The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.
Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted
The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.
Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.
Why should the courts agree to a postponement? That would not be standard procedure for any other defendant. “Oh, you’re busy with some voluntary activity in your life so you want your criminal trial delayed? No problem!”
Courts grant postponements all the time for reasons valid and spurious, US court cases often take forever and Trump is a master of court delay. The US Justice department has an informal 60 day rule that they wont start new investigations into candidates before an election so similar (different but similar) already exists. I can imagine Trump arguing a court handicapping a Presidential election by denying one of the main two candidates campaigning time is unreasonable vs a few months delay.
Or he might come up with something completely different, but he will almost certainly ask and I wouldn't be surprised if some delays are accepted. Of course he has several cases at once, so a delay in one case wouldn't necessarily create a delay in all. Perhaps he can schedule them in his favour of least likely to be conviced, or least serious first as an alternative.
At what point will some GOP wannabe have the courage to say "Do you want your campaign donations to fight Biden, or to pay Trumps' legal fees?"
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
We should completely level and rebuild Luton from the ground up. Skyscrapers and the works. Turn it into a mega city. It’s in the perfect location, it has zero architectural or historical merit. Nothing will be lost. It’s 25 minutes from London
Fuck concreting over the green belt. Turn Luton into Hong Kong
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
They should, but whilst the economy will be damaged doesn't history, including in Ukraine show, that populations don't really panic in the way those attahing them would like?
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
They should, but whilst the economy will be damaged doesn't history, including in Ukraine show, that populations don't really panic in the way those attahing them would like?
Absolutely. Prior to WW2 it was thought by many that populations would not stand in the face of bombing of their cities. Yet London survived the Blitz, and most of Germany’s cities were levelled, with, for the most part, the occupants stubbornly ‘taking it’.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
They should, but whilst the economy will be damaged doesn't history, including in Ukraine show, that populations don't really panic in the way those attahing them would like?
I guess that depends on the fragility of the resolve of those under attack. The Russians have always assumed that they were superior in all ways to the Ukrainians. It may be that their desire to attack them may be collectively less keen if they realise they will be attacked back.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
Yep
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
I'm trying to look thru the comments for the last two weeks to extract links and comments about Ukraine, but it's a mare. Can anybody write some clever Python code or someting that can extract comments based on a key word or combination?
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
Yep
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
Seizing oligarchs' yachts and football clubs was supposed to destabilise Putin. What is the ordinary Muscovite supposed to do? Sign a petition?
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
ETA scooped by kle4.
It absolutely did.
In WWII we were engaged in Total War. Civilian infrastructure fed the military industrial complex. Attacking it absolutely helped.
It did not win it overnight, but the idea we'd have won the war just the same had we not hit infrastructure in Germany and it's territories is an alternative history that can not be shown.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
The South was fighting for the right to own people. An internal imperialism, if you like.
Ukraine, an independent country, is fighting for the right to exist as a universal suffrage democracy.
We should completely level and rebuild Luton from the ground up. Skyscrapers and the works. Turn it into a mega city. It’s in the perfect location, it has zero architectural or historical merit. Nothing will be lost. It’s 25 minutes from London
Fuck concreting over the green belt. Turn Luton into Hong Kong
'The earliest monuments lie in the north of the borough where earthworks at Waulud's Bank date back to the Neolithic period (c.2500-2000 BC), and those at Dray's Ditches date back to Bronze and Iron Age times. Both are related to the ancient route of Icknield Way, and are protected as scheduled ancient monuments.
St Mary's parish church is the earliest surviving building which is 850 years old and listed grade II, further information on St Mary's can be found further down this page. The Moat House at Biscot is worth a visit as a picturesque thatched restaurant which retains its original moat, is also 14th century.
Luton's first major period of growth was in the 19th century and resulted from the expansion of the hat industry which has left an interesting and often attractive legacy of factories and warehouses, many of which are now loft-style apartments'
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
That's not true: they suggest that it was the British who impacted a Russian spy at Los Alamos.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Also the Southeners were in favour of slavery, while the North was mostly against it, while Putin is I suspect rather more than favour of it than Zelenski, especially if he and his friends could make make or steal some money out of it.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
Yep
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
Seizing oligarchs' yachts and football clubs was supposed to destabilise Putin. What is the ordinary Muscovite supposed to do? Sign a petition?
Of missiles began hitting the City of London that would cause a major wobble in our confidence
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
Yep
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
Seizing oligarchs' yachts and football clubs was supposed to destabilise Putin. What is the ordinary Muscovite supposed to do? Sign a petition?
