KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

All over the issue of slavery and the economic value they respresented .

Anything else put forward as a 'reason' for the war is mere window dressing .

The British Empire abolished slavery long before 1860.

With COMPENSATION for all the slave owners.

Under another century of British guidance the civil war is avoided.
The Spanish American War is avoided.

We don't invade the Philippines, Puerto Rico, a host of central American countries.

The tragic slaughter of Native Americans and American settlers is greatly reduced.

Howver extremely limitted individuals like your self have no capacity to think outside the box.

Which is way you don't have the best of lifestyles.

---

Extremely limited individuals, eh?
Lifestyles?? Bend over and get railed by your dog you ignorant sack of shlt.

---

Well for the 10th time ( at least ) you certainly showed your lack of maturity, intelligence and common sense.


LOL, I realized long ago you don't have the confidence or experience for rational exchanges.
However it amusus me to occaisionally waste a few minutes attempting to educate the terminally stupid.

Last 'pearl' for you:

Compare the histories of the United States and Canada since 1783.
Compare the respective wars, political strife, RACIAL strife, international 'police actions'.
Compare the quality of life of the two countries.


There is a clear winner.

---

The US is the clear winner in every regard. Hands down. Unless you are a socialist wannabe fake acto on the world stage. How much time have you spent in Canada?

Confidence/experience??? Lol, ok.

---

Well at least this time you aren't discussing getting 'railed by a dog'.

Guess that is some small sign of hope for you .

The US is the winner ? LOL . In what body bags getting delivered from oversea 'police actions' ?

There are at least 12 major US cities that have degenerated into total hell holes. Mass murders are a monthly event, racial strife is commonplace. The US is hated by most of Asia, the Middle East, the Far East, central America, and much of South America.

Who hates Canadians ? No one.

How much time have I spent in Canada ? Years.

---

Who loves Canadians? Canadians and the Dutch?


Racial strife in everyday America is much less a daily thing than the media promotes. Good luck getting a surgery you need in Canada, unless you're willing to wait until you're damn near dead to do it.

Want to protest Covid in Canada???? Better be ready to have your bank account cancelled.

Yeah. Canada is a ****ing dreamland (it is for vacationing Americans).

---

Quality of life in Canada is consistently ranked far above that of the US.

---

There might just be some very obvious, but not so PC, reasons that the demographics of Canada make life outcomes, life span, heath outcomes, and education levels higher in Canada than the USA.

Interestingly New England (which has a similar demographic profile as Canada) has a similar standard of living and life outcomes similar to Canada.

But don't worry....Canada is engaged in mass immigration on a unprecedented level and their qualify of life outcomes are starting to change.

The Canadian elite are fixing the problem as fast as they can.

[Currently at an annual immigration rate of 400,000, our population is on track to top 50 million by 2050 and 100 million by the early 2100s. The negative effects of high levels of immigration will have lasting repercussions across Canada.]

Buying a house in America (God awful expensive) now looks down right cheap compared to Canadian housing prices. The days of safe neighborhoods and a well run and cheap public Health care system are over for the Canucks.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canada-s-standard-of-living-falling-behind-other-advanced-economies-td-1.6490005

https://www.mpamag.com/ca/mortgage-industry/industry-trends/canada-affordability-crisis-its-really-sad/451469

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/what-ails-canadas-healthcare-system-2023-02-07/

"But do you really think the Chinese, North Koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, Russians

Laotians and Japanese have non existent memories ?"

As one who has personal contacts with Asians in many parts of the world, I would say the Asians have a much better sense of who they can trust who not, and why, than you seem to be able to grasp.

I also think that you need to stop and consider the great differences between governments, individuals, businesses and cultures.

Bernie Sanders joined every Senate Dem except 2 (Ossoff and Tester) in voting NO on an amendment to appoint an Inspector General to provide oversight and supervision on the billions of dollars the US is sending to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe.💣💣

Failed 51-48. https://t.co/BNSm04B5jr

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 28, 2023

I tip my hat to Democrat Ossoff for voting for what was right. I thought he was just another partisan hack. Maybe not.

Dick Cheney's top national security adviser for the Iraq War - über-neocon Victoria Nuland - is always empowered no matter who is president (unless it's Trump, when she has no role).

Is it worth asking why Cheney's top advisor fits so well in the Obama and Biden State Dept? https://t.co/NKL3NmFliE

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 26, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

Dick Cheney's top national security adviser for the Iraq War - über-neocon Victoria Nuland - is always empowered no matter who is president (unless it's Trump, when she has no role).

Is it worth asking why Cheney's top advisor fits so well in the Obama and Biden State Dept? https://t.co/NKL3NmFliE

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 26, 2023

---

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia

The Terrible Trio -- Nuland, Blinken, and Sullivan -- are all Clintonistas. You have to wonder how much of this fiasco is about revenge against Russia for the "stolen" 2016 election.

