Wednesday, May 11, 2022

Naked Men Should Not Do Magic Tricks

Some people disagree, fallaciously.

Because we can see where you're getting that rabbit, and now we know why it's brown.

Sorry to have to point out the obvious, but this is bassackwards, and btw, no, wet streets do NOT cause rain, and roosters crowing don't make the sun rise. That's reasoning on the level of an immature and ignorant child.

The recockulous and asinine implication stated therein is that "NATO and the US giving military aid to anyone is going to cause WW III".


This is like footnoting your thesis that short skirts cause rapes.

How fucking retarded is it?

It's as retarded as saying that you buying more guns and ammo is going to cause feral monkeys to do a home invasion on your place, kill you, rape your wife, kidnap your children, and sell your stuff at the pawn shop.

It's your fault.

The feral monkeys will stand blameless.

So might there be a WW III? Certainly.

Because Russia, (by which I mean PUTIN) is an expansionistic dictatorial terrorist state, attempting to grab every bit of not-its-territory it can steal, and sees the rest of the world, let alone the wishes of the object of its obsession, as no brake on its intentions.

It's not working out like he planned (gloriously!), and apparently he hasn't been kicked in the dick enough times to want to cease and desist. Yet.

When a pitbull has your neighbor by the throat, do you stop trying to change his plan because he's latched on like a tick, and the first ten whacks with the baseball bat to doggo's head haven't fully gotten his attention yet? No, you do not, unless you're a lazy worthless asshole.

Sending Ukraine whatever we can to deal with Russia's unconscionable invasion is what you do unless you're a lazy worthless asshole neighbor. If Russia(Putin) thinks nuclear war is the answer to that (rather than letting go, and knocking that off), then we can all worry about who rules in Hell, but clearly, anyone that insane isn't going to respond well to tender entreaties, they'll be emboldened in their insanity by your weakness, and you don't let them walk around on the loose either. (And we still suspect that at that point, Putin gets the 9mm Q-tip he's been begging for since late February, courtesy of someone within his inner circle with more of a grip on sanity, and less wedded to the idea of restoring the Soviet Union's full glory, even at the cost of global thermonuclear annihilation.)

To those who think this unreasonable:

Those who think otherwise would bargain with a crocodile in order to be accorded the privilege of being eaten last, and not see the problem there until their leg was in process of being bitten off up to their own ass.

Such people should be accorded no attention, and in fact ridiculed as harshly as is possible, commensurate with then ignoring any further babblings they might make. They are idiots. When in positions of decision, they are dangerous idiots.

Chamberlain's stupidity and France's cowardice plunged an entire continent into war. But, we almost forget, there was this feral asshole (or four) who may have had a wee bit more direct role in all that, wasn't there?

We tried isolationism in the 1930s. It got us precisely the World War of the 1940s almost nobody wanted. Because the fascist axis (which included Russia, until the honor among co-thieves caught up with them) were expansionist dictatorial terrorist states. And they would have happily taken everything without that war, but in the end, they wouldn't have settled for not getting what they wanted, and if all it took was a war, they thought the lemon was worth the squeeze.

Isolationism isn't an option ever, and in fact is even less of an option now than it was 80 years ago, when it was merely stupid and short-sighted. Now, it's suicidal. 

If you're still suffering from Stockholm Syndrome after nine decades of socialism lite here, it's time to seek professional help. (Or maybe a stout crowbar and some vaseline, to pull your head out of a very dark and smelly place. Dealer's choice.)

If you think arming your neighbor is what's going to cause bad people to attack them, and/or you, you're quite frankly around the psychological bend, and should be locked up for your own good, and heavily medicated, because logic and reason has left your zip code.

And concluding that helping somone else out to prevent a war here by letting them fight theirs there might not avail, does not therefore make that aid a cause of such a war, if it afterwards occurs.

But don't take my word for it. The fallacy underlying that sort of logical idiocy is well known;  you could look it up.

