Posts by Peter Barnes

Only absolute fools went charging into battle carrying flowers back during WWI. I don't think anyone has been quite that naive since.

I mean, look at those military columns rolling out from the East during that summer in the 90s.

Honestly, I’m not losing much sleep over how meticulously these reports are being filled out. Look, sorry bluemason3—I truly value your posts and the insight you bring to the table—but I think you might be overthinking this one. You’re adding layers of unnecessary complication by dissecting every single post-incident explanation. When someone is just trying to decompress after a high-stress situation, they aren't exactly sitting down to draft a legal brief. Let's just take a breath and dial it back a notch.

I’ll concede that grapplers have the upper hand—but strictly in a one-on-one scenario. If I’m forced into a situation where there are more than one of them, I have zero interest in hitting the mat. It’s either my legs carry me out of there, or I take down the first guy to make everyone else think twice before jumping in. I had a run-in like this back in middle school—it was a lifetime ago, obviously—but even then, I knew the stakes. If I had gone after him, there was a very real chance the rest of them would have swarmed me, either piling on or just beating me senseless with whatever sticks they could find.

Exactly, Zulu—you're talking about Ford. But let’s be clear: the man generally had a soft spot for non-democratic regimes, provided they actually managed to give their people a decent standard of living. He even sympathized with Nazism back before the war broke out, of course. And we shouldn't forget that the Germans chose Hinkie through what was, more or less, a democratic system. It’s the same story with Russia and Putin. Just because someone ascends to power via a democratic model doesn't mean they won't eventually steer the entire country straight into the darkest kind of dictatorship. Jose Clark2, that’s my answer to you as well.

Glossary, let’s be real—there is no such thing as a "good" or "democratic" socialism. You younger folks clearly didn't sit through any courses on the theory and practice of self-managed socialism back in school, and you obviously haven't spent much time digging into the Capital Group. If you had, you'd understand that the bedrock of building communism—or even socialism as a transitional phase—is "class struggle." There isn't any room for mercy or democracy in that process. What you’re calling democratic socialism isn't actually socialism at all. The only reason socialism ever functioned was because capitalists realized they could lose everything if they didn't allow others enough breathing room to survive. They eventually figured out that you need a consumer base to sell your products to, and you can't exactly sell anything to the destitute—well, except for alcohol and tobacco, I suppose; those are universal constants.

William Cooper11 said:We all know exactly who’s actually stepping up for Ukraine and who’s just playing politics.
I mean, look at the USA, the UK, Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Czechs, the Slovaks, and the Baltic states—they’re always the first ones on the scene when it comes to real, tangible support.
Everyone else? They’re all talk, secretly seething with resentment toward those who actually show up.

We are contributing as well. It’s just that we tend to keep things quiet once our Secretary of Defense—who I won't even dignify with a name—hands over a nearly exhaustive report to the public detailing the exact serial numbers of the equipment and weaponry we've sent to Ukraine. And frankly, that’s how it should be. Whether you like it or not, it is much better to fight the forces of evil out on the Ukrainian steppe than it is to have them fighting on una.

Nina, my apologies—you weren't actually bringing up the USSR or Russ; you were talking about the field studies. Regardless, I’m sticking to my guns: you seem to be defending the USA without a hint of critical thought.

Nina, look, maybe I haven't spent enough time lurking on these forums, but I hadn't noticed that Americans are the only ones ever accused of "only looking out for their own interests." Let's be real—everyone looks out for themselves; we should probably do the same. It’s just significantly easier to pull that off when you happen to be on the "right" side of the moral high ground. I figured you might have picked up on that vibe from my earlier posts today. And honestly, thank God the US is helping Ukraine—because, surprise, surprise, it serves their interests, the interests of the USA, our interests, and most of Europe. Unfortunately, the moment I posted, you immediately jumped to pointing fingers at the crimes of Russ or the old USSR. That is textbook whataboutism. There isn't a more perfect example than your response. Don't you see that by posting things like that, you're actually giving legitimacy to the people who justify the crimes of fascists by pointing to the morally and legally unacceptable moves made by Americans? This isn't some black-and-white morality tale, and the US generally isn't the "good guy." In this specific situation with Ukraine, they are—and frankly, good for them. Because it benefits them. When they lost interest in Afghanistan, they basically abandoned entire nations and tribes to fend for themselves. Same thing in Vietnam. Same in Syria and Iraq. I’d love to hear what the Kurds have to say about that. Or their track record regarding that butcher in South Africa. There are far too many examples, and many of them are still painfully fresh. So, I'll say it again: GLORY TO UKRAINE, not to the USA.

hollowdriver13 said:Let’s be real: throughout history, every single superpower has been oppressive to some degree, whether it's on a massive scale or just in smaller ways.
The whole concept of being a "superpower" is inherently built that way.
For us—as people living in a smaller nation—the real question isn't about stopping hegemony, but figuring out which of the "big three" (the USA, Russia, or China) is the least damaging to our interests.
And honestly? Even with all its flaws, the USA still leads the pack when it comes to protecting individual liberties and basic human rights compared to the other two. As part of the European Union and NATO, we basically just have to cross our fingers and hope the US maintains its status as the global leader for as long as we're around.

I find myself agreeing with that assessment.

George Robinson43 said:I was simply correcting a false premise when you claimed the Russians have been the villains for only the last decade or so, ignoring the fact that they spent the last 50 years keeping Eastern Europe under occupation.
They weren't peaceful in the 90s either, during the era when pro-Russian breakaway regions were being carved out of former USSR states and when Gamzahurdija was being ousted just to install a puppet in Georgia.