Of course that won't stop many Republicans from supporting it. War fever uber alles.

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The US is hated by most of Asia, the Middle East, the Far East, central America, and much of South America."

80% of that statement is BS.

For one thing, all the people immigrating to the US from those places is fair proof you are wrong.

Also, a statement like that indicates you don't have friends in those parts of the world.

Sure, they hate our politicians, but our politicians are better than most of what you will find in the rest of the world. And American music, films and products are prized worldwide. Even our cars aren't crap anymore!

---

Mr Old Bear,

I have had the good fortune to travel throughout much of the world. I can assure you most places Americans are merely tolerated at best.

OK, I haven't spent much time in Asia or the Far East.

But do you really think the Chinese, North Koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, Russians
Laotians and Japanese have non existent memories ?

LOL Really believe the rest of the world appreciates US bombings thoughout the planet over the last 60 years ?

---

Talk to Viet Namese, they are capitalist through and through. They love US markets.

I know Kuwaitis, Israelis, Bahrain, Saudi and UAE love the US.

Europe? I have never had a problem. The German, Danish, Italian and Brits when I was in 82d sure loved hanging out with us. But we were enlisted folk, probably don't count.

The Cubans, Columbians and Venezuelans I currently work with all tell me how the people love Americans.

Same with an Iranian company I worked at in the 90's, but they were the Shahs people.

Singapore, Koreans, Japanese all liked America.

So far in all my travels the most and really only hostile to the US, Toronto. That Starbucks really disliked Americans. And all I asked for was a lid to my coffee. Set her off!

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The US is hated by most of Asia, the Middle East, the Far East, central America, and much of South America."

80% of that statement is BS.

For one thing, all the people immigrating to the US from those places is fair proof you are wrong.

Also, a statement like that indicates you don't have friends in those parts of the world.

Sure, they hate our politicians, but our politicians are better than most of what you will find in the rest of the world. And American music, films and products are prized worldwide. Even our cars aren't crap anymore!

---

Mr Old Bear,

I have had the good fortune to travel throughout much of the world. I can assure you most places Americans are merely tolerated at best.

OK, I haven't spent much time in Asia or the Far East.

But do you really think the Chinese, North Koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, Russians
Laotians and Japanese have non existent memories ?

LOL Really believe the rest of the world appreciates US bombings thoughout the planet over the last 60 years ?

---

If you're fraternizing with North Koreans, then you're exactly the idiot I've called you.

Do you know many Vietnamese people??? Even the North Vietnamese of old are preferential of America these days. There's a reason why they lean more towards the US as the days go by than their East Asian bully partner, China.

The Japanese? Are you serious right now?

I'm in awe of your "knowledge" of all things.

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"The US is hated by most of Asia, the Middle East, the Far East, central America, and much of South America."

80% of that statement is BS.

For one thing, all the people immigrating to the US from those places is fair proof you are wrong.

Also, a statement like that indicates you don't have friends in those parts of the world.

Sure, they hate our politicians, but our politicians are better than most of what you will find in the rest of the world. And American music, films and products are prized worldwide. Even our cars aren't crap anymore!

---

Mr Old Bear,

I have had the good fortune to travel throughout much of the world. I can assure you most places Americans are merely tolerated at best.

OK, I haven't spent much time in Asia or the Far East.

But do you really think the Chinese, North Koreans, Indians, Vietnamese, Russians
Laotians and Japanese have non existent memories ?

LOL Really believe the rest of the world appreciates US bombings thoughout the planet over the last 60 years ?

---

If you're fraternizing with North Koreans, then you're exactly the idiot I've called you.

Do you know many Vietnamese people??? Even the North Vietnamese of old are preferential of America these days. There's a reason why they lean more towards the US as the days go by than their East Asian bully partner, China.

The Japanese? Are you serious right now?

I'm in awe of your "knowledge" of all things.

---

1. Clearly stated I have not spent much time in the Far East. Which would include North Korea. Good grief kiddo, get a clue.
2. The Japanese deeply resent the stationing of the US warships in Japanese ports. Especially the ones potentially carrying nuclear weapons. They are livid a US marine division is still on Okinawa decades after the end of WW2. You can easily confirm this by talking with any sailors or marines who has been stationed there.
3. The North Vietnamese certainly fear the Chinese more than the US, and with good reason. But if you think they have forgotton years of US carpet bombing you are naive in the extreme.
4. You shouldn't be in 'awe' of my knowledge of US history and international affairs. Its just that you haven't bothered to learn much since your jr high days.
5. However your pre teen communication skills are amusing.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

Oldbear83 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Dick Cheney's top national security adviser for the Iraq War - über-neocon Victoria Nuland - is always empowered no matter who is president (unless it's Trump, when she has no role).

