03-07-2022, 02:47 AM
(03-06-2022, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:Putin's not in it for profit at this point. If he was in it for profit at this point, he wouldn't be leveling costly cities and destroying costly infrastructure. Putin is in it to make a statement to the world and make an example of Ukraine. If he can't have it or change the leadership, he's going to destroy as much of Ukraine as possible and leave behind an impression that won't be forgotten or overcome for a generation or two. This is the reason why we can't allow him to continue destroying stuff unabated or simply allow him to go back to the way things were before he invaded Ukraine. No, Putin is going to have to pay the ultimate price. Putin's army in Ukraine is going to have to be decimated. In other words, we have to completely turn it around on Putin and place Putin in the position losing everything and leave a similar impression in the mind of whoever replaces him and the next generation of Russian officers.(03-06-2022, 04:21 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: No, it's not the new list of the new 1st/2nd/3rd world, it's a list of who is more reliant upon who and who feels more comfortable with who in charge or winning the war in Ukraine.
I view it more as a cusp of the Industrial and Information Age. Are we going to seek power and influence by invading, or are we organizing reasons to make conquest unprofitable. Putin is going with violence. Biden and many others are going with various ways of making the violence unprofitable. I would note that both might achieve their ends, that Russia could end up in charge of the Ukraine for a time, but that the end result wouldn't be profitable for Putin and Russia. The way it is going, nothing will be profitable in Russia while Putin is a dominant player. He has essentially committed himself to his path.
The list above reflects more the governments that have tried violence lately opposing those who would end it.
Trump is going much the same way. Do we want to select governments by insurrection, or try a republic, "If we can keep it."
Of course, you are the token big fan of violence, who is too chicken to actually use it.
Meanwhile, want to buy a super yacht cheap?
The Democrats are always afraid of escalation to the point of becoming a detriment. We have a couple generations of Cold War kids who lived with the possibility being nuked every day. So, what's the difference today? I'm not a fan of violence. I understand that there are times when violence is necessary and I'm not opposed to the use of violence to end violence and prevent further violence. Like it or not, the world is going to have to dig down deep and find some courage and deal with Putin appropriately. Thanks to you and the others, we don't have a strong war leader/world leader in office. We have Gumby and Humpty Dumpty as his backup.