Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Banzai]

@gearhog

You make it too easy. 

You getting mad you’re on the ropes? I am literally entirely avoiding anything personal because I am highly critical when other people get into personal appeals to emotion. And not to mention you've already said you are waiting for the conversation to pivot to the “you’re a nazi” portion of the argument. I’m gonna just stick to what you say and call you out.

To answer your question, yes. I would personally would fly a fifth gen fighter jet into combat to defend the American world order if necessary. That includes Russia or China or any of our adversaries.

[gearhog]

Just now, Banzai said:

@gearhog

You make it too easy. 

You getting mad you’re on the ropes? I am literally entirely avoiding anything personal because I am highly critical when other people get into personal appeals to emotion. And not to mention you've already said you are waiting for the conversation to pivot to the “you’re a nazi” portion of the argument. I’m gonna just stick to what you say and call you out.

To answer your question, yes. I would personally would fly a fifth gen fighter jet into combat to defend the American world order if necessary. That includes Russia or China or any of our adversaries.

You avoided the question. 

Did you use ChatGPT or another LLM to help create a reply? That's all I want to know. It's either Yes or No.

It's not a personal attack. It's not an emotional question. It's just a statement of fact.

[Banzai]

14 minutes ago, gearhog said:

You avoided the question. 

Did you use ChatGPT or another LLM to help create a reply? That's all I want to know. It's either Yes or No.

It's not a personal attack. It's not an emotional question. It's just a statement of fact.

I googled common fallacies and that provided me a list - generated by AI 🤖- that you fell into handily. (Literally I just listed like 12 I thought might apply, found examples in what you wrote, and got rid of the excess in the exact format of the google response). Does that count?

AI did not write the response - I do not have ChatGPT. But if you’re saying I can use that to cut down next time, that’s sick; gotta get it. I’m happy to return to the argument at hand now.

Edited Monday at 12:43 AM by Banzai

[BashiChuni]

 

[BashiChuni]

 

[BashiChuni]

 

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, Banzai said:

I googled common fallacies and that provided me a list - generated by AI 🤖- that you fell into handily. Does that count?

AI did not write the response - I do not have ChatGPT. But if you’re saying I can use that to cut down next time, that’s sick; gotta get it. I’m happy to return to the argument at hand now.

Haha. You specified ChatGPT when I said "or any other LLM" but whatever. I don't really care. I can argue with AI or Google as well as anyone else. It's kinda disappointing, though.

There is nothing new under the sun. I can't forget things that I read. So when you say you Googled logical fallacies, I know exactly when I've had this conversation before. You're just repeating what everyone does. All arguments end up being the same. It's not original. And it doesn't work. There is literally no tactic you can use in this thread that hasn't already been used by someone else, probably multiple times.

Moving on...

I asked if you would go to fight, and you qualified it with "I would fly a fifth generation fighter".  Of course, who wouldn't?The people that you support being prod into the front lines don't have 5th gen fighters. You could go fight with whatever they have to fight with, right?

I also asked another question.

If Ukraine does run out of soldiers, do you believe the USA should supply them? This is probably my most avoided question. No one wants to answer this one.

Do you vote to send Americans to the front line?

Again, you're not the one making the sacrifices, so it's incredibly easy for you to say that others should.

 

 

[BashiChuni]

[BashiChuni]

 

[Banzai]

2 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Haha. You specified ChatGPT when I said "or any other LLM" but whatever. I don't really care. I can argue with AI or Google as well as anyone else. It's kinda disappointing, though.

There is nothing new under the sun. I can't forget things that I read. So when you say you Googled logical fallacies, I know exactly when I've had this conversation before. You're just repeating what everyone does. All arguments end up being the same. It's not original. And it doesn't work. There is literally no tactic you can use in this thread that hasn't already been used by someone else, probably multiple times.

Moving on...

I asked if you would go to fight, and you qualified it with "I would fly a fifth generation fighter".  Of course, who wouldn't?The people that you support being prod into the front lines don't have 5th gen fighters. You could go fight with whatever they have to fight with, right?

I also asked another question.

If Ukraine does run out of soldiers, do you believe the USA should supply them? This is probably my most avoided question. No one wants to answer this one.

Do you vote to send Americans to the front line?

Again, you're not the one making the sacrifices, so it's incredibly easy for you to say that others should.

 

 

I didn’t use ChatGPT or another LLM ffs.

I personally would be more resistant to providing ground troops. But I would commit a lot of the Air Force, including my pink body if they’ll let me.

If you establish real air superiority you won’t need those troops. But if your question is the hypothetical where we wait until they exhaust all Ukrainian troops, then i wouldn’t probably support American ground troops.

[BashiChuni]

Committing air power to Ukraine won’t lead to escalation?

