BaylorGuy314 said:
I'm against it no matter the party. We have spent $1000 for every US man woman and child so far and it's growing. We have spent the same as 33% of our own annual military budget so far. Make it stop.
whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
KaiBear said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
Bad politics to ignore the will of the American people by ignoring their needs over that of a country most still can't find on a map.
Bad politics to pretend that most Americans are willing to pay for Ukraine's defense indefinitely.
However it's horrible politics to attempt to drag the American people into still another war. We have seen THAT routine enough to know better.
KaiBear said:
The biggest mystery in the last 50 years of American politics is just who plucked out an unknown Illinois councilman and immediately pulled all the strings necessary to garner him the Democratic Party nomination for senator. Then provided millions of dollars for his campaign in the general election.
Then after just a handful of weeks as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama magically possessed millions of dollars for an unprecedented run for the Presidency of the United States.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This is what assimilation looks like. I am sure she knows better than most about the massive corruption in Ukraine.Redbrickbear said:See that flag behind her?
— Saurabh Sharma 🇺🇸 (@ssharmaUS) April 21, 2024
See that flag on her clothes?
Congresswoman Spartz voted to defend AMERICA’S national interest.
She’s upholding her constitutional oath.
She’s doing her patriotic duty. https://t.co/xhjJWnijCu
Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds, it is Russia which cannot win. They cannot sustain the human wave assaults they've been doing - tens of thousands of KIA to capture villages. They cannot match the NATO supply chain. But NATO will have to step up the production and that will cost more money than we've been spending.BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
ron.reagan said:
Now, as I predicted, Trump is on the Ukraine aid band wagon, who are the rest of you communist sympathizers going to vote for? Are you all voting for RFK?
RFK needs to just campaign on change and avoid specifics. He's right on some things like individual liberty and free speech, but he's got some goofy leftist ideas (climate, reparations) that will cost him votes with the undecideds, who are tend to be pragmatic centrists avoiding the excessive rhetoric on the right and left.Realitybites said:ron.reagan said:
Now, as I predicted, Trump is on the Ukraine aid band wagon, who are the rest of you communist sympathizers going to vote for? Are you all voting for RFK?
Two time Trump voter and lifelong Republican. I had pretty much decided to vote for RFK until he picked his (terrible) VP candidate. Now I'm going to wait see who Trump picks. If it is Stefanik/Scott/Haley/Noem I'll vote RFK.
Ten percent for the Big Guy!!!!!Mitch Blood Green said:RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:This is what assimilation looks like. I am sure she knows better than most about the massive corruption in Ukraine.Redbrickbear said:See that flag behind her?
— Saurabh Sharma 🇺🇸 (@ssharmaUS) April 21, 2024
See that flag on her clothes?
Congresswoman Spartz voted to defend AMERICA’S national interest.
She’s upholding her constitutional oath.
She’s doing her patriotic duty. https://t.co/xhjJWnijCu
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/04/03/victoria-spartz-ukraine-aid-campaign/
Out of curiosity, what the issue with each one of those candidates?Realitybites said:ron.reagan said:
Now, as I predicted, Trump is on the Ukraine aid band wagon, who are the rest of you communist sympathizers going to vote for? Are you all voting for RFK?
Two time Trump voter and lifelong Republican. I had pretty much decided to vote for RFK until he picked his (terrible) VP candidate. Now I'm going to wait see who Trump picks. If it is Stefanik/Scott/Haley/Noem I'll vote RFK.
[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
Ukraine is not running out of men. They have to expand their very narrow age restrictions. That's like Russia is running out of men because they had to greatly expand their use of foreigners, ethnic minorities, an prisoners.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
How is he wrong?
Is Ukraine not running out of men?
Is it not going to take a long time for Western States to meet supply/demand in ammo & weapons?
Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
Would you mind giving some details ?Fre3dombear said:KaiBear said:
The biggest mystery in the last 50 years of American politics is just who plucked out an unknown Illinois councilman and immediately pulled all the strings necessary to garner him the Democratic Party nomination for senator. Then provided millions of dollars for his campaign in the general election.
Then after just a handful of weeks as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama magically possessed millions of dollars for an unprecedented run for the Presidency of the United States.
Have you ever looked at who he ran against for senator and who they were married to and what was revealed about their divorce and when it was revealed?
KaiBear said:Would you mind giving some details ?Fre3dombear said:KaiBear said:
The biggest mystery in the last 50 years of American politics is just who plucked out an unknown Illinois councilman and immediately pulled all the strings necessary to garner him the Democratic Party nomination for senator. Then provided millions of dollars for his campaign in the general election.
Then after just a handful of weeks as the junior senator from Illinois, Obama magically possessed millions of dollars for an unprecedented run for the Presidency of the United States.
Have you ever looked at who he ran against for senator and who they were married to and what was revealed about their divorce and when it was revealed?
He's 100% right.Redbrickbear said:sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
How is he wrong?
Is Ukraine not running out of men?
