[MrMatt]

Why isn't Canada doing anything for Palestine?

Because Palestine isn't a country that's being invaded by a hostile neighbour?

 

[MrMatt]

We aren't even fighting. We're just giving essentially token moral support.

I think we're providing huge amounts of intel.

Russia is not going to start shooting down NATO aircraft. That would be a clear escalation and would brook reprisals. Russia must know that they can't win this war if it escalates, they are far outmatched by NATO. Any overtly hostile action against NATO will lead to rapid demilitarization of Russia using conventional means. Russia, if it were wise, would try wrap this up keeping Crimea. They are in danger of losing that strategic position. The longer this drags out, the likelier Putin is to suffer a coup.

I think Russia is going to have to play a waiting game, western democracies have a notoriously fickle attention span. But the economic pressure being put on Russia is significant too.

I think that Russia is having so much trouble with just intelligence & material support from NATO is obvious.

In a conventional war, NATO would quickly establish air superiority, and completely decimate Russian supply lines, which have already failed.
The next question is would China move against Taiwan if they're so distracted

 

[MrMatt]

And again, no official war was declared, and I don't believe Russia hopes to actually re-write the maps. They haven't in Donetsk and Luzhansk. There was no official 'concession' from Ukraine, yet Russia could freely operate in those regions. Same might happen with Mariupol and Kherson

The world wants to keep the maps on the paper. To Americans ( and Canadians) those lines mean something.

Russia doesn't care as much, it matters what they control, the problem with Ukraine wasn't that it was Ukraine, it was that they weren't in control.
If they get control, fill Ukraine with Russians, or Russian friendly rulers, that's just fine.

You have to realize that we (Canada/US) don't understand the idea of an area not firmly under control of our federal government, in some countries, this lack of control is quite normal.

 

[MrMatt]

I do understand that.

Which is precisely why I think this can be the 'endgame' for the war.

Russians in control of land strip connecting mainland to Crimea, and the West being satisfied with keeping maps as they are

Yeah, just go kill all the ukranians, and "allow" Russians to move in, then they can vote to secede.

 

[MrMatt]

I support Canada giving humanitarian and medical aid, but not supplying weapons to Ukraine.

Since the Conservatives first started leading Canada into wars alongside the US, they haven't stop demanding our support.

PM Chretien had it right.

Yes
PM Chretien was right to follow the US into Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

I think we should debate the level of support we give to Ukraine.
I don't want the conflict to spill open.

But the idea that we should allow Russian to freely invade other countries is also not acceptable.

 

[MrMatt]

It appears Mr Matt gets my point, and knows that war is horrendous.

So horrendous you were laughing at it.

Is it a great idea for us to start firing at Russia? I would say NO.

No, but is it a great idea to let them operate freely, invading and killing as they wish?
I would say No.

... And sorry you took offence, but I am illustrating a point. Obviously Afghanistan was not something to laugh at.

So obvious that you were laughing at it.

Just as war with Russia is DEADLY SERIOUS.

And letting them act this way is also DEADLY SERIOUS.

The reality is the situation with Russia is BAD, and all options are BAD, we just have to figure out the least bad.

My personal view is that we make it so politically painful that nobody will try stuff like this again, the alternative is a bunch of belligerent nuclear powers going on a rampage.
I think we're a bit spoiled by the fact that we're very friendly with nuclear powers who have no interest in world domination by force.

 

[MrMatt]

Tonight a lineup of Republicans are blasting the $65 billion in support for Ukraine. They say it should have been used to harden schools against shooters. Public support for Ukraine in the US is very soft. They don’t view it as their problem. Zelensky should settle with whatever he can get before the US pulls all support.

Or maybe, they think protecting American kids against crazy people with guns should be their priority.

The thing I don't get is that if people are so concerned about protecting kids from guns, they've had virtually no action at the federal level. It's likely a few billion could help that problem as well.

 

[MrMatt]

There have been bills put before the Senate but the Republicans keep defeating them.

The NRA won't agree to any changes.........none, and they heavily fund the Republican politicians.

You have to look at the bills.

FYI the NRA has strongly supported a number of bills and measures to address gun violence.

 

[MrMatt]

What is the common sense of an 18 year old legally buying 2 AR15 rifles and a revolver plus 350 rounds of ammo and body armour ? He going duck hunting ?

AR15 pattern rifles are the most common hunting and target rifles in the US.
It makes sense that someone would buy the most popular rifle in the country.

350 rounds of ammo isn't actually very much, and no you don't duck hunt with a rifle.
Also what's the body armour thing, kind of irrelevant to this situation anyway.

