|
|
On March 11 2014 06:46 Ghanburighan wrote:Interesting article, I thought about copying parts of it, but really only works as a whole: Russia has already lost the war
Sun Tzu would like to have a word with the author of that article...
"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
Russia is close to annexing Crimea (which I called and was obvious at the start of the invasion) bloodlessly. And sanctions will hurt the economies of Europe just as much, if not more than Russia. And we've seen how well sanctions work on dictators. They don't.
Russia already won.
The right thing to do in this situation would have the been the same response the world gave Saddam Hussein when he annexed Kuwait. But instead, the world is responding the way it did when Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia.
You just have to crack open a history book to find out how those situations turned out. You'd think world leaders would understand by now, that after an army has invaded a nation, that appeasement and the diplomacy are solutions that violate the rights of those being invaded. You wouldn't try to negotiate with a rapist while he is raping someone would you? No, you'd physically stop him.
|
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory
|
On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu.
Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer:
Why is my reading of history narrow?
On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory
A warm water port.
And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it.
|
On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it.
Your reading of history is narrow because it pays too little attention to the present.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? If you want to challenge my argument, then do it. Because my argument stands independent of me. Someone else can voice the same thing. But you keep challenging me. Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it.
did they not have access to it?
|
On March 11 2014 23:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it. Your reading of history is narrow because it pays too little attention to the present.
If you want to challenge my argument, then do it. Educate everyone. Because my argument stands independent of me. Someone else can voice the same thing.
But you keep challenging me. "My reading..." when it should be "that argument is wrong because..."
But I know your argument already. Because it is the same one as those who opposed action in Iraq and in 1938. You see, I read the history books.
On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
did they not have access to it?
Crimea provides the only warm water military port Russia has.
|
Russia's access to a warm water port in the Black Sea is locally important, but as long as Turkey is in NATO, Russia will be basically be stuck with a zip-tie around its balls.
|
On March 11 2014 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:46 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it. Your reading of history is narrow because it pays too little attention to the present. If you want to challenge my argument, then do it. Because my argument stands independent of me. Someone else can voice the same thing. But you keep challenging me. "My reading..." when it should be "that argument is wrong because..." But I know your argument already. Because it is the same one as those who opposed action in Iraq and in 1938. You see, I read the history books. Crimea provides the only warm water military port Russia has.
You shouldn't edit your posts after people respond to them and then use that to attack them. It makes you look childish.
|
On March 11 2014 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:46 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it. Your reading of history is narrow because it pays too little attention to the present. If you want to challenge my argument, then do it. Because my argument stands independent of me. Someone else can voice the same thing. But you keep challenging me. My reading. Not my argument is wrong...
The problem is that you don't have an argument, all you have is a surface reading of historical events ad-hoc linked together using "History told ya so" rhetoric; it ends up being entirely circular. You haven't established a link between current events and any of the historical concepts you clearly love so very much; being content to say "Hitler, Sun Tzu, Putin already won" without substantiating any of it does not exactly give your "argument" much to stand on.
|
On March 11 2014 23:52 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:46 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it. Your reading of history is narrow because it pays too little attention to the present. If you want to challenge my argument, then do it. Because my argument stands independent of me. Someone else can voice the same thing. But you keep challenging me. "My reading..." when it should be "that argument is wrong because..." But I know your argument already. Because it is the same one as those who opposed action in Iraq and in 1938. You see, I read the history books. On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
did they not have access to it? Crimea provides the only warm water military port Russia has. You shouldn't edit your posts after people respond to them and then use that to attack them. It makes you look childish.
