Comment by aguaviva

Comment by aguaviva 10 months ago

2 replies

However, you are WILDLY inaccurate suggesting that the Minsk agreements would have ”granted to Putin permanent sovereignty over” Donbas.

You are WILDLY misquoting me already in the very first sentence of your riposte. I never said that that's what the Minks Protocols said. I can understand how it might sort of seem like I said that -- that is, if you're hastily skimming, but not actually reading. Just read my words again, carefully this time please.

He was not “sitting over it”.

"Sitting on it" I said. Either way, it's just another way of saying "occupying" it, which of course he was and still is.

As to the other stuff you're saying -- look, you're going off on way too many tangents here (many not even about Ukraine), and presenting way too many twisted mischaracterizations of the historical record along the way (including even more WILDLY inflated body counts, this time in Afghanistan). Like any other contorted, vituperative, ideology-driven libertarian rant.

Not something I have time for, or see any purpose in. You're free to make of the world what you want, though.

EGreg 10 months ago

Sadly, the body counts were NOT WILDLY inflated.

2 million civilians died in Afghanistan because we armed jihadists in a proxy war against the USSR, creating a “vietnam” for them

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War

The CIA playbook was the same:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

And they admit it themselves, though hardly care about the civilian casualties:

https://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwpR6ngoSjQ

I wish I was exaggerating. I dont think you read most of my comment or clicked the links, but just replied after reading the first 1-2 paragraphs.

  • aguaviva 10 months ago

    So if the WP article for the Soviet Afghan war quotes a broad range of estimates, ranging from 562k to 3M, with most in the range of 800k-1.2M -- how is it that you came to believe 2M is the "right" number?

    Without going back to check the article -- I just want to know what's in your head right now -- can you actually tell me which estimate it was that gave you the 2M figure, and why you decided to go with that estimate and not the others? Did you ever get to the section in the article where it lays out all the conflicting estimates, in that big huge sprawling pile of footnotes?

    Or was it more like -- you scanned the little Infobox at the top, saw 3 estimates in the range 1M-3M (including 2 conflicting estimates from the same author) and thought to yourself "Hmm, I know, I'll just average them!"

    Something like that?

    No judgements here. I just want to understand your thought process.