Is it worth asking why Cheney's top advisor fits so well in the Obama and Biden State Dept? https://t.co/NKL3NmFliE

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 26, 2023

---

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia

---

....because Oceania sits astride the lines of seaborne trade with the rest of the world that Eurasia needs to use.

Way more economical to carry stuff by boat than by camel.

Two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning former war correspondent Thomas Ricks once said something to the effect of: "Covering combat can be dangerous but is relatively easy. You just need to write down what you hear and see. But covering a war accurately is far more difficult, because it requires some understanding of strategy, logistics, morale and other things that often can't be observed." We find ourselves at a bizarre turning point in a crisis which has seen no shortage of them where the only ones who think Ukraine's counter-offensive isn't quite the let-down or failure it's been widely portrayed as are the Russians desperate to prove otherwise.

https://newlinesmag.com/argument/russians-see-ukrainian-progress-where-others-dont/


some of Rick's presentations on military history topics are available at YouTube. Highly recommended.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

---

We agree on this. The Civil War was coming, no matter what. When it happened (in my opinion) is a combination of politics, economics, technology and for lack of a better term "ability to win." The 1860's is about the last era where a group of States could mount a military force to take on the bigger Federal force and stand a chance of success.

The Civil War is the last of the "Napoleonic Charge" wars, the European model. After the Civil War we move into trench warfare, machine guns, tanks, air power, etc. All making it very expensive and difficult to manage, as opposed to Lee melding together different State militias into a fighting force.

Did the South actively know this, of course not. They couldn't know the future. But, the mind-set that we could win was there. If we go 100 years later, no way. The South was dying in 1860 and the Civil War was the last gasp at preventing it. It could never be successful, and Lee knew it, which is why he was so desperate to threaten DC and sue for peace.

All this talk of the US staying a British Colony would not have changed the fact the war was coming. If we were a British Colony in 1835, the South would have started and executed the Revolutionary War to protect their economic system. Actually, in 1835 they had a better shot at success! The technological advances from 1835 to 1860 gave the Feds the edge. If we are talking only 1820/30's tech, South had a better shot to win. As technology advances, it favors those that can manufacture.

This would make a great History of Science and Technology thesis! That was one of my favorite courses. Always interested on the impact of tech and manufacturing on the ability to win a war. I am sure there are counter-arguments. KaiBear under your plan, slavery may have existed longer...

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

---

Interesting perspective.

But you are forgetting a critial point.

The British avoided a major issue freeing the slaves throughout their Empire by compensating the slave owners for their financial loss.

By 1860 it was becoming obvious to many in the South that slavery was an increasingly expensive proposition and was gradually becoming unprofitable. Even in Washington's time many of the grand plantations were deeply in debt.

With the proper compensation a war between the North and South was by no means unavoidable.

The Philippine -American war......one of the deepest stains in US history ( and least known ) never occurs either.

Ukrainian attacks reportedly slowed or stalled on the Bakhmut front, with Russians likely retaking Klishchiivka. Ukrainian forces trickling south (further from the goal) and looking for an easier approach at Kurdiumivka. Similar situation at Robotyne, with Ukes repelled from the north of the city and seeking a way around.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukrainian attacks reportedly slowed or stalled on the Bakhmut front, with Russians likely retaking Klishchiivka. Ukrainian forces trickling south (further from the goal) and looking for an easier approach at Kurdiumivka. Similar situation at Robotyne, with Ukes repelled from the north of the city and seeking a way around.

---

Where did you find this? I'm not disputing. But I got a report around 3 pm that there was heavy fighting in those areas, and no news of Ukraine actually re-taking Klishchiivka in the first place. The report actually said Russia was defending very well. Are you saying Ukraine took it back, then lost it? Thanks

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukrainian attacks reportedly slowed or stalled on the Bakhmut front, with Russians likely retaking Klishchiivka. Ukrainian forces trickling south (further from the goal) and looking for an easier approach at Kurdiumivka. Similar situation at Robotyne, with Ukes repelled from the north of the city and seeking a way around.

---

Where did you find this? I'm not disputing. But I got a report around 3 pm that there was heavy fighting in those areas, and no news of Ukraine actually re-taking Klishchiivka in the first place. The report actually said Russia was defending very well. Are you saying Ukraine took it back, then lost it? Thanks

---

4/ Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces pushed Ukrainian forces back from Klishchiivka and that Russian forces fully control the settlement. One milblogger claimed that Klishchiivka is currently contested, however.

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) July 29, 2023

5/ A Ukrainian source assessed that Russian forces are preparing for counterattacks on the Klishchiivka-Kurdyumivka-Andriivka line in order to buy time to build additional defensive fortifications rather than withdraw to prepared defensive positions further behind the front line.

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) July 29, 2023

Bear8084 said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Ukrainian attacks reportedly slowed or stalled on the Bakhmut front, with Russians likely retaking Klishchiivka. Ukrainian forces trickling south (further from the goal) and looking for an easier approach at Kurdiumivka. Similar situation at Robotyne, with Ukes repelled from the north of the city and seeking a way around.