No worries, I edited it back to the original before you posted this and included it in a new post. Thanks.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2014 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:46 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it. Your reading of history is narrow because it pays too little attention to the present. If you want to challenge my argument, then do it. Educate everyone. Because my argument stands independent of me. Someone else can voice the same thing. But you keep challenging me. "My reading..." when it should be "that argument is wrong because..." But I know your argument already. Because it is the same one as those who opposed action in Iraq and in 1938. You see, I read the history books. Crimea provides the only warm water military port Russia has.
they were hosting that fleet fine before the invasion. if ukraine moved to take it somehow, they have a ton of leverage to stop that without going this far. sun tzu would facepalm at this move
|
On March 11 2014 23:38 BronzeKnee wrote:Sun Tzu would like to have a word with the author of that article... "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Russia is close to annexing Crimea (which I called and was obvious at the start of the invasion) bloodlessly. And sanctions will hurt the economies of Europe just as much, if not more than Russia. And we've seen how well sanctions work on dictators. They don't. Russia already won. The right thing to do in this situation would have the been the same response the world gave Saddam Hussein when he annexed Kuwait. But instead, the world is responding the way it did when Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia.
You just have to crack open a history book to find out how those situations turned out. You'd think world leaders would understand by now, that after an army has invaded a nation, that appeasement and the diplomacy are solutions that violate the rights of those being invaded. You wouldn't try to negotiate with a rapist while he is raping someone would you? No, you'd physically stop him.
Lol what? Russia is not Iraq, benefits of the war would be way below its cost in life and equipment. Not to mention Iraq didn't have Nuclear weapons.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2014 23:50 xDaunt wrote:
Russia's access to a warm water port in the Black Sea is locally important, but as long as Turkey is in NATO, Russia will be basically be stuck with a zip-tie around its balls.
#orthodoxrestoration #constantinople
|
On March 11 2014 23:58 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:38 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 06:46 Ghanburighan wrote:Interesting article, I thought about copying parts of it, but really only works as a whole: Russia has already lost the war Sun Tzu would like to have a word with the author of that article... "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." Russia is close to annexing Crimea (which I called and was obvious at the start of the invasion) bloodlessly. And sanctions will hurt the economies of Europe just as much, if not more than Russia. And we've seen how well sanctions work on dictators. They don't. Russia already won. The right thing to do in this situation would have the been the same response the world gave Saddam Hussein when he annexed Kuwait. But instead, the world is responding the way it did when Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia.
You just have to crack open a history book to find out how those situations turned out. You'd think world leaders would understand by now, that after an army has invaded a nation, that appeasement and the diplomacy are solutions that violate the rights of those being invaded. You wouldn't try to negotiate with a rapist while he is raping someone would you? No, you'd physically stop him. Lol what? Russia is not Iraq, benefits of the war would be way below its cost in life and equipment. Not to mention Iraq didn't have Nuclear weapons.
Yes I think he forgot that nuclear weapons existed and that Russia possessed with the US the majority of them.
Without them Russia would have gotten crushed a very long time ago.
|
On March 11 2014 23:58 -Archangel- wrote:
Lol what? Russia is not Iraq, benefits of the war would be way below its cost in life and equipment. Not to mention Iraq didn't have Nuclear weapons.
On March 11 2014 23:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 23:48 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:46 farvacola wrote:On March 11 2014 23:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 11 2014 23:42 farvacola wrote:
Due to the fact that every single one of your posts revolves around some sort of incredibly narrow reading of history coupled with a poor shorthanded reference to Hitler, I think it's time you closed that book. History does not provide it's own criteria for application; neither do the words of Sun Tzu. Here it comes, the question you probably can't answer: Why is my reading of history narrow? On March 11 2014 23:44 oneofthem wrote:
^what possible value could crimea provide to outweigh all the sanctions. it's not risk lmfao u don't get bonus unit spawns for grabbing all ethnic russian territory A warm water port. And pulling back now would show weakness on Putin's part. He would never allow it. Your reading of history is narrow because it pays too little attention to the present. If you want to challenge my argument, then do it. Because my argument stands independent of me. Someone else can voice the same thing. But you keep challenging me. My reading. Not my argument is wrong... The problem is that you don't have an argument, all you have is a surface reading of historical events ad-hoc linked together using "History told ya so" rhetoric; it ends up being entirely circular. You haven't established a link between current events and any of the historical concepts you clearly love so very much; being content to say "Hitler, Sun Tzu, Putin already won" without substantiating any of it does not exactly give your "argument" much to stand on.
