For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO. I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.StephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
1. Why do you believe that "vladimir putin" would not honor its agreement?StephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
Why, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:23 pmClearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO.StephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:23 pm I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.
nuclear powers don't get invadedStephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
So what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:45 pmWhy, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:23 pmClearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO.StephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
How about if instead of 'the people' of 'a country' not be allowed to choose who they want to become a 'member' with, or not, the people of the "north atlantic treaty organization" just honor their agreement, by just stopping to get other countries into that organization. They had already agreed to not allow that country into that organization, so continually advancing "eastwards" was always only going to cause more friction, cause distrust, and eventually lead to infighting, and warring.
If you keep 'poking the bear', as some say, then it will eventually attack, obviously.
But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:23 pm I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.
Why when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:01 pmSo what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:45 pmWhy, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:23 pm
Clearly, at the very least, Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO.
How about if instead of 'the people' of 'a country' not be allowed to choose who they want to become a 'member' with, or not, the people of the "north atlantic treaty organization" just honor their agreement, by just stopping to get other countries into that organization. They had already agreed to not allow that country into that organization, so continually advancing "eastwards" was always only going to cause more friction, cause distrust, and eventually lead to infighting, and warring.
If you keep 'poking the bear', as some say, then it will eventually attack, obviously.
But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:23 pm I think if that condition can be satisfactorily met in writing as some kind of guarantee, then that would bring Russia closer to the bargaining table.
But, countries with, supposedly, 'weapons of mass destruction' do, right?Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:57 pmnuclear powers don't get invadedStephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
if Ukraine had nukes...
-Imp
Oh, I forgot to ask, Does "Israel" have 'nuclear powers'?Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:57 pmnuclear powers don't get invadedStephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
if Ukraine had nukes...
-Imp
I apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want. That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their security and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace, it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine. No more needs to be said in my opinion.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:13 pmWhy when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:01 pmSo what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:45 pm
Why, to you, 'the people' of 'the country' "ukraine" can not choose who they want to become a member of nor with?
How about if instead of 'the people' of 'a country' not be allowed to choose who they want to become a 'member' with, or not, the people of the "north atlantic treaty organization" just honor their agreement, by just stopping to get other countries into that organization. They had already agreed to not allow that country into that organization, so continually advancing "eastwards" was always only going to cause more friction, cause distrust, and eventually lead to infighting, and warring.
If you keep 'poking the bear', as some say, then it will eventually attack, obviously.
But, was 'that' not 'the guarantee', or 'agreement', previously? Or, a similar version, if not?
Just for information, some times when I reply to you posters, here, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just ask questions, for clarity sake, so that if and when clarifying answers are provided, then I could use those answers to better back up and support my exact same viewpoint.
Me asking clarifying questions in regards to obtaining further clarification, elaboration, and/or for challenging sake, is done when I have the exact same view, or just about the exact same view.
For example, my first question, to you, above, here, was not because I disagree with you in any way, but because 'the way' you wrote it it could be interpreted that the people living in "ukraine" could not possibly choose in 'what way' they want 'that country' to go.
It would be best if the people of any country can choose, absolutely, freely 'whatever way' they want that country to go without the fear nor intimidation from any person, nor people, from any other country, but obviously in that 'whatever way' is chosen does not effect the people, of other countries, negatively.
And, I was just pointing out that if 'the people' of 'that organization' had not broken their previous agreement and would just stop 'trying to' get 'the people' of "ukraine" to join 'that organization', in the beginning, then the 'current' crises would not have even begun.
Do you believe I am disagreeing with your statement above?
If yes, then where, when, and how, exactly?
For information, absolutely every sentence I write with a question mark at the end is for 'clarification'. I have explained 'this' previously, but that never means that you have had to seen it, so maybe you did not realize 'this' earlier but now you will hopefully always remember from now on.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pmI apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:13 pmWhy when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:01 pm
So what exactly are you disagreeing with in my statement above, Age? Or are you in agreement with my statement above?
Just for information, some times when I reply to you posters, here, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just ask questions, for clarity sake, so that if and when clarifying answers are provided, then I could use those answers to better back up and support my exact same viewpoint.
Me asking clarifying questions in regards to obtaining further clarification, elaboration, and/or for challenging sake, is done when I have the exact same view, or just about the exact same view.
For example, my first question, to you, above, here, was not because I disagree with you in any way, but because 'the way' you wrote it it could be interpreted that the people living in "ukraine" could not possibly choose in 'what way' they want 'that country' to go.
It would be best if the people of any country can choose, absolutely, freely 'whatever way' they want that country to go without the fear nor intimidation from any person, nor people, from any other country, but obviously in that 'whatever way' is chosen does not effect the people, of other countries, negatively.
And, I was just pointing out that if 'the people' of 'that organization' had not broken their previous agreement and would just stop 'trying to' get 'the people' of "ukraine" to join 'that organization', in the beginning, then the 'current' crises would not have even begun.
Do you believe I am disagreeing with your statement above?
If yes, then where, when, and how, exactly?
And so too would every other so-called "leader" of any other country, and especially more so if the "other side" had already agreed to not encroach any closer.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their security
So, how can 'they' 'now' be trusted again, when 'they' have already shown to break 'an agreement' in which they had already made?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace,
Why do you say and claim that it was 'an invitation' to "ukraine"?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine.
