Jim Cowan

He doesn't care about the bargaining process, you can tell from the expression on his face.

Ugh, what a visual, Trump getting a prostate exam. I'm going to be sick.

That's really good stuff. It's all so logical, and he lays it out so well especially the escape routes.

This is kind of surprising, but welcome news. Even Viktor Orban gets it. Trump doesn't (nor do the people who "like his policies"), but Viktor Orban does.

Yeah, keep living up to our expectations Modi you racist mf.

He forgot Texas.

Arnold Palmer told a story once, this guy in the gallery following him around and, 5 or 6 times, saying "that's not the shot that Hogan would have played there". Eventually Palmer hit one into the long grass under a tree and, exasperated, turned to the guy and said "So? What would Hogan do now?". And the guy said "Well, he wouldn't be in there".

Let's get Putin and Stoltenberg into a room together and see if Stoltenberg can talk him to death.

Yes that's the point. The introduction of artillery meant that you didn't need any personal courage to kill large volumes of civilians. Didn't need to see them or smell them. "Strategic bombing" is just the logical progression, nuclear is not more of a war crime than incendiary.

As early as the end of 1940, the dropping of incendiary bombs on Coventry set the stage for ever-increasing terrorist activity by both sides, culminating in the deliberate roasting of 25,000 people in Dresden by the RAF and the USAF when the end of the war was in sight. It is not much of a leap from those activities to dropping the big one. I don't see that any sort of line was crossed there, the line was crossed the first time somebody aimed artillery at a peasant village in the 1700's.

The drivers of that car survived. Unbelievable.

Correct. The "Kiev" spelling is outdated too, having been replaced by "Kyiv". I don't think it's a big deal. If a news story originates in Paris I don't expect an English speaking newsreader to say Pa-ree.

Yes, published casualty rates for the enemy typically are exaggerations of what is really happening. But it's nice to know that there were in fact some tanks and helicopters destroyed and some Russians killed. Make it hurt.

No of course that is not what I am saying. Thanks to FDR the US was of enormous help to the Allies from the years 1939 to 1942, supplying war materials, that is obvious to anyone. Yes, it helped its Allies. FDR would have wanted to do more, certainly. I merely made the simple observation that if the US enters an armed conflict because a friend or ally has been invaded, it will be the first time, because congressional approval was never previously attained in either 1914 (might not have been sought) or especially 1939, and I don't see any historical inaccuracy there. I am hoping that it is attained this time if a NATO country is invaded. I have been forced to back off a little on Kuwait. It wasn't intended to offend anyone who wasn't there at the time, it is simply a very common observation.

I think Putin has an unlimited source of financing in Xi, based on their meeting in Beijing a couple of weeks ago. Xi loves to lend people money, usually for infrastructure, so that when inevitably they can't service the debt he takes over the asset, for example the railroads that will make up the new Silk Road. Also, China will step up and sell Putin all of the goods that western embargos are denying him (and lend him the money to buy them). So I don't think that financing is an issue that Putin is worried about, or shortages. Does Xi have unlimited resources? No he doesn't. But he doesn't care about the long-term consequences any more than Putin does.

Oh I would think so. I think that the closest historical parallel is the invasion of Crete by Germany in 1940, the first and possibly only successful invasion by paratroopers in history against a garrison of Brits and Anzacs, first class fighting men who were not well-led, and from whom Ultra intelligence was withheld. When the Fallschirmjagers landed on the ground they were astonished to find themselves being pitchforked by Cretan villagers, men and women, defending their home against invaders. Just as they had done for centuries, against invaders like the Venetians and Romans and Turks. It was just totally against the Germans' expectations of battlefield chivalry in which only uniformed combatants participated. That's what will happen in Ukraine. First, the Ukrainian partisans will kill all of the collaborators and informers and sympathizers. Then the ambushes and sabotage will be relentless. And now here is the preamble to the key question: will Putin order reprisals on the scale that Hitler did? I think that he will. So every time that a railroad is blown up a couple of local officials will be executed. Every time that a Russian soldier is killed, 10 random locals will be shot. For particularly egregious examples of resistance, an entire rural village will be entered, all of the men rounded up and shot, and all of the houses burned. That's the Nazi playbook. Will Putin follow it? Yes, and not give it a second thought. But now the key question: how will Russian soldiers feel about being ordered to commit those atrocities against Ukrainians, will they willingly comply? I have my doubts about that. The average Russian soldier isn't a KGB flunky from the 1980's, like Putin. I don't think that shooting Ukrainian citizens who are bound and gagged is what they signed up for. Perhaps some mutinies in occupied territory might stir some unrest at home.

Ha ha. "Shrewd"

Sounds like a nice trip! My family story is that my great uncle was a stretcher bearer at the Somme. Talk about stones! Naturally he got hit, was sent to a hospital in London...and the Canadian army stopped his pay! He was no longer on active service you see lol!

I wouldn't count Vietnam, which I think was more about stepping in when the French quit in order to resist the spread of communism throughout SE Asia per the domino theory. I don't think it had anything to do with defending those friends the South Vietnamese. I might have to give you Kuwait, although clearly that was about oil and not coming to the defense of the poor Kuwaitis but nevertheless. I am rusty about WW1 but wasn't there a communication between Germany and Mexico which could be interpreted as a direct threat to the US? You are correct about individual Americans going to Canada and the UK to join up at the start of WW2.

Eisenhower disagrees with you in "Crusade in Europe". But let's leave it.

1914 or, especially, 1939.

That is the point, it did not happen. I can not think of a time when the United States entered an armed conflict to support a friend or ally who had been invaded. If you can, I stand corrected.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here or where Afghanistan fits in. All I said was that the United States has never entered an armed conflict when a friend or ally was invaded. I am hoping that your congress acts differently this time, and approves a declaration of war. If I were you, I would be emailing my congressional representative right now, making clear what my expectations would be in the event that Russia invades a NATO country and asking for written confirmation that the requirements of Article 5 will be adhered to.

Thefe's no question that everybody else will do it, that's a guarantee.

Those guys wandering in the woods will be lucky if the locals don't kill them.