia?

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:21:42 AM UTC-6, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
> news:491df6d4-7049-4115...@googlegroups.com:

> > I don't really care. It's not as if this choice was forced on the
> > countries bordering Russia by American, European, or other Western
> > military force or threats. The Ukraine is a sovereign state, and
> > should be free to conduct its foreign relations as it sees fit.

> > If Russia wants the Ukraine's friendship, it should earn it. Seizing
> > the Crimea is going about it the wrong way.

> Quaddie, your lack of self-reflection is legendary.

> Do you also think the US's blockade of Cuba in 1962 was unjustified?

I'm sorry, did you think that Cuba was a democratic nation with a free press?

It is written: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

The only nations that have a sovereignty that anyone is morally (as opposed to practically) obliged to take seriously are functioning genuine democracies.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <lim3q5$ur0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, quadibloc@barney-
mail.invalid says...

>
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:50:46 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <1c123bec-a9e4-454f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
> >> Now, *at that point*, suggesting that the troops should be quietly
> >> withdrawn rather than letting the missiles fly, is a position I can
> >> understand. The Ukraine is quite far away, and mushroom clouds outside
> >> one's living room window are quite uncomfortable.
> >
> > ROF'L. Want to destroy US credibility that's the way to do it. If you
> > are going to make a threat you better be prepared to carry it out.
>
> I was pointing out that I hadn't explicitly said America wouldn't be
> bluffing, in response to accusations that I was seeking a nuclear war.

You don't even know what you want. You just want to see soldiers
parading around in pretty uniforms apparently in the hope that that will
somehow change the world.

You don't care about treaties, you don't care about international law,
you don't care about consequences when it turns into one of _doze_ plens
. . .

> But I didn't explicitly say now that it would be, either.
>
> In any case, withdrawing troops lined up on the Ukrainian border could be
> spun as the United States deciding, at the last extremity, to accept this
> tragic and humiliating defeat in the interests of the survival of
> humanity... after the Russian leadership put the world at risk of nuclear
> war.

And there goes the credibility that you insisted was going to be lost if
those troops were not put there to begin with.

> That would go some towards isolating Russia, I would have thought.

What, the US turning tail and running after making a big military show?

[David Johnston]

On 4/16/2014 7:51 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:29:27 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> Yeah. Listening to the United States was a bad call on the
>> Ukranian's
> (sic)
>> part. They gained nothing and lost a great deal.
>
> It is a very bad call on the United States' part to ever let
> listening to it be a mistake. And it is entirely reasonable for the
> Ukraine not to have anticipated either this or Russia's outrageous
> aggression.
>

No. It isn't. The Americans didn't promise to do a damn thing should
the Russians break the agreement. And the Russians were guaranteed to
break it.

[David Johnston]

The Russians are already as isolated as they are gonna get.

[Scott Lurndal]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> writes:

>On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:24:11 AM UTC-6, Greg Goss wrote:
>
>> Did they ever have the CODES for the missiles stationed there?
>

>No. But they had screwdrivers. Which _may_ have been enough, if the Russian technology was less advanced.

A significant percentage of the russian devices were _made_ in the Ukraine.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:371414ff-5836-493d...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:45:55 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article
>> <3e958a36-68f9-49cb...@googlegroups.com>,
>> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>

>> > But now that it has been proven that the United States' word
>> > is worthless,
>
>> What "word"? I want you to quote a statute, treaty, or any
>> other official document in which the United States promises to
>> defend Ukraine.
>
>> For one's "word" to be worthless one must first have uttered
>> that word.
>

> Well, the United States did agree, in the Budapest Memorandum,

A legally meaningless document, not ratified as a treaty;
effectively, little more than a Post-It(tm) not memo.

> to seek immediate Security Council action to defend the Ukraine
> in the event it was attacked.

_with nuclear weaspons_. You left out (in your case, probably
because you're too fucking stupid to actually read any part of the
document you cite) a pretty important part.

Since Russia has not attacked Ukraine with nuclear weapons, nor
threatened to, nothing in the Budapest Memorandum even remotely
suggests that the US is obligated to do shit beyond not nuke
Ukraine ourselves. The text of the memorandum relevant to Ukraine
is:

1.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm
their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of
the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and
the existing borders of Ukraine.

2.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm
their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and
that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except
in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations.

3.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm
their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of
the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to
subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the
rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of
any kind.

4.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm
their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council
action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon
State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression
or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are
used.

5.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in
the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear
weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an
attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories,
their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association
or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

6.The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult
in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning
these commitments.


Read more at TLR: The Budapest Memorandums for Security Assurances
do not obligate the US to intervene in Ukraine | The Libertarian
Republic http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/budapest-memorandums-
security-assurances-obligate-us-intervene-ukraine/#ixzz2z5v7eFfI
Follow us: @LibRepublic on Twitter | LibertarianRepublic on
Facebook

The _only_ mention of the UN, or any kind of potential military
action, is if Ukraine gets *nuked*, which has not happened, and
won't.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:45:55 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> In article <3e958a36-68f9-49cb...@googlegroups.com>,
> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

> > But now that it has been proven that the United States' word is
> > worthless,

> What "word"? I want you to quote a statute, treaty, or any other
> official document in which the United States promises to defend Ukraine.
> For one's "word" to be worthless one must first have uttered that word.

Well, the United States did agree, in the Budapest Memorandum, to seek immediate Security Council action to defend the Ukraine in the event it was attacked. Presumably, this did indeed include Security Council authorization to take military action in the defense of the Ukraine.