[Banzai]

I said if needed. I do think there are acceptable ways to establish no fly zones or air superiority that don’t all out escalate to the apocalypse. But these are hypotheticals.

Right now all that’s needed is some money and a Ukrainian nation that is willing to fight to hold back a huge adversary to the first world.

[Banzai]

Let’s just admit that it’s not entirely straightforward. 

Belief 1: Ukrainian people don’t matter to the US

Stance A - we should stop funding them, it’s a waste of money

Stance B - we should use them as a meat grinder for our benefit

Belief 2: Ukrainian people are important and their lives should be protected

Stance A - We should go for peace ASAP at any cost

Stance B - we should support their fight at any cost

I acknowledge that your guys’s position isn’t just black and white morally. But I’m in the camp of fighting the Russians for the same reason my dad and grandad fought them. You can argue under either stance for either thing. But I want America to be in charge, and I don’t want to throw away the world order we have built to our advantage.

Edited Monday at 01:35 AM by Banzai

[BashiChuni]

Your dad and granddad fought the soviets. My grandfathers fought the Germans, Japanese and Koreans. My uncles fought the Vietnamese. Things change. 
 

but I appreciate the acknowledgment that it isn’t black and white. I’m not a Putin fan. He’s a bad dude. But I don’t want US involvement…because as bad as Putin is WW3 is an order of magnitude worse. 

Edited Monday at 02:01 AM by BashiChuni

[BashiChuni]

[icohftb]

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

Or it might not be that farfetched that they all coordinated to send the same message... 

[BashiChuni]

7 minutes ago, icohftb said:

Or it might not be that farfetched that they all coordinated to send the same message... 

reminds me of covid

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

I didn’t use ChatGPT or another LLM ffs.

I personally would be more resistant to providing ground troops. But I would commit a lot of the Air Force, including my pink body if they’ll let me.

If you establish real air superiority you won’t need those troops. But if your question is the hypothetical where we wait until they exhaust all Ukrainian troops, then i wouldn’t probably support American ground troops.

I've already said: I don't care if you did or you didn't seek help online to create a reply. But I do appreciate the recent human responses.

Now we're getting somewhere. So you want direct conflict between the US military and the Russian military.

However (and this is a big however), you're not ready to commit ground troops. Just a little limited near-peer engagement in the air. Delusional.

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

I said if needed. I do think there are acceptable ways to establish no fly zones or air superiority that don’t all out escalate to the apocalypse. But these are hypotheticals.

Acceptable to whom? What percentage of the threats in your vault are manufactured in Russia? I'd hope if you're ready to send Airman into direct conflict with the Russkies, you'd have something a little more solid than some off-the-hip hypotheticals that it won't escalate. Do you really think there are any plans for a scenario where our aircraft attack Russia and Russia just takes it and elects not to lob a few tactical nukes our way? Silly.

"Why should the world exist without Russia?" That's always their response when asked about strategic defeat.

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Right now all that’s needed is some money and a Ukrainian nation that is willing to fight to hold back a huge adversary to the first world.

Do you hear yourself? Would you say this to any Ukrainian? "Here's some money. We need you, as a former second world country, to fight an adversary of the first world. Try not to die."

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Let’s just admit that it’s not entirely straightforward. 

Belief 1: Ukrainian people don’t matter to the US

Stance A - we should stop funding them, it’s a waste of money

Stance B - we should use them as a meat grinder for our benefit

Belief 2: Ukrainian people are important and their lives should be protected

Stance A - We should go for peace ASAP at any cost

Stance B - we should support their fight at any cost

I acknowledge that your guys’s position isn’t just black and white morally. But I’m in the camp of fighting the Russians for the same reason my dad and grandad fought them. You can argue under either stance for either thing. But I want America to be in charge, and I don’t want to throw away the world order we have built to our advantage.

I'm not going to admit it's not straightforward. It absolutely is. Stance A. Stance A. You think we need to start WW3 because your "world order" is under some sort of perceived threat. It's not. The Cold War was cold because we avoided a hot war and defeated the USSR by just being a better country. We were economically, socially, morally, and diplomatically superior. Countless lives were saved, perhaps the whole planet, because cooler heads prevailed. You're like a modern day Buck Turgidson.

 

Edited Monday at 02:38 AM by gearhog

[ecugringo]

What would it take to push Russia out of UK completely?  How many lives? How much $$$?

does UK have the personnel to do this?

Does the EU have the will to spend and support?

The war is basically a stalemate with Russia slowly grinding forward.  The effort to push Russia out is too great.

i think making a deal for peace and resources is in the best interest ok the Ukraine ppl.

the current involvement will drag this on for another 3 yrs.  We’ll spend billions, uk will lose another couple hundred thousand men and Russia will gain 15% more land.

also we only really know what we’ve been told.  Lots of questions to be answered.