---

Where did you find this? I'm not disputing. But I got a report around 3 pm that there was heavy fighting in those areas, and no news of Ukraine actually re-taking Klishchiivka in the first place. The report actually said Russia was defending very well. Are you saying Ukraine took it back, then lost it? Thanks

---

4/ Russian milbloggers claimed that Russian forces pushed Ukrainian forces back from Klishchiivka and that Russian forces fully control the settlement. One milblogger claimed that Klishchiivka is currently contested, however.

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) July 29, 2023

5/ A Ukrainian source assessed that Russian forces are preparing for counterattacks on the Klishchiivka-Kurdyumivka-Andriivka line in order to buy time to build additional defensive fortifications rather than withdraw to prepared defensive positions further behind the front line.

— ISW (@TheStudyofWar) July 29, 2023

---

ISW's latest assessments are more in line with the info I received. Heavy fighting all around. But, if Ukraine took Klishchiivka then lost it, that would be a pretty big deal.

Note that Russian millbloggers aren't the best sources, to say the least.

kaibear: "The British avoided a major issue freeing the slaves throughout their Empire by compensating the slave owners for their financial loss."

How many slaves were involved in the British compensation plan? I ask because the additional American slaves might have made the deal unworkable.

"With the proper compensation a war between the North and South was by no means unavoidable."

I would suggest you take a closer look at American History in the first six decades of the 19th Century.

For example, May 22, 1856:

"Representative Preston Brooks entered its chamber carrying a cane. The pro-slavery southerner walked over to Senator Charles Sumner, whacked him in the head with the cane and then proceeded to beat the anti-slavery northerner unconscious. Afterward, Brooks walked out of the chamber without anyone stopping him.

"In the three decades leading up to the Civil War, there were more than 70 violent incidents between congressmen, writes Yale history professor Joanne B. Freeman in The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War."

Violence in Congress Before the Civil War: From Canings and Stabbings to Murder

https://www.history.com/news/charles-sumner-caning-cilley-duel-congressional-violence

And this:

• Thomas Jefferson, upon hearing of the Missouri Compromise of 1820:

"It is hushed indeed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."

• "In August of 1831, a slave named Nat Turner incited an uprising that spread through several plantations in southern Virginia. Turner and approximately seventy cohorts killed around sixty white people. The deployment of militia infantry and artillery suppressed the rebellion after two days of terror."

• "The Wilmot Proviso was a piece of legislation proposed by David Wilmot (D-FS-R PA) at the close of the Mexican-American War. If passed, the Proviso would have outlawed slavery in territory acquired by the United States as a result of the war, which included most of the Southwest and extended all the way to California.
  
  "Wilmot spent two years fighting for his plan. He offered it as a rider on existing bills, introduced it to Congress on its own, and even tried to attach it to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. All attempts failed. Nevertheless, the intensity of the debate surrounding the Proviso prompted the first serious discussions of secession."

• "With national relations soured by the debate over the Wilmot Proviso, senators Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas managed to broker a shaky accord with the Compromise of 1850. The compromise admitted California as a free state and did not regulate slavery in the remainder of the Mexican cession all while strengthening the Fugitive Slave Act, a law which compelled Northerners to seize and return escaped slaves to the South.
  
  "While the agreement succeeded in postponing outright hostilities between the North and South, it did little to address, and in some ways even reinforced, the structural disparity that divided the United States. The new Fugitive Slave Act, by forcing non-slaveholders to participate in the institution, also led to increased polarization among centrist citizens."

• 1852: Harriet Beecher Stowe's fictional exploration of slave life was a cultural sensation. Northerners felt as if their eyes had been opened to the horrors of slavery, while Southerners protested that Stowe's work was slanderous.
  
  Uncle Tom's Cabin was the second-best-selling book in America in the 19th century, second only to the Bible. Its popularity brought the issue of slavery to life for those few who remained unmoved after decades of legislative conflict and widened the division between North and South."

• "The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established Kansas and Nebraska as territories and set the stage for "Bleeding Kansas" by its adoption of popular sovereignty. Under popular sovereignty, it is the residents of the territories who decide by popular referendum if the state is to be a free or enslaved. Settlers from the North and the South poured into Kansas, hoping to swell the numbers on their side of the debate. Passions were enflamed and violence raged. In the fall of 1855, abolitionist John Brown came to Kansas to fight the forces of slavery. In response to the sacking of Lawrence by border ruffians from Missouri whose sole victim was an abolitionist printing press, Brown and his supporters killed five pro-slavery settlers in the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre in Kansas in May, 1856. Violence existed in the territory as early as 1855 but the Sack of Lawrence and the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre launched a guerilla war between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. Although the violence was often sporadic and unorganized, mass feelings of terror existed in the territory. Although President Buchanan tried to calm the violence by supporting the Lecompton Constition, his relentless support for this consitution created a political crisis among the Democratic Party and only further aggravated sectional tensions. The violence subsided in 1859, the warring parties forged a fragile peace, but not before more than 50 settlers had been killed."