I don't establish the link because I believe it is obvious and rhetorical.
This is a forum, so I do not list out long logical arguments, but I certainly could. What I do is a correlate things, because it is simple and easy to understand.
Why does this work and why is it a strong argument?
Well, for the same reason you'd read a guide on how to stop a 2 base Blink All-in as Zerg (I'm actually doing the same thing here, correlating why it is a strong argument to something else to prove the point). Now the guide doesn't tell you everything you'll need to know, nor does it go over every Protoss's individual Blink All-in and every map it can be done on. But we all know a good guide serves the purpose and people can think and connect the dots. Thus, it correlates a Blink All-in that the writer of the guide has faced in the past, to the Blink-All-in you're might face. I guarantee, they will not the same, but they will be similar.
I'm doing the same thing. I've presented an argument that serves as a guide. You have to connect the dots and establish the link. It invites you to read history, think about it and learn from it, which is so lacking in today's society.
The fact is, we've seen many similar situations in history. I've noted that. I've also noted the different responses. We know what works. We don't know what doesn't. Why would we try what doesn't work again? Why would we even consider it?
The natural argument is, "well Russia is a nuclear state" or "well Russia has a stronger military than Germany or Iraq did" ect ect ect... as to why we are going to do something that didn't work in the past. -Archangel- made this very argument, and I quoted it above. These kind of arguments are based in fear, not logic. And we know what FDR said about fear.
And frankly, these argument have absolutely nothing to do with anything. The bottom line is, people are going to lose their freedom. You just don't give up because the work will be hard, or people could die when it comes to guaranteeing human rights. Today it is Crimea. But tomorrow it could be you, you losing your freedom. And you'd want someone to stand with you right? Right?
If the world allows the people in Crimea to lose their freedom without exhausting every resource we have, then the freedom of everyone is insecure.
Martin Niemöller wrote a great poem about this, "First they came". Einstein spoke out it, FDR spoke about this, among many others.
It is not just coincidence that great men and great leaders have made speeches and spoken about this topic in depth. They didn't do it for fun. They did to warn us in the future, and prepare us for what we need to do. They'd hope we listen, so we didn't make the same mistakes, when we were in similar situations (as we are now). The same way great Zerg players create guides on how to stop a 2 base Blink all-in.
Heed the warning. Do not make the same mistakes, or make excuses about why the situation is different and how it absolves us of responsibility to guarantee human rights. Because people tried that in the past too.
And we all know how it worked out.
|
once/if Ukraine would be allowed in NATO, Russias base in Crimea would've gone byebye.
edit: what's being negotiated now is, Russias base and how would Ukraine resources be split among the winners; who gets what.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On March 11 2014 22:00 Saryph wrote:
A couple pages back there was a link to the choices of the referendum next week. One was to join Russia, the other was to roll back the laws/constitution to an older version that would allow them to join Russia quickly. Is it really true that there is no option to maintain the status quo? Do people like zeo see this as legitimate if it is true?
WTF how is this not reported more? First time I read about this in this thread here.
|
Oh look, it's Bronzeknee again, the historical hobbyist. Sorry to say, but spouting historical scenarios and quoting famous quotes, does not an argument make. Not here and not in the real world.
|
On March 11 2014 20:12 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2014 18:46 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:
Yanukovich can't say two words straightly wihtout paper...THE President, what can I say else :DD But did he lose Crimea? Yanukovych 1:0 Junta
No he just lost all of Ukraine and is still denying the reality that his vassal lord has given up most of his fief for lost and has seized what it considers the most valuable part of it for itself.
So it's more like Yanukovych: 0 Putin: 1 "Junta:" 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
