Posts by Lisa Jackson7

rustywalker82 said:I'm not quite sure I follow the question.
What I'm actually asking is: for those of you who support the current situation with the gas supplies, how much longer should we let an aggressor make just as much money from gas as they did before these so-called sanctions?
How long are we going to keep caving and looking the other way?

Looks like you can't even be bothered to read properly—it's pretty obvious you're against the sanctions.
You brought up "smart sanctions" and cutting off those revenue streams that Putin can offset by hiking up gas prices, which is obviously the better way to go.
Is there actually anything more written down about this somewhere?

Richard Wilson4 said:The West just doesn't have the guts to actually take Russia apart.

Honestly, we just need to cut ties with that regime. Minimize everything. Stop giving them any oxygen until they finally figure themselves out and change on their own.

The Russian people need to sit down and really think about this one. They gotta decide if holding onto Izium and Kherson is actually worth more than having decent relationships with the rest of the world. It’s a big call.

Oh sure... because they should totally prevent an uncontrolled collapse... just for their own benefit.

Just minimize relations with that regime until they change on their own.

That's not gonna cut it...

Let the Russian people decide if Izium and Kherson are more important than having normal relations with the world.

Are you kidding me?
It isn't the Russian people deciding—it's just a tiny circle around the top brass.

Arthur Miller7 said:I'm with you on that, it's all pretty obvious to me. My question is actually for this group of forum users who are fighting so hard against sanctions. Like, what's the actual alternative here? What was the West supposed to do? That old-school logic about "we need to maintain good relations with Russia" just doesn't cut it anymore. The Russians are blackmailing us. After Ukraine, if they start demanding something else—and let's face it, they will, because why would they stop?—what is the West even supposed to do then? Since you guys are all squawking so much about how things should have been, why don't you come up with those big, grand solutions to bring world peace and keep everyone warm?

The only thing we could've—or should've—done was not to cave from the very start. Look, we're here right now because everyone was too worried about the financial fallout, and now we're right back in the same financial crap. We should have been phasing out Russian energy step-by-step so that when we finally said "enough," we wouldn't be in this pathetic situation. But yeah, easy to say now, right? You can't just flip a switch overnight. If we had started planning nuclear plants and other alternatives earlier, Putin would've seen the writing on the wall and launched his "special operation" way sooner. By being soft on Russia, we basically just made them stronger than they ever were (even back in 2008), while they just kept us on a leash and squeezed us slowly.

You can't have both peace and comfort right now... but hey, we'll see if anyone actually learned anything once the regime in Russia is being dragged through the streets for the second time.

The "original sin" was Western policy in the 90s—specifically the USA. Everything after that just followed that flawed logic... "since Russia is part of the global market now, democracy will naturally follow, making a new dictator impossible."

Totally wrong... at the very least, we should have tried helping them actually become a democracy.

Thomas Nelson25 said:I mean, they're pumping out Ladas without ABS, AC, or even catalytic converters—it's pretty obvious what's going on there.
The real question is how long the middle class can actually handle being shut out by the West.
A year at most.

And then what? They're gonna start a revolution and topple Putin?

Nancy Gomez26 said:There is always hope for Russia. Right now, in this current chapter, those occupying The Kremlin hold their positions through nothing more than sheer luck—their decisions and actions have earned them zero respect from the American people or even their own citizens. But things shift. They always do. If the Germans managed to rise from the ashes after everything, then Russia will eventually find its way too.

Props to Lev Yashin, and props to the Germans and Japanese after World War II, but they didn't just pull themselves out of the wreckage alone...

Timothy Williams5 said:The Estonian Prime Minister’s message to the West: 'Stop worrying about Putin's feelings'
https://news.yahoo.com/estonias-prim...223606146.html

Sitting in her office at the Stenbock residence—a polished, neoclassical building tucked away in the heart of Tallinn's historic old town—Prime Minister Kaja Kallas wanted to take a deep dive into the last eighty years of European history. Unfortunately, she was only allotted twenty minutes.
....