• "1857. Dred Scott was a Virginia slave who tried to sue for his freedom in court. The case eventually rose to the level of the Supreme Court, where the justices found that, as a slave, Dred Scott was a piece of property that had none of the legal rights or recognitions afforded to a human being.
  The Dred Scott Decision threatened to entirely recast the political landscape that had thus far managed to prevent civil war. The classification of slaves as mere property made the federal government's authority to regulate the institution much more ambiguous.
  Southerners renewed their challenges to the agreed-upon territorial limitations on slavery and polarization intensified.'

Trigger Events of the Civil War

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/trigger-events-civil-war


British or American rulers in charge, Slavery was never going to just go away, regardless of money.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Bernie Sanders joined every Senate Dem except 2 (Ossoff and Tester) in voting NO on an amendment to appoint an Inspector General to provide oversight and supervision on the billions of dollars the US is sending to Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe.💣💣

Failed 51-48. https://t.co/BNSm04B5jr

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 28, 2023

---

this is why i can't take the Klanocrats seriously - literally nothing controversial other than GOP supported it.

KaiBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

---

Interesting perspective.

But you are forgetting a critial point.

The British avoided a major issue freeing the slaves throughout their Empire by compensating the slave owners for their financial loss.

By 1860 it was becoming obvious to many in the South that slavery was an increasingly expensive proposition and was gradually becoming unprofitable. Even in Washington's time many of the grand plantations were deeply in debt.

With the proper compensation a war between the North and South was by no means unavoidable.

The Philippine -American war......one of the deepest stains in US history ( and least known ) never occurs either.

---

I included that point in bold. "Slavery," in the context we are talking about, was a West India thing. Yes, there were slaves scattered about all over the British Empire, but only in the West Indies did you have agricultural economies built on slave labor complete with a slave trade to ensure supply. That means.....the percentage of wealth tied up in slaves....the percentage of the balance sheet assets represented by slaves, was far, far greater in the American South than in the British Empire. Further, Britain was the wealthiest country in the world in the mid-19th century, leading the world into the industrial revolution. Yes, America was rising fast, but only the northern half. Indeed, it was the burgeoning industrial revolution in the US "North" that led to what a college professor of mine insisted in a class lecture was the proximate cause of the Civil War - the north demanding protectionist Federal trade policies that greatly harmed the agriculturally focused economy of the "South" which depended on free trade policies to promote exports of King Cotton (a "king" built on slave labor).

Slavery was not the largest asset on the balance sheet of any industry in the macro-British Empire economy in the mid 19th century. Just the (quite small) West Indies part of it. In the American context, slavery was a 900-lb gorilla and could not be bought off as the British did. Not enough wealth every where else to pay for policies to make the transition.

Lest we think those macro problems and their aftermaths linger over decades.....look at the Rust Belt. The reverberations of the long, slow, lingering death of American steel production are still shaping dynamics in that part of the country, particularly in politics.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

---

Interesting perspective.

But you are forgetting a critial point.

The British avoided a major issue freeing the slaves throughout their Empire by compensating the slave owners for their financial loss.

By 1860 it was becoming obvious to many in the South that slavery was an increasingly expensive proposition and was gradually becoming unprofitable. Even in Washington's time many of the grand plantations were deeply in debt.

With the proper compensation a war between the North and South was by no means unavoidable.

The Philippine -American war......one of the deepest stains in US history ( and least known ) never occurs either.

---

It was not about dollar for dollar value. Unlike Britain, there was no alternative bring offered that did not put the South in a subordinate position to the North. It was not a simple property case like it was in the UK. All the areas in similar positions ended up in bloody wars to the 1980s because there was no alternative economic system. Civil war was inevitable since inception.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

---

Interesting perspective.

But you are forgetting a critial point.

The British avoided a major issue freeing the slaves throughout their Empire by compensating the slave owners for their financial loss.

By 1860 it was becoming obvious to many in the South that slavery was an increasingly expensive proposition and was gradually becoming unprofitable. Even in Washington's time many of the grand plantations were deeply in debt.

With the proper compensation a war between the North and South was by no means unavoidable.

The Philippine -American war......one of the deepest stains in US history ( and least known ) never occurs either.

---

There was not enough money in the entire British empire to compensate the colonies to end slavery.

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

---

Interesting perspective.

But you are forgetting a critial point.

The British avoided a major issue freeing the slaves throughout their Empire by compensating the slave owners for their financial loss.

By 1860 it was becoming obvious to many in the South that slavery was an increasingly expensive proposition and was gradually becoming unprofitable. Even in Washington's time many of the grand plantations were deeply in debt.