If someone wants to make the case that we're broker than broke, to the tune of negative trillions, and shouldn't be throwing around even more billions we don't have, make that argument. But you'd better be prepared to show the money we'll spend giving Social Security to illegal aliens and fake refugees, and handing out free crack pipes, which money will be spent, and without you raising a peep, is a far better investment of money-we-don't-have.

Otherwise, raise ten times more hell over that, or else STFU about the relative federal pittance "wasted" kicking Vlad in the nuts.

He needs it, and to the degree it's actual aid and not grift-bait, it's money well spent.


Rhea said...

This is the problem with knowing history: you get to watch all the people who slept through history class do thier best to repeat things that we who were awake already know didn't work.

And now we have an entire brigade of people on the Internet who are Pro Russia simply because Joe Biden said Russia was bad, as though assuming the opposite of what people they don't like say makes them look real smart. Chamberlain is not remembered fondly in history; some folks should go look up why this is.


docfromjerusalem said...

In proper ritual slaughtering, there are two expressions: treif [the slaughtering was improper] and neveila [ the animal was dead before slaughtering]. In my perspective Zalensky is one and Putin is the other. Neither one of the leaders is righteous. But the ongoing fighting since 2014, was a crazy civil war in the Donbas- fighting each other during the day and at night "black market" between the sides. The current enormous loss of life should not be compared to Hitler in Chekoslovakia. They should have compromised a long time ago.

Unknown said...

Thought you might enjoy this article... love the meme in it “Russian occupiers make the best fertilizer.”

Some 'graphs I found interesting.

He snorts at Russia’s plans to take southern Ukraine and link Russia up with Transnistria. “Sometimes you play poker with a bad hand, but Russia is playing without any cards at all. Their tactics are insane. Take Chernobaivka: it has a small military airport. Seventeen times they’ve tried to take it. Seventeen times we’ve smashed them. Still they come. Our soldiers ask: ‘Are they dumb?’ No, just incapable of independent thought. They just follow orders — no matter how crazy.”


The drone reconnaissance unit has a vital job. They travel ahead of the artillery to a sector, usually just 1 or 2km from the front, and send up a drone to look for a target — anything from armour or troops (or sometimes to cover their infantry). Then they figure out the coordinates, telegraph the artillery guys and observe the subsequent strike. If it’s not accurate, they calibrate accordingly. Each evening, they return to base and watch a video of the day’s work.

They are watching one as I walk in. The footage could be from a video game: I see artillery strike a building and a Russian soldier run out and start hopping around. “He’s having a panic attack,” says Dima’s friend, Pasha. In another, a Russian soldier writhes on the ground after a strike scythes him almost in half. “And here’s half a Russian,” says Dima. “Yup, 50% of a Russian,” his friend Pasha chips in.


I ask him why the Russians have fought so badly. “For the reason the guy who looks after their tanks shot himself,” he replies. “Me and Dima were buying equipment from those fucks for ten times less than it was worth. Thanks to their very effective corruption we very effectively killed their own guys.”

Joe in PNG said...

To add to Rhea's comment, automatically taking a contrary position to someone you don't like is basic NPC behavior.

Aesop said...


If you're going to wait for righteous leaders before doing anything, bring a pillow: you're going to be sitting there waiting for an awfully long time.

If Zelenskyy had invaded Russia, slaughtered thousands of civilians, and turned Russian cities into rubble, I would unhesitatingly commend Putin's efforts to reduce him to fertilizer.

The opposite is exactly the case here, and that's that.

Rape and murder are still crimes, even if the victim isn't a perfect person.

And you can't compromise with someone whose invaded your country three times in 20 years, and holds you at gunpoint.
First you shoot them in the face. Then you can reason with them.
'Twas ever thus.

Bear Claw Chris Lapp said...

See if you can spot the two ironies in the original bill introduction.

Steve the Boomer said...

True, Rhea. It's like people nowadays have never heard of the Lusitania.

Skyler the Weird said...