[LookieRookie]

1 hour ago, ecugringo said:

What would it take to push Russia out of UK completely?  How many lives? How much $$$?

does UK have the personnel to do this?

Does the EU have the will to spend and support?

The war is basically a stalemate with Russia slowly grinding forward.  The effort to push Russia out is too great.

i think making a deal for peace and resources is in the best interest ok the Ukraine ppl.

the current involvement will drag this on for another 3 yrs.  We’ll spend billions, uk will lose another couple hundred thousand men and Russia will gain 15% more land.

also we only really know what we’ve been told.  Lots of questions to be answered.

UKR is the acronym

[M2]

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!?"

"Forget it, he's rolling."

[Splash95]

This whole debate (to use the term generously) boggles my mind. While I'm sympathetic to Ukrainians' plight, and I certainly don't love, like or trust Putin, it is well past time for the killing to stop and a negotiated peace to begin. Trump and Vance are clearly of that mindset. If Zelensky wants to spurn peace dealings and keep fighting the Russians, despite the catastrophic consequences for his own country, that's his prerogative. Same if he wants to convince Europe to get involved via more funding or even ground troops. However, the perspective I find the most sensible (in brief, a combination of "lives matter" and "America first") holds that our involvement focus on trying to end this war, not pouring billions upon billions of dollars into sustaining it. Like a few others on this forum, I have a hard time understanding what actual outcome the Slava Ukraini/Fnck Russia types here envision or find possible considering the war's current state of play and the occupant of the White House.

[disgruntledemployee]

1 hour ago, Splash95 said:

This whole debate (to use the term generously) boggles my mind. While I'm sympathetic to Ukrainians' plight, and I certainly don't love, like or trust Putin, it is well past time for the killing to stop and a negotiated peace to begin. Trump and Vance are clearly of that mindset. If Zelensky wants to spurn peace dealings and keep fighting the Russians, despite the catastrophic consequences for his own country, that's his prerogative. Same if he wants to convince Europe to get involved via more funding or even ground troops. However, the perspective I find the most sensible (in brief, a combination of "lives matter" and "America first") holds that our involvement focus on trying to end this war, not pouring billions upon billions of dollars into sustaining it. Like a few others on this forum, I have a hard time understanding what actual outcome the Slava Ukraini/Fnck Russia types here envision or find possible considering the war's current state of play and the occupant of the White House.

What an interesting method to get UKR and Russia to a negotiating table... a public wall to wall counseling for the world to see.  Anyone here think Z is going to listen to Trump or Vance anymore? ***  Yet, I have this Bongino** feeling that the blowup was planned somewhat, like WWF drama, or the Apprentice.  Vance just seemed too over the top.  If the goal was to get the EU to play harder, it might work.  That or Trump didn't want to change his tee time.

Here is Rubio trying to do some form of damage control.  He thinks Trump is the only one that can get Putin to negotiate.  I think Taylor Swift could do it because deep down, Putin is a Swifty.  Why does Rubio mention the Nobel Peace Prize? 

https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/rubio-hopes-talks-ukraine-reset-easy-peace-deal-119342477

So folks, that's the question to discuss this week: How to get Putin to negotiate.

We've already beat the billions of money, right to defend, meat grinder, NATO, debate mechanics, et al, horses pretty dead.  Whack!

** Bingino - its my new term for wacky theories, derived from a scripted show.  FBI, stay strong.

*** Let's assume that Trump/Vance oval display was as it looked, Z setting off Trump.  If Ukrainsplaining (Rubio coined that term, see vid above) is all it takes to manipulate Trump like that, dude is more of a Muppet than I thought; pull some strings and watch him go.

[GrndPndr]

5 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

<snip>  Yet, I have this Bongino** feeling that the blowup was planned somewhat, like WWF drama, or the Apprentice.  Vance just seemed too over the top.  If the goal was to get the EU to play harder, it might work. <snip>

And yet, to me, this is clearly what was planned for.  Interesting, that not one of Trumps world-wide detractors has thought this a plausible scenario.  And the EU is seen in a huge group picture, now pledging to take care of the situation.

[coppy]

It is obvious to me that this is a win win situation for the United States. 

Trump and Vance's actions will either cause a negotiated peace deal, or it will force the EU to completely handle supporting Ukraine. Either way is a win for us. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and we have no real obligation to support their defense.

Additionally, I think some second order effects of this conflict have been ignored. For example, Russia has gotten to experience and adapt to three years of war against western weapon systems. This experience/data will no doubt be used against us in a future conflict against them or China, god forbid it ever comes to that.