With the proper compensation a war between the North and South was by no means unavoidable.

The Philippine -American war......one of the deepest stains in US history ( and least known ) never occurs either.

---

There was not enough money in the entire British empire to compensate the colonies to end slavery.

---

The British literally just finished paying the debt in 2015, without the US. It required 40% of the treasury.

How the Government only finished paying off the UK's slavery debt in 2015 (telegraph.co.uk)

FLBear5630 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

If Ukraine is 'winning' how is it Russian troops still occupy wide areas of eastern Ukraine and Russian missiles attack Ukrainian civilian targets with impunity?

---

Well, Russia has largely occupied those lands with special forces and $$ for more than a decade, and Russia is a piece of shlt country that intentionally destroys civilian targets with no care because all they know is strong arm/fear tactics. They are a nation of suffering that knows nothing more than to try to make others suffer if they can't have their way. Ukraine has suffered from it, but it's only hardened their resolve.

---

If Ukraine was 'winning' they would have pushed Russian forces out of eastern Ukraine by now .

If Ukraine was 'winning' Russian missiles would not be raining down on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure on a daily basis .

---

If Russia was "winning" they wouldn't have lost 3-5x what Ukraine has lost in this "special operation" and they wouldn't have nearly had a coup, and they wouldn't be resorting to launching missiles at civilians without remorse. They have no momentum, have exhausted much of their "hinterland" troops and are about to have to start scooping up Moscow/St Pete kids for the meat grinder, and don't have the capability to produce enough weaponry to keep up going forward. They are a pariah nation that has literally chosen to risk their entire standing in the world for the Imperial whims of yesteryear of a diminutive tyrant. Well done VVP.

---

None of this subjective narrative explains how a country getting hammered by missiles everyday is 'winning' a war when millions of its citizens have found it necessary to flee into neighboring countries .

Ukraine simply cannot continue to exist with its infrastructure indefinitely pounded from the air .

Simply can't continue to have millions of its citizens fleeing abroad.

Russia can play this game for years , Ukraine can't .

---

Israel gets hit by Rockets all the time…

---

Absurd response.

---

About .1% as absurd as your claiming "the wrong side won the American Revolution" and "the Revolution needed to happen 100 years later". You're a pathetic thinker, and a sad American, if you are one.

---

Almost 600,00 Americans died in the Civil War . Hundreds of thousands more were permanently disabled.

Out of a total population of less than 32 million. Do the bloody math kiddo.

In addition the south was economically annihilated. Took almost a century for the region to recover.

---

Georgia (relatively well off post war Southern State) did not see its tax rolls even return to their pre-War level until the 1960s.

A strong argument can be made that many parts of the South and many Southern States simply never recovered at all.

Areas like the Mississippi Delta went from being one of the richest regions of the Country to one of the poorest today.

Also began a out migration from the South (to the North and West) that would end up accounting for millions of people (White and Black) and go on almost without stopping for 120 years.

This also not the Middle Ages with a relatively stagnant economic development. If a region or country falls behind in economic world growth through say a massive destructive war...it becomes very hard to every catch up.

Depending on how bad a war is.... it can have long long term effects on the economics and civil society of a country or region.

Ukraine may or might not ever recover.

Its even hard to imagine what Texas would be like if it had not lost several decades of population growth and economic development to war. It could easily be more populous than California and as rich or richer today.

---

It all depends on the post-war. If Ukraine embraces the EU and is allowed into NATO they will recover beyond where they were.

If the South would have not tried to fight against the emancipation for close to 100 years after they would have recovered quicker and better.

---

That part in bold is actually proof that the Civil War was inevitable.

When you have so much wealth tied up in a particular business model, you can't just walk away from the business model, because doing so takes decades or more to recover. You free the slaves, you bankrupt the landowners. You bankrupt the landowners, you bankrupt the banks. You bankrupt the banks, you bankrupt everything else. Britain could afford to bear the financial costs of ending slavery in a small corner of its empire. America would not have been such a small part of the total at that time.

And to follow the hypothetical that we'd have been better off losing the Rev. War..... let's take that scenario to a more obvious conclusion. Parliament finally votes to outlaw slavery. The Southern US states, realizing the impact, revolt immediately. So you have not the American Civil War, but the Great British Colonial Uprising. the south fights not the Union, but the British Army. This has no substantively different outcome in America. The South loses. But. What happens in French Canada, when UK troops head south to deal with the rebels? What happens in the Caribbean? Remember, there are landowners with slaves there also. The British navy Western Fleet will not be able to support amphibious operations to all those Caribbean islands AND blockade America. Well, the French have a navy, too, and they exploit the situation. Remember, there would be no American Army/Navy AND a British Army/Navy. There is only the British Army and Navy. Sure, they might be a little bigger, but probably not the same size as the combined British and Union forces at the time. The entire British empire is stressed. What happens in India? Remember the Sepoy rebellions during the timeframe in question...... Would have been more. Odds of success higher. No guarantee the British Empire survives to see the 20th century. The body blow that WWI gave to empire would have occurred 70-ish years earlier via internal wars. That potentially changes everything in 20th century Euro history.

