Ukraine

[CptTrips]

WWII is history, this is todays politics.

You can discuss past military strategies but not future military strategies?

So what is the number of months that has to pass before you can discuss a military operation?
1 month?  6 months?

Is that a new rule or are you just making them up as you flap your gums?

[The Fugitive]

Personally I couldnt care less what some of you clowns "chat" about on here. Your last few post here have been nothing but an attempt to twist things so that you seem right. Its obvious that you are trying to push a political agender here. Should Hitech decide to do his once a month fly-by here on the boards he will decide weather it is political or not, not you or I.

[Brooke]

Today, just about every particle of life involves politics.

Any market
Prices of anything
Any news or world event
Anything involving health
History
Anything about education
Anything about society
Most new TV shows and movies
Demographics
The weather

We can talk about how the flaps of an F4U work, how you do or don't like some radar setting in the game, or who won a sporting event, I guess.

But if the board were really restricted to stuff like that -- if you couldn't talk to your AH pals about life in general -- this board would be a ghost town.

[CptTrips]

Personally I couldnt care less what some of you clowns "chat" about on here.

Well, you apparently do, genius.  Back-paddling now?

First you claim my original post was political, yet could point to no mention or allusion to any political party.

Then you say it's within the forum rules to discuss past military operation, but not future ones.  However, you can offer no guidance on how long ago an operation has to have occurred before it is allowed.  Perhaps we should just ask your majesty in every case if you will allow it?

You say I am trying to push a political agenda.  What political agenda have I espoused in this thread, and quote it please?

 

[Arlo]

WWII is history, this is todays politics.

Be it history or current events, the topic isn't political until it actually has political motive in it's own right.

[RAG]

Firstly this isn't politics,  or at least it wasn't,  until some chumps joined and mentioned politics.  It was the replies that twisted it politically.  I don't know what leaning cptrips has and I'm probably different, but guys, chill out.
Seconding in response to Eagler, that's what us Brits could have said in the begining of the second world war and especially in the Battle of Britain.  But why bow and scrape to a corrupt regime? Fight them to the death!

[Busher]

, that's what us Brits could have said in the begining of the second world war and especially in the Battle of Britain.  But why bow and scrape to a corrupt regime? Fight them to the death!

History has proven, if you don't now, you will have to later.

[Vulcan]

I think the wildcard re Ukraine is the nutcase in charge of Belarus.

[Easyscor]

Ukraine is all about a warmwater port for Russia, and the territory needed to use it.

Remember when the world was worried about Soviet Nukes in Ukraine.  I’d forgotten too until being reminded. The UK, US, and Russia promised to defend Ukraine boarders forever if allowed to go into the country and dismantle and remove them. Turns out it was never an actual treaty binding on anyone.
Opps!

Best case, the eastern quarter of Ukraine is deeded to Russia, Ukraine keeps the rest, expands their port at Odesa, and immediately joins NATO to prevent further loss. Which is why Russia is already raising a stink over NATO expansion now.
Of course, that's not how it's shaping up now.

[FLOOB]

Georgia wanted badly to join NATO too, right before they started a war with Russia. The Ukrainian gubmit is just as unstable and dilapidated as Georgia’s. Trying to pinch crimea from Russia is a sure fire way to start a war. This is just NATO antagonism in Russia’s front yard, trying to stir up crap to justify NATO’s existence 30 years after the end of the Warsaw Pact.

[fuzeman]

Didn’t Putin already take the parts if the county that were pro-Russian leaving the portions that were not for him, which he’s now pressuring?

[Busher]

Ukraine is all about a warmwater port for Russia, and the territory needed to use it.

Remember when the world was worried about Soviet Nukes in Ukraine.  I’d forgotten too until being reminded. The UK, US, and Russia promised to defend Ukraine boarders forever if allowed to go into the country and dismantle and remove them. Turns out it was never an actual treaty binding on anyone.
Opps!

Best case, the eastern quarter of Ukraine is deeded to Russia, Ukraine keeps the rest, expands their port at Odesa, and immediately joins NATO to prevent further loss. Which is why Russia is already raising a stink over NATO expansion now.
Of course, that's not how it's shaping up now.

Russia got their warm water port when they annexed Crimea.

The rest of your post brings to mind Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's September 30, 1938 announcement that he had achieved "peace in our time". Just substitute Ukraine for the Sudetenland.

[Hajo]

Russia got their warm water port when they annexed Crimea.

The rest of your post brings to mind Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's September 30, 1938 announcement that he had achieved "peace in our time". Just substitute Ukraine for the Sudetenland.

Never quite figured out who gave Neville Chamberlain the authority to give away a portion of another country to another country?  Hitler laughed.

[Toad]

There's a nice revionist history of Chamberlain on Netflix right now, Munich: The Edge of War. There's some little blurb in the rolling credits to the effect that Chamberlain only did the Munich deal with Adolph because Chamberlain saw the war as inevitable and was buying time for Britain to re-arm or some such nonsense.

[Ramesis]

Russia got their warm water port when they annexed Crimea.
The rest of your post brings to mind Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's September 30, 1938 announcement that he had achieved "peace in our time". Just substitute Ukraine for the Sudetenland.

Exactly...