"I believe a fundamental mistake was made following World War II," Kallas remarked, seated beneath a portrait of Mojsi receiving the Ten Commandments. "While Nazi atrocities were universally condemned, the crimes committed by communists were never given that same scrutiny.
Consequently, we are witnessing a massive resurgence of Stalinism within Russia right now. Seventy percent of Russians support Stalin, despite the fact that he was responsible for twenty million deaths, notwithstanding the mass deportations, the gulags, the wars, and everything else. In Estonia, the history books were completely rewritten after the fall of communism, whereas Russians are still being taught the exact same version of history we were forced to endure during the Soviet era, which was absolute garbage."
...
Estonia itself was annexed by the Soviet Union back in 1940, when Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler agreed to carve up Eastern Europe under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Later, the Nazis invaded and occupied the country after Hitler betrayed Stalin by launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941—that failed attempt to strike the Soviet Union during World War II, a conflict that spanned through modern-day Ukraine.
...

She just didn't explain how the Soviet system could have been toppled after World War II... just by using "criticism"? Give me a break.

The real screw-up happened in 1991, when we could've actually influenced what was happening in Russia without an invasion or a massive confrontation... she should probably thank Bush, Clinton, those "Harvard guys," and whatever other desperate types were involved... not to mention the folks in Europe who blindly hooked themselves up to Russian oil and gas without thinking twice.

analogbear5 said:It’d be feudalism if the peasants were actually the ones driving production. Instead, you've got this mafia-style setup making a killing by exploiting natural resources rather than moving drugs. There’s a reason Aleksandr Litvinenko coined the term "mafia state."

Yeah, but honestly? This isn't even news... you see these kinds of structures popping up all over the place within the global neoliberal order.
Think about the big oil giants—like Saudi Arabia, for example? Or those other niche countries built entirely on one or two resources, or just banking services and high-end tourism, etc.

It’s especially hilarious looking back from where we are now—the fact that these mobsters in Eastern Europe actually thought they were the precursors to democracy.

Linda Wood96 said:I honestly don't get what religious folks would even have to talk about on a religion forum if there weren't any skeptics around to—I guess you could say—poke at them and force some actual critical thinking regarding all this religious stuff.

Look, there are definitely topics where you can actually say something fresh—even from a theology perspective... and especially when looking at religion as a social thing.
It’s not about anyone's personal beliefs—like I've said a dozen times before, "show me your house, just don't go trashing mine."

The real issue is the bullying—not just having different opinions, like analogbear5 pointed out... but that inevitably happens when a sub-forum isn't being moderated properly... sadly.

Religion in these forum debates has basically turned into this toxic substitute for politics—it's become a full-blown "culture war."

coastalfalcon61 said:I guess you could say there isn't really any imposition of a personal narrative happening, provided that we give different interest groups enough space under fair conditions, where they can operate and have discussions relatively freely without being interfered with.

Look, I appreciate the good intentions here, but nothing changes until we get some actual, fair moderation standards in place—and then, more importantly, someone actually follows them consistently... right now, this Theology sub-forum isn't some "safe space," it's just a free-for-all where people write whatever nonsense they want.
It’s not even an issue having a regular debate between people who don't see eye-to-eye—if anything, that's the whole point.
And for the record, I don't view myself as some spokesperson for an "interest group" or some big institution; that's not why I'm on this Forum.

Religion is just part of being human—both as individuals and as a society—just like spirituality is. People shape their views, norms, and goals within those frameworks; you can't just "liberate" yourself from them.

Kevin Rodriguez4 said:In my opinion, the setup actually makes perfect sense on paper. Dividing everything into a general section where people can just chat casually about current events regarding religion, and then having a more "specialized" section for "theology and religious practice" where different denominations can lay out their doctrines and answer specific questions from their own perspective... I think that's a really solid way to go.

The real issue, though, is that it just isn't working in practice because, well, nobody is actually moderating that part of the Forum. It feels like total chaos, and honestly, it’s mostly being caused by just a handful of people (regardless of what they believe). I guess if we just had a few warnings issued here and there, things would settle down. We don't need some ultra-religious moderator acting like a zealot, jumping into every single thread to push a specific agenda—we've already dealt with one of those, haven't we? No thanks! What we really need is just someone normal. Someone who can tell the difference between an insult and a simple statement of fact, or distinguish between actual questioning and just trolling. Most importantly, we need someone with zero tolerance for anyone calling for violence.