Of missiles began hitting the City of London that would cause a major wobble in our confidence
The City was heavily bombed and partly flattened during World War Two yet we didn't come close to surrendering. German cities were demolished almost entirely yet they still fought on.
The way to defeat Russia is to destroy its armies in the field. Everything else is a shortcut to nowhere.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
It’s worse than that.
It’s implicitly accepting the Russian framing that Ukraine is part of Russia - a secessionist state - not an independent entity
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Also the Southeners were in favour of slavery, while the North was mostly against it, while Putin is I suspect rather more than favour of it than Zelenski, especially if he and his friends could make make or steal some money out of it.
That's my point. We're in favour of secessionists when we like them and against when we aren't. It isn't a matter of principle. See Biafra, for example.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
Yep
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
Seizing oligarchs' yachts and football clubs was supposed to destabilise Putin. What is the ordinary Muscovite supposed to do? Sign a petition?
Of missiles began hitting the City of London that would cause a major wobble in our confidence
The City was heavily bombed and partly flattened during World War Two yet we didn't come close to surrendering. German cities were demolished almost entirely yet they still fought on.
The way to defeat Russia is to destroy its armies in the field. Everything else is a shortcut to nowhere.
I like this, but it is important to note that denying supply to its armies is an important part of this. If (and it's a big if) Ukraine is able to sever the land bridge to Crimea, then Russia's ability to resupply its forces there is going to be severely compromised.
And that makes destroying its armies in the field dramatically easier. (It also means that Russia will need to throw everything it can at reopening the land bridge, which puts them on the forces sapping offensive side of the equation.)
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Also the Southeners were in favour of slavery, while the North was mostly against it, while Putin is I suspect rather more than favour of it than Zelenski, especially if he and his friends could make make or steal some money out of it.
That's my point. We're in favour of secessionists when we like them and against when we aren't. It isn't a matter of principle. See Biafra, for example.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
Yep
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
Seizing oligarchs' yachts and football clubs was supposed to destabilise Putin. What is the ordinary Muscovite supposed to do? Sign a petition?
Of missiles began hitting the City of London that would cause a major wobble in our confidence
The City was heavily bombed and partly flattened during World War Two yet we didn't come close to surrendering. German cities were demolished almost entirely yet they still fought on.
The way to defeat Russia is to destroy its armies in the field. Everything else is a shortcut to nowhere.
Er, you can do both
No one is expecting Russia to surrender if Moscow is bombed. But destabilise Putin that little bit more? Yes
Those who suggest this is somehow a civil war with the Russians backing plucky separatists are deluding themselves. (As can be shown by the fact that it is Russians fighting Ukrainians, and not Ukrainians fighting Ukrainians.)
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?
Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.
Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?
Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.
Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.
Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?
QTWAIN.
It was a rebellion never recognised.
Ukraine is an independent sovereign state that has been independent and sovereign for over three decades now. Whose independence was recognised by treaty even by Russia. It also has a long history as a sovereign state, and was not even a part of Russia in the first place.
Had the CSA's independence been agreed by the USA, then they'd invaded thirty years later, that's be comparable. But that never happened.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Was not the Confederate States of America an independent state with its own army and navy?
Unrecognised, though, even by Britain.
Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.
Including by Russia, crucially. They might have been among the first to recognise it. If the proposition this should be seen as some kind of ongoing secession which Russia disputes, that ship sailed a long time ago. It's not one of those situations where there was de facto recognition only.
Of course Russia never even claimed Ukraine. The USSR disbanded and the separate states went their own way. Which Russia recognised and accepted.
A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.
The author does rather miss the point that this is a drama, not a documentary, and none of the inaccuracies distort the truth - like Third Class being locked below deck on Titanic, for example.
One legitimate criticism of Oppenheimer - the complete erasure of the Anglo-Canadian contribution- goes unremarked.
Interestingly, there was no mention of Pearl Harbor. The Pacific war only assumed significance in the last reel, supporting the view that the atomic scientists were totally focused on beating the Nazis and were dismayed when Truman decided to use 'their' bomb against Japan even though there was no corresponding nuclear threat. And, of course, to prove to the Soviets that the US would be post-war top dog. Which it failed to do, of course.
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
Russia has invaded an independent state. The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me. Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
Also the Southeners were in favour of slavery, while the North was mostly against it, while Putin is I suspect rather more than favour of it than Zelenski, especially if he and his friends could make make or steal some money out of it.
