mistermack

In a way, Zelensky if very like Saddam Hussein. Saddam had NO weapons of mass destruction. Zelensky had NO chance of joining NATO. Both were threatened with invasion. Both were offered a deal that would cost them NOTHING. Zelensky, to abandon NATO membership that was never going to happen. Saddam, to allow inspectors full access, looking for WOMD that were not there. Both refused, because looking macho was more important than the lives of their people. And both ended up fighting a catastrophic war that need never have happened.

You have to make them a bit more obvious for Americans.

You do know my post was of a humerous nature I hope ?

My premise faulty? Take a look at yours. My wish was that Zelensky had been enough of a leader to do a deal to AVOID an invasion. I never said that he should have surrendered once invaded. It wouldn't be relevant, if he had done the deal. I WOULD surrender if I was in charge of Mariupol right now. But then, if I was in charge of the Russian invasion, I would never have attacked it any way.

No, I'm not French. If you have a brain, you weigh up the odds. Especially when the lives of the innocents depend on you. Only the brainless would fight no matter what. As I posted earlier, MacArthur ran for his life, when he saw the Japanese coming in the Philippines. Shouting "I will return" once he was safe. That's what heroes do.

Would that have been worse ? It's the Ukrainian way. Wikipedia has a whole section on Ukrainian corruption : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Ukraine

I'm replying to previous posts. Nobody has stuck to the OP question in this thread. The US response? Do very little, and make money doing it. Like always. The US waited years in WW1 to see which way the wind was blowing. And were content to watch for years as the REAL bully, Hitler, plough through country after country, murdering as he went, and they only took action when the Japanese bombed them, and Hitler declared war on them. So the answer to the OP should be obvious.

But some steps are more dangerous than others. Like off a cliff, or onto a live subway rail. Not hitting people is less dangerous than hitting people. The world is regulated mostly by odds, not certainties.

Words which mean nothing, when push comes to shove. We defended ourselves against Iraq's weapons of mass destriction. The words meant nothing. They were there to soothe the gullible. NATO bombed Serbia. Did Serbia attack a NATO member? (not that I have a problem with that) The principle of defence is there for public consumption, it doesn't mean a damn thing in the real world. Much like the Allies did.

This is a horrible tragic incident. One of many. But who would have thought that innocent people could be injured or killed in a war? It hardly seems possible. I’m sure if Zelensky had known that a couple of months ago, he would have done some sort of deal to give up on NATO membership in the future, instead of opting for the invasion. But how could he possibly have known? Why wasn’t he told that war was a horrible thing? This is nothing to do with him! It wasn’t a lack of caring or any ability to see the obvious that guided his actions. It was his courage, leadership and grace under pressure. So I’m told. Nobody would have been killed if I’d been President. That’s probably why I wouldn’t make it as a politician.

No, the point is whether the blow could have killed. The joke is a side issue.

I'm sure the Lord would guide me.

We all enjoy a daydream or two. It can even be useful in the odd situation, as above. But that's NOT religion. It becomes a religion when you start preaching it to others as a certain fact, and forcing it down the throats of little children, and demanding substantial sums of money to better propagate the myth. And fighting and killing people who have a different daydream. In the name of god.

I thought that they said that a couple of weeks ago. It's really just stating the obvious. If Finland tries to join NATO, they will instantly have several nuclear warheads pointing their way, with Helsinki on the address label. As every NATO member already has. So everone in Helsinki will enjoy the privilege of being minutes away from being vaporized. That's the real security blanket that NATO provides. I personally live ten miles away from the UK Government Communications HQ. A dead cert for one of the first nukes. It gives me a warm feeling. Hopefully, that's as warm as it will get. If I was in Putin's shoes, I would just announce that Russia would not recognise any new members of NATO, and would treat them as non-members in any dispute. That would make things a little more tricky for NATO's enlargement ambitions, raising the stakes in the game of chicken.

Jokes aside, just going back to the OP question, I was saddened to read about a woman who died in the May Day traditional fest in Padstow, Cornwall, from a bump on the back of the head. She suffered a bleed, leading to a stroke, when she was bumped by the elaborate hobby horse costume that is danced through the streets on May Day. She apparently had suffered an incident about ten days ealier, not significant at the time, that left one of her arteries in the back of her neck a bit delicate, and then the bump from the 'Obby Oss' compounded it and caused a fatal bleed on the brain. You never know how vulnerable someone is, when you strike them. So the answer is "yes" to the question, could Will Smith's blow have killed Chris Rock. Very unlikely, but yes, it could. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10692353/Laura-Smallwood-inquest-Coroner-says-Padstows-Day-parade-professionally-managed.html