It wasn't Lend Lease that drug the U.S. into the European theater of WWII it was those American destroyers sinking the Uboats attacking the convoys with the Lend Lease stuff aboard and other Uboats sinking American destroyers.

So when Ivan blows up the trucks and trains carrying Brandons Lend Lease money laundering equipment from Poland and Romania and the Provisional 69th Intersectional Dildo Brigade shoots back that ole Cold War melts into a hot one PDQ.

I'm thinking Kamela and Brandon will be 25th Amendmented out of office by the Democrats(hello Madame President) before STAVKA gives Vlad a new eye socket.

Aesop said...

We didn't enter WWI when the Lusitania was sunk in 1915, and we didn't enter WWII because of U-boat attacks either.

In fact, I'm pretty damned certain we entered the ETO at war in response to Germany and Italy declaring war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941. You could probably find that in about one mouse click.

This is what happens when people come at history like baby ducks.

Clinker said...

Lend lease certainly DOES cause wars.
My father as a boy lived on the Atlantic coast in the1940s. The beaches were closed BEFORE Pearl Harbor because German U boats were sinking US cargo ships just offshore, and the bodies of US seamen were washing up on the beaches.

Anonymous said...

Aesop, thought you might want to see this from Forward Observer newsletter this morning: Following a string of operational and intelligence failures, Russian President Putin relieved the Federal Security Service (FSB) from intelligence support to the Ukraine war. Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) is leading the effort now as previous FSB leadership is allegedly under house arrest.


Steve the Boomer said...

Not the point, Aesop. Arming one side of the conflict has always been an act of war, right up until the Cold War era proxy war thing. That's why Wilson had to lie about the contents of the Lusitania, and had to convince all but one of the newspapers to not run the ad the Germans paid for before the Lusitania sailed, saying it was carrying weapons, and why the Brits felt the need to try to destroy the evidence right up until research vessels pulled up munitions from the wreck.

I have no idea what connection you are making between Lusitania and WWII. Unless maybe it is your contention that Lend Lease was not an act of war. Because Washington said so, I guess. Missiles in Turkey, not an act of war. Missiles in Cuba, act of war.

Anonymous said...

I don't have time to do this subject justice, but I one of the things I've noticed with big-L Libertarianism over the years is that it has real problems fitting the idea of justified, organized conflict into its worldview. I think this is a result of primarily seeing human as atomized individuals, and human society and behavior through the lenses of economics only. For whatever reason, though, the tendency is to claim that any given war was avoidable if one side had just been more reasonable, and if that side is the one that is usually considered to have been in the right, all the better (the exception, interestingly, being the American War for Independence).

Grey Fox

Aesop said...

Show your work. We entered WW II after which U-boat attack...? I'll just wait over here while you work that one out.

Lusitania was sunk in 1915. We didn't declare war until April of 1917, two years later. Thus any suggestion that anything to do with the Lusitania incident, including selling arms to the UK which were shipped over on it, got us into WW I, is demonstrably codswallop.

Even Wilson conceded that Germany had the right to make war at sea by sinking her enemy's ships, even unarmed passenger liners and merchant ships. The point at issue in both world wars was doing so without any warning, nor allowing non-combatants aboard to evacuate to lifeboats before blowing the ships in question to Hell. Even two millennia of piracy showed greater respect for the finer points of humanity than that.

John Wilder said...

At this point, Russia is conducting an operation that's, umm, nearly as successful as Mikhail Kirponos at Kiev in '41.

Anonymous said...

The only problem I really have with the $40 Billion Dollar Ukrainian Aid Bill is that it is all just American money. I would really like to see some monetary commitment by European Countries too. I would push for a dollar for dollar European Continent matching fund for Ukraine.

Britain ponies up a Billion Dollars, we match it with a Billion US Funds. If they already sent $500 million in equipment in February, we should match that. France commits $2 Billion US? We match it with $2 Billion US. Germany ponies up jack and squat so as not to offend their Russian Pals and trade partners? Tough shit for Ukraine, let them bitch at Germany, and maybe have some German bound "pipeline" troubles to express their disgust?