I'm with you, especially on the bolded part. Our former moderator Meadow did a killer job—looking back now, it's pretty obvious.
Can't speak for the older mods, though.
Still, this keeps coming up every few weeks and nothing ever changes... maybe there just isn't anyone willing to moderate that PDF, who knows.

bluemason3 said:Isolating people based on differing opinions defeats the whole purpose of having a forum as a place for debate.

You can't really compare this to the situation with COVID or the sections on natural science and health, where scientific expertise provides an objective criterion for selection. With religion, there isn't any of that; it's all just personal opinion.

Look, if you think things like IQ are a valid way to decide someone's worth—especially when it comes to whether their opinion matters in a discussion (which is what you're implying here)—then why even bother talking to them? If you've already decided a certain group is "lesser" than you, the conversation is dead before it starts.

In that case, we aren't talking about free speech anymore; we're just watching a group try to preach their own "superiority."
The end result? It's just plain old discrimination, trying to "clean up" public spaces by kicking out anyone they don't like.

Brenda Murphy3 said:If being "weak" means people in Europe get to keep living exactly the way they do right now—then fine, let them stay weak and "held hostage"... because honestly, let those guys stay just as "powerful" as they are today..😁 ...no big deal...

(And that's assuming you actually buy into this nonsense about Europe being held hostage by America in the first place...).

But it won't happen... mostly because we've already seen how one-sided our energy dependence has been—which we definitely learned the hard way—and we're about to get a massive reality check on military security too...

Both sides of the coin need a total overhaul... though honestly, who knows if it'll even happen.

Bryan Booth82 said:The only genuine parallel between Russia and Nazi Germany—the one that actually holds water—is the similarity between Hitler and Putin, specifically regarding their sheer delusions of grandeur.

Russia hit a brick wall at the very first obstacle, whereas Germany was practically knocking on the door of their ultimate goal.
Back then, the world was caught completely off guard by Hitler, but Putin? The West saw him coming from a mile away and reacted immediately.

Best regards,

They read him so well, though, that Putin managed to play the "reliable business partner" role for quite a while.

Both Hitler and Putin ended up on the cover of Time magazine as "Person of the Year." ☕

Anthony Hill5 said:I am not agitated in the slightest; I simply struck a nerve, and your response serves as nothing less than proof of that fact.

Yeah, right... as if. At the end of the day, the West basically handed Putin his win on a silver platter, which led us straight to this mess where people act like someone can just decide what the Ukrainian national identity should be.

brightheron64 said:It’s true that Putin set his sights on war, but... (there goes the classic whataboutism) if the CIA really knew everything they claim to know, then they should have reacted much earlier and much more aggressively—something like, "Hold on, let's negotiate a 'Ménage à trois'," because no single life, whether Ukrainian or Russian, is worth this level of warfare and chaos. Instead, we are currently rolling out every possible sanction imaginable (all at once, rather than step-by-step), yet not a single drop of Russian oil or cubic meter of gas isn't finding its way to a destination somewhere.

It feels like a twisted kind of gymnastics, almost perverse, watching the endless talk about tens of thousands of deaths, the destruction, and the devastation... not to mention the economic fallout. Honestly, why didn't the EU simply say, "we are shutting down every single pipeline this very second, even if it kills us"? Even Ukraine, which is the one under direct attack, is still allowing Russian energy to transit through its territory, essentially collecting the cash from it...
Good grief, we aren't the Japanese, so why are we acting like kamikazes?

Man, even Domazet Lošo would have passed out looking at all of this...

It is fair to ask who actually threw the doors wide open for Putin to embark on this war adventure, and who is now trying to fix it with such desperation at the cost of tens of thousands of souls, misery, and hardship. Is someone truly invested in peace and reaching a solution right now (even if it doesn't favor Ukraine), or is a proxy war of attrition against the Russians actually more interesting to them, even if it drags on for years?
And in the end, what is the actual resolution? Are the Russians just going to hand back Crimea and Donbas?

Regarding the bolded part—we couldn't pull that trigger immediately, but we'll see more clearly this fall what they actually plan to do.

It’s like watching some pornographic gymnastics regarding tens of thousands of deaths, destruction, damages... not even mentioning that. I mean, damn, why didn't the EU just say: "shut off every single pipe right this second, even if we starve", when even Ukraine, which was directly attacked, is still letting Russian energy pass through its territory and happily collecting the cash for it.
Man, we aren't Japanese, so we're just gonna play kamikaze.