That's my point. We're in favour of secessionists when we like them and against when we aren't. It isn't a matter of principle. See Biafra, for example.
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
Hitting civilian targets in ww2 did not help the Nazis in London or the plucky Brits in Berlin.
I believe that it did help the moral of the British population to know that they were hitting back. I imagine the same will be true of this.
Yep
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
Seizing oligarchs' yachts and football clubs was supposed to destabilise Putin. What is the ordinary Muscovite supposed to do? Sign a petition?
From what I am aware of so far it is not ordinary Muscovites being targeted.
Comments
The deference to him is bizarre.
https://www.ft.com/content/a946028d-c3bd-484b-929f-7ff7b7cc5bb9
If Ukraine IS gonna make a breakthrough, it might well be this way rather than on the ground (which seems to be going nowhere - tho I am happy to be persuaded otherwise)
Hitting Moscow and St Pete’s will damage the Russian economy and spread panic. Attacking Russia’s oil infra would also be effective
Ukrainians have nothing to lose. Go for it
On the subject of imperial power, while I share everyone else's sympathy with Ukraine and wish them well, it's hard to forget that the US fought a long, bloody war against its own secessionists and, apart from truck drivers with confederate flags, most people today probably think that was a Good Thing.
And now that DART has opened, and they’ve expanded the terminal, Luton is a seriously convenient airport. Quick, efficient, clean
I landed 25 mins ago and I’m already on the DART. And I had hold luggage
Fuck concreting over the green belt. Turn Luton into Hong Kong
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html
Note the date - 23rd Feb 2022
ETA scooped by kle4.
Also it will frighten and unnerve the Muscovite elite which works in those offices. Read the article
So it won’t terrify Russia into submission - of course it won’t - but it will further destabilise Putin. Which is good
When the Brits started bombing Berlin etc the Nazis took a major knock in German public opinion. Goring had promised that Germany would be invulnerable
In WWII we were engaged in Total War. Civilian infrastructure fed the military industrial complex. Attacking it absolutely helped.
It did not win it overnight, but the idea we'd have won the war just the same had we not hit infrastructure in Germany and it's territories is an alternative history that can not be shown.
The parallel to the US Civil War seems less than exact to me.
Or to put it less politely, nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66333585
Ukraine, an independent country, is fighting for the right to exist as a universal suffrage democracy.
https://m.luton.gov.uk/Page/Show/Leisure_and_culture/Tourism/Pages/Luton's heritage.aspx
'The earliest monuments lie in the north of the borough where earthworks at Waulud's Bank date back to the Neolithic period (c.2500-2000 BC), and those at Dray's Ditches date back to Bronze and Iron Age times. Both are related to the ancient route of Icknield Way, and are protected as scheduled ancient monuments.
St Mary's parish church is the earliest surviving building which is 850 years old and listed grade II, further information on St Mary's can be found further down this page. The Moat House at Biscot is worth a visit as a picturesque thatched restaurant which retains its original moat, is also 14th century.
Luton's first major period of growth was in the 19th century and resulted from the expansion of the hat industry which has left an interesting and often attractive legacy of factories and warehouses, many of which are now loft-style apartments'
The way to defeat Russia is to destroy its armies in the field. Everything else is a shortcut to nowhere.
It’s implicitly accepting the Russian framing that Ukraine is part of Russia - a secessionist state - not an independent entity
And that makes destroying its armies in the field dramatically easier. (It also means that Russia will need to throw everything it can at reopening the land bridge, which puts them on the forces sapping offensive side of the equation.)
No one is expecting Russia to surrender if Moscow is bombed. But destabilise Putin that little bit more? Yes
Those who suggest this is somehow a civil war with the Russians backing plucky separatists are deluding themselves. (As can be shown by the fact that it is Russians fighting Ukrainians, and not Ukrainians fighting Ukrainians.)
Liberating. I’m now a fully paid up member of the motorists lobby and will be voting Tory come the next election.
Ukraine has been internationally recognised since 1991.
It was a rebellion never recognised.
Ukraine is an independent sovereign state that has been independent and sovereign for over three decades now. Whose independence was recognised by treaty even by Russia. It also has a long history as a sovereign state, and was not even a part of Russia in the first place.
Had the CSA's independence been agreed by the USA, then they'd invaded thirty years later, that's be comparable. But that never happened.
A comparative situation would be if the UK disbanded, England recognised the independence of Scotland and Wales, while Ireland (Germany) reunified.
Then thirty years later England invaded Scotland.