Good grief, you're clearly skimming rather than actually reading what I put down. Honestly, if you look at the posts from demon and Somied—where is he, by the way?—I consider their contributions to be some of the most constructive and well-argued on this entire board. Nowhere in my writing did I suggest that Russ (or the soviet, if you prefer the vintage label) have only been the villains for the last fifteen years. My point was about the sheer scale of influence and the potential fallout—a department where Americans, frankly, have the upper hand.

For those of you—whether you’re younger or just have a memory like a sieve—who seem to forget the basics: remember how ready the Americans were to sell us out to the Mexicans back in the summer of '91 without even blinking. We didn't earn their attention through some divine right; we earned it by being stubborn, resilient, and refusing to break. That’s why we shouldn't fall into the trap of blindly idolizing them. Instead, let's act based on our own interests. And currently, that interest is supporting Ukraine. It’s both pragmatic and, frankly, the right thing to do.

Andrew Booth29 said:Look, it’s a given that what’s good for the USA isn't necessarily what’s best for everyone else—that's just how geopolitics works. But if you actually sit down and look at the math, American interests align far more closely with our own than anything involving Russia ever could.

Spot on. Has always been that way.

somied said:anyway, it’s a pretty interesting bit of logic—suggesting one should sympathize with Russia just because Americans aren't exactly saints ourselves. lol.

That is a completely flawed and incredibly rushed conclusion. My take? No one is innocent here, but at this exact moment, the stench coming from Russia is significantly more overwhelming than anything coming from the US.

The USA always follows its own interests—it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about dollars, oil, geopolitical leverage, or some other niche influence. These moves aren't usually driven by some grand "greater good," and frankly, they often involve committing outright crimes in the process. We shouldn't kid ourselves about that. They aren't exactly the "good guys," but over the last decade or so, they've been significantly less problematic than the Russ—especially given how things look right now.

Nathan Thomas12 said:This report is total nonsense.
Whether there was military hardware at the theater in Mariupol or not doesn't even matter—those missiles were going to hit regardless.

Precisely.

To be fair, Aunt Strile didn't actually miss the mark here. It’s more that Pope Francis hasn't quite found his footing—or, if he truly believes he has a handle on things, then I can only assume he's been completely brainwashed by this pervasive anti-American sentiment. There seems to be this underlying, rather misguided affection for communist ideals, which is frankly idiotic given that there isn't a single trace of actual communism or socialism left in Putin's political agenda. Beyond that, I suspect there's just a simple, very human impulse at play: a certain satisfaction in watching someone take a swing at Americans, capitalists, or the "decadent" West in general. He's certainly not a master statesman or some grand visionary, though I will concede that he does tend to look out for the little guy, in his own way.

In his relentless attempts to redraw the political maps of other nations, Putin has essentially adopted the playbook used by his coach, Miti Sadomazođubrilović.

And hey, if you look at the results—well, at least according to Nick—Miti’s methods seem to be working just fine.

Donna Wells2 said:The Russians are basically just barking at the moon at this point.
They’ve burned through their elite weaponry and top-tier units, so now they’re scavenging anyone they can find—even 50-year-old retirees would probably fit the bill right now.
Word is that nearly half of the territorial fighters from the Donbas region have been chewed up and spat out by the meat grinder.
If that's the case, can you even begin to imagine what the total casualty count looks like?

I always look back at the quality gap between Russian gear and Western tech through the lens of the Tiger versus the Sherman tank.
How many Sherman tanks did it take to finally bring down a single Tiger?
Honestly, I suspect that exact same ratio still holds true today when comparing Russian hardware to Western equipment.

The truth is, the Tiger was essentially a defensive machine. At one point, it might have been the finest tank on the planet, but it was built for holding ground, not for sweeping through territory.

Sure, Ivan the evil is actually hitting on something when he suggests that the Russian identity isn't really a cohesive thing—though if you ask me, "defined" might be a more accurate term. Just take a look at their military leadership or their top-tier athletes in almost any sport, especially soccer. Even that poor soul who scored an own goal against us wasn't ethnically Russian; he was likely some sort of mixed heritage. But honestly, that’s just the standard playbook for any nation with an imperialistic or colonial past—think Great Britain (well, England, technically), France, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, and so on. It’s a perfectly predictable outcome when you spend centuries stripping other continents and nations bare, eventually leading people from those colonies to settle in your own backyard. In that regard, the Soviet Union wasn't any better than, say, the Belgians in Africa. It was a straight-up crime—pure resource looting and the systematic impoverishment of local populations. Germany is a bit of a different case, though. After WWII, they were left without colonies, yet people still flocked there in droves just to find a decent meal.

Look, Jessica Peterson2, it’s a mistake to assume the Soviet Union was defined solely by its Russian identity—it wasn't just a one-note story. Take China, for example. Do they only care about the Han? Of course not. And I’m not even talking about the current, globally recognized issues involving the Uyghurs and Tibetans—though those are significant—but rather the countless other ethnic groups and tribes that the Han have historically subjugated, many of whom were essentially pushed out of the country entirely. Even Romania and Bulgaria functioned as intensely nationalistic states in their own right. So, the fact that there were a handful of non-Russian "executioners" within the Soviet hierarchy doesn't suddenly turn the whole thing into a stateless, non-national entity.