But while Russia, being directly concerned, would _not_ have a veto, by UN rules, I think we can safely assume that China would veto such a resolution.

Also, unlike moving troops to the Ukraine to help defend it on its soil, which does not need UN authorization, the U.S. quite reasonably does not want to attack Russia, or even the Crimea, and so there's no point seeking authorization from the Security Council to do that.

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:df743bd6-a68c-4ee8...@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:52:36 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> You don't care about treaties, you don't care about
>> international law, you don't care about consequences when it
>> turns into one of _doze_ plens
>
>> . . .
>

> 1) I care when free people are bullied and threatened, and

With the proviso that brown people (who aren't people, after all)
cannot be free unless we impose that freedom on their with violence

[David Johnston]

On 4/16/2014 4:56 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:45:55 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <3e958a36-68f9-49cb...@googlegroups.com>,
>> jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
>>> But now that it has been proven that the United States' word is
>>> worthless,
>
>> What "word"? I want you to quote a statute, treaty, or any other
>> official document in which the United States promises to defend Ukraine.
>> For one's "word" to be worthless one must first have uttered that word.
>
> Well, the United States did agree, in the Budapest Memorandum, to seek immediate Security Council action to defend the Ukraine in the event it was attacked. Presumably, this did indeed include Security Council authorization to take military action in the defense of the Ukraine.
>
> But while Russia, being directly concerned, would _not_ have a veto, by UN rules,

Please tell me more about the UN rule that keeps a Security Council
member from vetoing something against their interests. Which rule is
that?

[J. Clarke]

In article <371414ff-5836-493d...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:45:55 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <3e958a36-68f9-49cb...@googlegroups.com>,
> > jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...
>
> > > But now that it has been proven that the United States' word is
> > > worthless,
>
> > What "word"? I want you to quote a statute, treaty, or any other
> > official document in which the United States promises to defend Ukraine.
> > For one's "word" to be worthless one must first have uttered that word.
>

> Well, the United States did agree, in the Budapest Memorandum, to seek
> immediate Security Council action to defend the Ukraine in the event
> it was attacked. Presumably, this did indeed include Security Council
> authorization to take military action in the defense of the Ukraine.

You mean article 4:

"The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment
to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide
assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a
victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in
which nuclear weapons are used."

No nuclear weapons have been used, so this provision does not apply.

Care to try again?

> But while Russia, being directly concerned, would _not_ have a veto,
> by UN rules, I think we can safely assume that China would veto such a
> resolution.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If Russia nukes Ukraine I suspect that there will
be a lot of pressure from a lot of places to Do Something about Russia.

> Also, unlike moving troops to the Ukraine to help defend it on its
> soil, which does not need UN authorization, the U.S. quite reasonably
> does not want to attack Russia, or even the Crimea, and so there's no
> point seeking authorization from the Security Council to do that.

Have you changed your proposal? Earlier you wanted US forces on the
Ukrainian border, which puts them in Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary,
Romania, Moldova, the Black Sea, and/or the Sea of Azov.

Do you now want them to just be air-dropped into Ukraine directly?

[John Savard]

On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:30:35 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> They gave into pressure, appeased Russia, and now
> they're paying the penalty for appeasement.

Pray that your country never has to pay the penalty for (the) appeasement
(in which it is currently engaged).

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

In article <lin2kc$f97$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, quadibloc@barney-
mail.invalid says...

Which appeasement is that?

Get it through your thick skull. UKRAINE SAID TO TAKE YOUR HELP AND
SHOVE IT. So we're shoving it.

[J. Clarke]

In article <df743bd6-a68c-4ee8...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

>
> On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:52:36 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > You don't care about treaties, you don't care about international law,
> > you don't care about consequences when it turns into one of _doze_ plens
> > . . .
>

> 1) I care when free people are bullied and threatened, and

Enough to cross the border and join the US Army and do something about
it? Or just enough to flap your gums, wring your hands, and demand that
somebody else die for your principles?


> 2) History has shown that standing up to bullies early in the game is
> how you avoid a war; letting them get away with one thing and then
> another emboldens them, and then eventually they try to grab what you
> can't let them have and you have a really long and bloody war on your
> hands.

And when they grab at something that one is obligated to defend then one
kicks them in the nuts.

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:52:36 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> You don't care about treaties, you don't care about international law,
> you don't care about consequences when it turns into one of _doze_ plens
> . . .

1) I care when free people are bullied and threatened, and

2) History has shown that standing up to bullies early in the game is how you avoid a war; letting them get away with one thing and then another emboldens them, and then eventually they try to grab what you can't let them have and you have a really long and bloody war on your hands.

Of course, the rules are different now that there are nuclear weapons.

John Savard

[John Savard]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:47:55 -0500, Cryptoengineer wrote:

> I'm quite sure Putin's gang feel equally self-rightous and justified on
> the issue of protecting ethnic Russians in the near-abroad.

No, they're deliberately falsifying the notion that there is any need to
protect them, just as in Georgia. They may indeed feel there is some goal
which justifies this, they may imagine that Russia was wronged by the West
(well, it was - Britain and France put unreasonable pressure on Kerensky
to stay in the Great War, and Germany inflicted Lenin on Russia in the
infamous sealed train... and yet they put all the blame for the
Communists' misdeeds on Russia when they put the Communists in power) but
the stated motivations are twaddle with which to deceive the ignorant
rabble in Russia.

John Savard