These things are imponderable....

---

Interesting perspective.

But you are forgetting a critial point.

The British avoided a major issue freeing the slaves throughout their Empire by compensating the slave owners for their financial loss.

By 1860 it was becoming obvious to many in the South that slavery was an increasingly expensive proposition and was gradually becoming unprofitable. Even in Washington's time many of the grand plantations were deeply in debt.

With the proper compensation a war between the North and South was by no means unavoidable.

The Philippine -American war......one of the deepest stains in US history ( and least known ) never occurs either.

---

There was not enough money in the entire British empire to compensate the colonies to end slavery.

---

The British literally just finished paying the debt in 2015, without the US. It required 40% of the treasury.

How the Government only finished paying off the UK's slavery debt in 2015 (telegraph.co.uk)

---

Would've been simple though, didn't you hear?? "Wrong team won the Revolution!!"

Oldbear83 said:

---

British or American rulers in charge, Slavery was never going to just go away, regardless of money.

---

No one can authoritatively make that statement since we have Brazil as a living breathing new world example of the contrary.

There were more slaves in Brazil in terms of raw numbers than the USA...and they were much much more central to the Brazilian economy. Yet the end of slavery still came about.

[On May 13, 1888, Brazilian Princess Isabel of Bragana signed Imperial Law number 3,353. Although it contained just 18 words, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation in Brazilian history. Called the "Golden Law," it abolished slavery in all its forms.

For 350 years, slavery was the heart of the Brazilian economy. According to historian Emilia Viotti da Costa, 40 percent of the 10 million enslaved Africans brought to the New World ended up in Brazil alone. Enslaved persons were so pivotal to the economy that Ina von Binzer, a German educator who lived in Brazil in the late 1800s, wrote: "In this country, the Blacks occupy the main role. They are responsible for all the labor and produce all the wealth in this land. The white Brazilian simply just doesn't work."

By 1888, abolition had the support of most Brazilians -including several conservative sectors- the culmination of a long process of societal and economic changes. By the time slavery was abolished, the practice had already begun to decrease due to the modernization of agriculture and increasing migration towards Brazil's cities from rural areas.]

The problem is all the conflict in the Americas related to Slavery. It's fair to say there were two competing Americas before 1860, and Slavery was fundamental to the South.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem is all the conflict in the Americas related to Slavery. It's fair to say there were two competing Americas before 1860, and Slavery was fundamental to the South.

---

At least the Southern States thought so.

As for all the conflict? I am not sure I agree there.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

British or American rulers in charge, Slavery was never going to just go away, regardless of money.

---

No one can authoritatively make that statement since we have Brazil as a living breathing new world example of the contrary.

There were more slaves in Brazil in terms of raw numbers than the USA...and they were much much more central to the Brazilian economy. Yet the end of slavery still came about.

[On May 13, 1888, Brazilian Princess Isabel of Bragana signed Imperial Law number 3,353. Although it contained just 18 words, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation in Brazilian history. Called the "Golden Law," it abolished slavery in all its forms.

For 350 years, slavery was the heart of the Brazilian economy. According to historian Emilia Viotti da Costa, 40 percent of the 10 million enslaved Africans brought to the New World ended up in Brazil alone. Enslaved persons were so pivotal to the economy that Ina von Binzer, a German educator who lived in Brazil in the late 1800s, wrote: "In this country, the Blacks occupy the main role. They are responsible for all the labor and produce all the wealth in this land. The white Brazilian simply just doesn't work."

By 1888, abolition had the support of most Brazilians -including several conservative sectors- the culmination of a long process of societal and economic changes. By the time slavery was abolished, the practice had already begun to decrease due to the modernization of agriculture and increasing migration towards Brazil's cities from rural areas.]

---

Another very informative contribution on your part.

Thanks.

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

British or American rulers in charge, Slavery was never going to just go away, regardless of money.

---

No one can authoritatively make that statement since we have Brazil as a living breathing new world example of the contrary.

There were more slaves in Brazil in terms of raw numbers than the USA...and they were much much more central to the Brazilian economy. Yet the end of slavery still came about.

[On May 13, 1888, Brazilian Princess Isabel of Bragana signed Imperial Law number 3,353. Although it contained just 18 words, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation in Brazilian history. Called the "Golden Law," it abolished slavery in all its forms.

For 350 years, slavery was the heart of the Brazilian economy. According to historian Emilia Viotti da Costa, 40 percent of the 10 million enslaved Africans brought to the New World ended up in Brazil alone. Enslaved persons were so pivotal to the economy that Ina von Binzer, a German educator who lived in Brazil in the late 1800s, wrote: "In this country, the Blacks occupy the main role. They are responsible for all the labor and produce all the wealth in this land. The white Brazilian simply just doesn't work."