God, even Domazet Lošo would have flipped out over all this.

Honestly, you gotta ask who really opened the door for Putin to go on this war adventure, and is now trying to fix it by throwing tens of thousands of souls into the meat grinder. Does someone actually care about peace and a quick solution (even if it doesn't favor Ukraine), or is a proxy war of attrition with the Russians more interesting, even if it drags on for years?
And in the end, what's the actual solution? The Russians just hand back Crimea and Donbas?

I'm not even sure myself, the stuff you're talking about scares me... again, let's just wait for the fall.

Nancy Gomez26 said:The internal order within the Russian Federation matters little to me. That is their business, their choice, and how they choose to manage their own domestic affairs. The critical issue is whether they attempt to impose their solutions—or themselves—on others through force. As long as they stay within their own borders and do as they please, that is one thing. A telling indicator of the current reality is how neighboring nations are steadily distancing themselves and building walls against Russia. Everyone who has the capacity to pull away is doing so; those left behind are merely the ones who have no other choice.

The internal setup of places like Russia, the USA, or China matters big time—they aren't some insignificant little nations, they have massive global reach.
There isn't some giant wall high enough to block out their influence.

Then there's the whole mess of figuring out how to maintain an order that keeps people in those countries relatively happy while also making sure those nations project a positive vibe globally.
That's a tough nut to crack.

Christian Torres3 said:I love it when "good" Catholics lie through their teeth without a hint of shame.

When the Korean War broke out in 1950, the UN appointed him commander of the UN forces in Korea. Thanks to that spectacular maneuver at Inchon, he pushed North Korean forces all the way back to the Chinese border. Driven by pure ego, he promised the American public a "victory by Christmas," but after the North Korean counteroffensive, he ended up in a brutal clash with President Harry Truman over policy regarding China—specifically whether to continue the war in Korea. This led to Truman relieving him of all duties in 1951... and his 1952 presidential run went down the drain once the public found out he wanted to use an atomic bomb against China during the Korean War. wiki

What was I lying about? Fine, have it your way... ☕

Nancy Gomez26 said:How many years was that, roughly? Back then, they were making threats against an opponent that didn't even possess such weaponry yet. Once the opposition actually acquires it—those kinds of threats lose all substance. Especially when logistics and delivery are as reliable as they are today. Listening to this kind of posturing in the 21st century is just idiotic—at least for those doing the threatening. As far as I can tell, it’s mostly been Iranians and North Koreans making these calls. Now, the Russians have decided to join the club.

They make sense if you're just trying to play to your own people at home—and that goes for both Iran and North Korea... besides, America was a completely different beast 70 years ago. Back then, society could react much more uniformly to whatever was being pushed, whether it was good or bad.

Today the whole dynamic is different, just like you said.

Christian Torres3 said:Then why don't you be a good person and actually explain the reason why Douglas MacArthur was relieved of command?

The whole thing went down because he kept trying to run the war his own way—basically trying to expand the mission beyond what Harry Truman laid out, which meant taking over all of Korea and risking a massive escalation.

So yeah, a total hawk. Not that Truman or later Ike weren't tossing around the idea of using bombs against China, though.

Nancy Gomez26 said:No, they aren't acting like any other major power. I don't recall the Americans, the Chinese, the French, or the British ever openly threatening the entire planet with nuclear weapons like this. It’s primitive. It doesn't even work; if anything, it creates a massive backlash. The current leadership in the Kremlin is clearly out of its depth in a situation they manufactured themselves. At this point, Russia’s rhetoric is on the level of an Iran that openly threatens to strike Israel once they secure an a-bomb—except Russia is making threats against the whole world. And look at Israel: they neither confirm nor deny having the capability, and they certainly don't want to discuss it, let alone use it as a bargaining chip. That is a far more disciplined policy. I don't remember people making these kinds of threats during the Cold War; there was talk about stockpiles, sure, but everyone understood that pulling the trigger would likely mean the end of everything. It seems like Putin RF made a little bit of progress, only to slam into reverse at full speed.

Americans in the Korean War... China.
General MacArthur, President Truman, and Eisenhower.