 

[MrMatt]

I believe the ammo was 30 round cartridges and they found 7 of them empty in the school. He fired over 200 rounds. Think about that. Kids and 2 teachers trapped in a room with him and he fired more than 200 bullets at them.

Too bad there weren't more good guys with guns to stop him.

The body armour is relevant because the first responders had revolvers and their bullets couldn’t penetrate his body armour. The shooter was eventually killed by a border guard with a rifle.

The body armour is irrelevant because there wasn't any.
But I guess facts get in the way of your argument.

A cop showing up with a service revolver wouldn’t have a chance against

What police force in the USA uses revolvers?
You realize that some people use revolvers specifically because they can fire ammunition stronger than a typical semi auto pistol?

A handgun can penetrate common body armour, you can hit other areas, not ideal, but a shot outside the vest will stop/slow the attacker.

Finally there was no body armour so it's a non issue anyway.

There was a school officer who tried to stop him from entering the school but failed. A school would need heavily armed police or military units to protect the kids or turn the schools into high security prisons.

But then….what about school yards, malls, parks, and everywhere else.

More guns isn’t a solution. They need to change a lot of gun laws like open carry and restrict ownership.

The US has to deal with this problem.

The thing is hundreds of millions of gun owners didn't shoot anyone yesterday, or the day before, or ANY DAY.
You're trying to find the one in a hundred million guy who's a problem... good luck.

 

[MrMatt]

Remember the pallets of US. cash that disappeared from the airport tarmac in Iraq ? They never did track down all that money.

It was for bribes, and "hiring locals".
Same thing happened in Afghanistan.

Isn't this public knowledge?

 

[MrMatt]

US warmongers scare the daylights out of me.

Yes, but those who say we should just let Russia invade and kill whoever they want scare me more.

 

[MrMatt]

There is a strong nationalist movement in Russia. His replacement could be worse, even crazier.

At least western intelligence has a solid grasp on Putin, probably decades of psychological profiling and analysis. He's somewhat of a known quantity.

Yet they failed to take appropriate precautions.

 

[MrMatt]

When Canadian truck drivers petition the government for relief of a grievance Trudeau calls them communists and Nazis and hammers them with every weapon he can lay hands on.
When actual communists and Nazis half a world away get into a beef that is none of our business and can only harm us to get involved in, he can't do enough for them.
What is wrong with him.

Division is good politics... until it isn't.

 

[MrMatt]

What I worry about is that we could be in a proxy war with Russia. And I don't want to be at war with Russia.

It is a proxy war with Russia.

So we're left with 2 alternatives, let Russia invade countries at will, or oppose them.
I guess you want Russia and others to just invade and do whatever they want, I think that's risky.

 

[MrMatt]

Ukraine sought a guarantee from the US they would defend Ukraine's independence with military force.

The US refused to give such a guarantee, and Ukraine agreed to transfer the nuclear weapons anyways.

Do you put effort into being so misinformed?

No such guarantee was ever negotiated.

FYI the Budapest memorandum.

http://www.pircenter.org/media/content/files/12/13943175580.pdf

Russia violated it.

Anyone who trades weapons for promises of protection will end up regretting it.

 

[MrMatt]

Russia invaded and caused this situation.

No doubt they are responsible.....but that doesn't mean Ukraine should continue fighting until there is nothing left to fight for.

Zelensky should have left Ukraine and formed a government in exile.

Are Ukrainians better off today than when they lived under a puppet Russian government ?

I would think not.

Yes the Ukranians are better off not being under the control of the Russians. There is a long history of animosity and abuse here.
Heck the Holodomor only killed a few million people.

Ukraine is in an existential fight, and you'd have them just surrender.
If they accepted Russian control, I doubt the death toll would be lower this time.

 

[MrMatt]

Nobody promised protection.

I know that, I actually read the agreement, did you?
Russia however promised not to attack Ukraine.

It really didn't matter what Ukraine wanted. You are misinformed if you believe Ukraine ever possessed nuclear weapons.

Sure they did, when the Soviet Union dissolved the weapons were in the custody of Ukraine.

The nuclear weapons were owned, controlled, and operated by Russia and they were going to remove or dismantle them regardless.

No, they were owned controlled and operated by the Soviets, not the Russians.

 

[MrMatt]

At some point Ukraine wanted to keep its 46 solid fuel SS-24 each with ten warheads because of extended shelf life but apparently it got upset the USA and Russia.
Would be very useful nowadays.

That was the whole point of Russia signing the agreement not to attack Ukraine.
If Russia already had control of the nukes, there would have been no reason to promise anything in exchange for them.

sags has some really weird views that run counter to the facts.