By 1888, abolition had the support of most Brazilians -including several conservative sectors- the culmination of a long process of societal and economic changes. By the time slavery was abolished, the practice had already begun to decrease due to the modernization of agriculture and increasing migration towards Brazil's cities from rural areas.]

---

Another very informative contribution on your part.

Thanks.

---

You're welcome.

Because of our media-academic culture in America...modern people simply forget (or were never told) that less than 8% of slaves taken from Africa to the new world ever ended up in British North America.

90% went to South America and the Caribbean. 40% alone to Brazil.

And that does not even account for the numbers taken into the Muslim controlled North Africa/Middle East/ West Asia.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The problem is all the conflict in the Americas related to Slavery. It's fair to say there were two competing Americas before 1860, and Slavery was fundamental to the South.

---

At least the Southern States thought so.

As for all the conflict? I am not sure I agree there.

---

Consider RedBrick's example of Argentina, for example. I would think one reason her majesty's decision was accepted, was because by 1888 everyone knew how bad a civil war on Slavery could be, with the US providing an obvious example. It seems disingenuous to claim after the fact that people in the early 19th Century would have made the decisions laid out here. As for the conflict, Slavery was a bitter issue for many decades before the Civil War. If Britain had won the Revolutionary War (maybe renamed the Naughty Yankee Rebellion if the King won), they would have had to sort out how to deal with the South - remember most of the Royal military activity was in the North, so peacefully making the South give up their slaves seems a naive pipe dream from where I sit.

Multipolarity ain’t lookin so good https://t.co/jhpaTv6n8i

— Scott Greer 6’2” IQ 187 (@ScottMGreer) July 31, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

British or American rulers in charge, Slavery was never going to just go away, regardless of money.

---

No one can authoritatively make that statement since we have Brazil as a living breathing new world example of the contrary.

There were more slaves in Brazil in terms of raw numbers than the USA...and they were much much more central to the Brazilian economy. Yet the end of slavery still came about.

[On May 13, 1888, Brazilian Princess Isabel of Bragana signed Imperial Law number 3,353. Although it contained just 18 words, it is one of the most important pieces of legislation in Brazilian history. Called the "Golden Law," it abolished slavery in all its forms.

For 350 years, slavery was the heart of the Brazilian economy. According to historian Emilia Viotti da Costa, 40 percent of the 10 million enslaved Africans brought to the New World ended up in Brazil alone. Enslaved persons were so pivotal to the economy that Ina von Binzer, a German educator who lived in Brazil in the late 1800s, wrote: "In this country, the Blacks occupy the main role. They are responsible for all the labor and produce all the wealth in this land. The white Brazilian simply just doesn't work."

By 1888, abolition had the support of most Brazilians -including several conservative sectors- the culmination of a long process of societal and economic changes. By the time slavery was abolished, the practice had already begun to decrease due to the modernization of agriculture and increasing migration towards Brazil's cities from rural areas.]

---

Another very informative contribution on your part.

Thanks.

---

You're welcome.

Because of our media-academic culture in America...modern people simply forget (or were never told) that less than 8% of slaves taken from Africa to the new world ever ended up in British North America.

90% went to South America and the Caribbean. 40% alone to Brazil.

And that does not even account for the numbers taken into the Muslim controlled North Africa/Middle East/ West Asia.

---

I wasn't aware to the specific percentages but did know that the US took in a relatively small number of slaves.

In addition most Americans don't realize that the importation of slaves from overseas was declared illegal in 1808. 52 years before the beginning of the civil war .

BTW the law forbidding such importation of slaves did not prevent domestic slave trading between state lines.

As a result healthy male field hands incresed in value. Sometimes reaching the price of $1000 per slave.

In time when a skilled white carpenter was very lucky to make 4 dollars a day.

Point being slaves were extremely valuable. Rarely did slave owners willfully kill their slaves. To the contrary slave owners usually provided their slaves with the best food and medical care available.

The Irish were not as fortunate.

Oldbear83 said:

---

It's fair to say there were two competing Americas before 1860….

---

It's probably fair to say there are in fact two Americas to this very day.

i think one way to explain what's going on here is that there are two american traditions in parallel

1) creedal radical tradition (no established fed church, big ideas in declaration of independence, etc.)

2) organic cultural presuppositions inherited from english colonies

— Razib 🥥 Khan 🧬 📘✍️📱 (@razibkhan) August 1, 2023

Well, I think that corrosiveness is more so the bitter acid of people who would prefer that Heritage Nation shut up and go away and cede their claims as the national people of America - as Americans - to whatever is expedient to the US.

— ib (@Indian_Bronson) August 1, 2023