Okay.
What more needs to be said and understood for there to be peace and harmony?Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:46 pmFor information, absolutely every sentence I write with a question mark at the end is for 'clarification'. I have explained 'this' previously, but that never means that you have had to seen it, so maybe you did not realize 'this' earlier but now you will hopefully always remember from now on.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pmI apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:13 pm
Why when I reply to you "gary childress" you automatically assume that I am disagreeing with you?
Just for information, some times when I reply to you posters, here, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just ask questions, for clarity sake, so that if and when clarifying answers are provided, then I could use those answers to better back up and support my exact same viewpoint.
Me asking clarifying questions in regards to obtaining further clarification, elaboration, and/or for challenging sake, is done when I have the exact same view, or just about the exact same view.
For example, my first question, to you, above, here, was not because I disagree with you in any way, but because 'the way' you wrote it it could be interpreted that the people living in "ukraine" could not possibly choose in 'what way' they want 'that country' to go.
It would be best if the people of any country can choose, absolutely, freely 'whatever way' they want that country to go without the fear nor intimidation from any person, nor people, from any other country, but obviously in that 'whatever way' is chosen does not effect the people, of other countries, negatively.
And, I was just pointing out that if 'the people' of 'that organization' had not broken their previous agreement and would just stop 'trying to' get 'the people' of "ukraine" to join 'that organization', in the beginning, then the 'current' crises would not have even begun.
Do you believe I am disagreeing with your statement above?
If yes, then where, when, and how, exactly?
By the way, what you believe, or not, here, had no bearing on any thing, here, nor was I even asking absolutely any thing about your belief, here.
I just asked, to you, 'Why they could not choose what they wanted?'And so too would every other so-called "leader" of any other country, and especially more so if the "other side" had already agreed to not encroach any closer.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their securitySo, how can 'they' 'now' be trusted again, when 'they' have already shown to break 'an agreement' in which they had already made?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace,Why do you say and claim that it was 'an invitation' to "ukraine"?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine.
I think you find that it is far more likely that the people from the "north atlantic treaty organization" just kept encroaching "eastward" without necessarily being 'invited'.
Some might suggest that you are sounding like you are 'trying to' blame 'the people' of "ukraine" for this 'current' crisis, here.
Okay.
But I am pretty sure more needs to said, and understood, here. That is; if peace and harmony is really what you people want and desire, here.
unofficially they doAge wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:25 pmOh, I forgot to ask, Does "Israel" have 'nuclear powers'?Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:57 pmnuclear powers don't get invadedStephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
if Ukraine had nukes...
-Imp
If yes, then does "israel" get invaded by bombs, weapons, and/or rocket launchers?
If yes, then will you elaborate on what you actually meant above, here?
the US "supposedly" disposed of all our chemical or biological weapons...Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:20 pmBut, countries with, supposedly, 'weapons of mass destruction' do, right?Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 3:57 pmnuclear powers don't get invadedStephanieBaldwin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 01, 2025 9:12 am Considering lot of answers to such questions focus on what one 'should' do. Like Russia should get out of the Ukraine. Yeah ideally it should happen but realistically its not going to happen. Because even if both countries agreed to ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin would honor the agreement. So I wonder what the most possible solution?
if Ukraine had nukes...
-Imp
By the way, what is the difference in actual 'destruction' made from weapons of 'mass destruction' from just 'nuclear weapons'?
Is the 'destruction' not as 'massive' in size? Or, something else, exactly?
Plenty, like for example, if one really did want to live in peace and harmony, then they would have to first be open and admit the Wrong that they do, then they would need to be honest, while they are seeking out help in order to change for the better, and then just keep speaking absolutely openly and honestly in the quest for them to change for the better. Then, while doing 'this', you will start to 'understand' far, far more, here.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:56 pmWhat more needs to be said and understood for there to be peace and harmony?Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:46 pmFor information, absolutely every sentence I write with a question mark at the end is for 'clarification'. I have explained 'this' previously, but that never means that you have had to seen it, so maybe you did not realize 'this' earlier but now you will hopefully always remember from now on.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm
I apologize Age. I didn't realize they were clarifying questions because it doesn't really matter whether or not I believe the people of Ukraine have a right to join whatever organization they want.
By the way, what you believe, or not, here, had no bearing on any thing, here, nor was I even asking absolutely any thing about your belief, here.
I just asked, to you, 'Why they could not choose what they wanted?'And so too would every other so-called "leader" of any other country, and especially more so if the "other side" had already agreed to not encroach any closer.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm That concern is overridden by the fact that the Russian leadership sees it as a threat to their securitySo, how can 'they' 'now' be trusted again, when 'they' have already shown to break 'an agreement' in which they had already made?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm and that NATO had said it was not going to expand eastward. In the name of peace,Why do you say and claim that it was 'an invitation' to "ukraine"?Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 4:27 pm it is probably necessary to revoke any such invitation to Ukraine.
I think you find that it is far more likely that the people from the "north atlantic treaty organization" just kept encroaching "eastward" without necessarily being 'invited'.
Some might suggest that you are sounding like you are 'trying to' blame 'the people' of "ukraine" for this 'current' crisis, here.
Okay.
But I am pretty sure more needs to said, and understood, here. That is; if peace and harmony is really what you people want and desire, here.