I would even go so far as to match any increased 2021 NATO Partner Defense Spending. Romania decides to spend $250 Million more this year on their Military? We give $250 million to Ukraine. ($250 million by Romania would be huge, huge, huge for their poor country.) Why If Romania (or Bulgaria, Poland, Slovakia, Czechia, even France, Germany and Britain) spend more on their own defenses, that will also deter Putin from more future mischief.

The US should not be the World's Piggy Bank. I want Europe (and Australia, Japan, South Korea, how about KSA too?) to share the responsibility too.

I do not have a problem with US Support of Ukraine. I do have a small problem with the corruption in Ukraine; and a HUGE PROBLEM with Corrupt kickbacks to US Politician families and friends of families. People like Hunter Biden, Kerrys, and Cofer (BFF of Mitt) Black. Imagine US politicians getting even a well laundered 10% kickback? That is $4 Billion. That is generational wealth. It is 4,000 Million Dollars. Everybody can wet their beaks.


Rollory said...


>Arming one side of the conflict has always been an act of war,

I have no idea where you got this from, but this has never been true. The Alabama, to pick one example, was built and paid for by the merchants of Liverpool, like the song says: (NB: Bellowhead sux.) The consequence was not additional war, it was lawsuits, which were only resolved decades later and only due to unified and consistent American governmental pressure.

>Missiles in Turkey, not an act of war. Missiles in Cuba, act of war.

Are you being this disingenuous on purpose? The missiles in Cuba were - from the soviet perspective - a direct response to the missiles in Turkey. Neither was an act of war and neither was treated as one; the issue in both cases was the sneak attack potential. No act of war had happened and nobody alleged it had. It was entirely a matter of convincing the other side that your side had a legitimate gripe, without anybody losing their heads.

Steve said...

Rollory, the very first hit on DuckDuckGo (no friend to "my side") for "neutrality international law" is

It's pretty weak sauce, but acknowledges that among the requirements to remain a neutral is "municipally prohibit their citizens from enlistment and/or from engaging in other activities of behalf of the belligerents; and the belligerents may monitor neutral trade to prevent receipt by the enemy of prohibited contraband." Though this site does not say so, "contraband" is weapons, defensive or not. But I'd say it's inarguable that Washington has run roughshod over their claims of neutrality.

There was a lot written about this in the waning days of Trump, and because I remember several articles specifically from the War College, I present

Lots relevant, but here's the money quote for this discussion -- "Under [Customary International Law] CIL, neutrals may not engage in hostilities against the belligerents, advantage one belligerent over the other, provide war materials to the belligerents, or support the belligerents in other ways such as by providing intelligence. Neutrals also must act to prevent belligerents from moving forces, munitions or supplies through neutral territory and airspace; and seize and intern belligerent forces, vehicles, aircraft and equipment present in their territory, airspace or waters unlawfully."

It's interesting to review the new stuff coming out of the War College. It's very common now for similar articles to create new rules for "conditional neutrality" or "qualified neutrality", something that never before existed, but would be useful for the warmongers pushing the "current thing".

Just because the big kid on the block did something and got away with it does not make it right. As Curtis LeMay allegedly noted, if the Allies had lost, he would have been a war criminal for bombing civilian targets.

And Re: Cuban Missile Crisis, you need to review source materials. Both sides were making arguments that the other side provided causus belli, to the point that nuclear exchange was a real possibility. That is, both sides were convinced the other was perfoming an an act of war. Just as assault requires only credible threat of assault to justify self defense, so with acts of war.

Aesop said...

All of which underlines the fact that this begins and ends as Putin's war. He chose that course of action unilaterally. If one doesn't wish one's head bitten off, one doesn't flick the tiger's testicles.

He started a war he cannot win, and daren't escalate, or it becomes an existential crisis, and he moves to the top of the list of "World Leaders Most Likely to Get Arkancided By Their Own Inner Circle" in about 0.2 seconds, at that point. Putin may indeed have already crossed that line.