Is it not going to take a long time for Western States to meet supply/demand in ammo & weapons?
Redbrickbear said:sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
How is he wrong?
Is Ukraine not running out of men?
Is it not going to take a long time for Western States to meet supply/demand in ammo & weapons?
Realitybites said:
Haley: Big government interventionist pro-abort feminazi Rinocrat, her issues were dissected here thoroughly before she dropped out of the presidential race.
Stefanik: Cut from the same mold, but a better politician who is more skilled at speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Liberty score: F. Votes with democrats on key issues.
https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/elise-stefanik
Scott: Better than Stefanik, but basically the DEI junior senator from South Carolina. Liberty score: C. Betrays the base on key votes, especially fiscal votes and those on the pro-life issue. Not someone worthy of being a breath away from the starter QB role.
Noem: Betrayed the base on the ****** issue just like Pence did on the Indiana DOMA when he was governor. An empty dress that Sanford Health's campaign contribution pulls the strings to.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/kristi-noem-angers-her-base-with-transgender-sports-ban-veto.html
Zelenskyy talking up a Trump Hotel Kiev?fubar said:I can't figure out why else TRUMP would want to spend money for a war that he says will end on January 21, 2025.KaiBear said:fubar said:Putin's check must've not cleared.ron.reagan said:
Now, as I predicted, Trump is on the Ukraine aid band wagon, who are the rest of you communist sympathizers going to vote for? Are you all voting for RFK?
Do you really believe all the RUSSIA fiction ?
Personally, I'd like to see him pick Ron DeSantis (not happening) or Doug Burgum (probably not happening).Fre3dombear said:Realitybites said:
Haley: Big government interventionist pro-abort feminazi Rinocrat, her issues were dissected here thoroughly before she dropped out of the presidential race.
Stefanik: Cut from the same mold, but a better politician who is more skilled at speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Liberty score: F. Votes with democrats on key issues.
https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/elise-stefanik
Scott: Better than Stefanik, but basically the DEI junior senator from South Carolina. Liberty score: C. Betrays the base on key votes, especially fiscal votes and those on the pro-life issue. Not someone worthy of being a breath away from the starter QB role.
Noem: Betrayed the base on the ****** issue just like Pence did on the Indiana DOMA when he was governor. An empty dress that Sanford Health's campaign contribution pulls the strings to.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/kristi-noem-angers-her-base-with-transgender-sports-ban-veto.html
I'd lean towards it's likely he picks Noem because as we know she's the hottest and as we also know, trump, for all his faults, has excellent choice in women and surrounds himself with them. They're like smarter playboy bunnies
dude, you are engaging in the worst form of cherry picking. I showed you the facts. Ukraine has fought the war thus far with OLD MEN. They have not yet tapped their under-30 demographic. They have MILLIONS of young men to tap. And they are.Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
Not true. We have industrial capacity to spare.muddybrazos said:Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
he has a residence in New Jersey. He files a change of address form and he's good to go......Whiskey Pete said:Personally, I'd like to see him pick Ron DeSantis (not happening) or Doug Burgum (probably not happening).Fre3dombear said:Realitybites said:
Haley: Big government interventionist pro-abort feminazi Rinocrat, her issues were dissected here thoroughly before she dropped out of the presidential race.
Stefanik: Cut from the same mold, but a better politician who is more skilled at speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Liberty score: F. Votes with democrats on key issues.
https://libertyscore.conservativereview.com/elise-stefanik
Scott: Better than Stefanik, but basically the DEI junior senator from South Carolina. Liberty score: C. Betrays the base on key votes, especially fiscal votes and those on the pro-life issue. Not someone worthy of being a breath away from the starter QB role.
Noem: Betrayed the base on the ****** issue just like Pence did on the Indiana DOMA when he was governor. An empty dress that Sanford Health's campaign contribution pulls the strings to.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/kristi-noem-angers-her-base-with-transgender-sports-ban-veto.html
I'd lean towards it's likely he picks Noem because as we know she's the hottest and as we also know, trump, for all his faults, has excellent choice in women and surrounds himself with them. They're like smarter playboy bunnies
Of course, he could surprise everyone and go with Marco Rubio, although Trump would need to move out of state as they would need Florida's electoral votes.
whiterock said:Not true. We have industrial capacity to spare.muddybrazos said:Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
We are currently operating on peacetime replenishment rates.....industrial capacity to maintain existing stocks, to replace outdated stocks, and develop new systems. We can, with he flick of a pen, expand production by orders of magnitude. Defense industries are not going to tool up for more capacity unless they get confirmed long-term contracts in hand. If Biden will just sign the purchase orders, the flow can double, triple, etc......
Russia, on the other hand, has almost fully mobilized its industry. Whatever you think Russian capacity is, multiply it times 20x and that's what Nato can do.
Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.
We have sent almost all of our war stocks, weapons systems and ammunition to Ukraine.
— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) November 24, 2023
We don't have a great deal left.
The war in Ukraine is lost.
Make Peace you fools!
Nah, we don't need factories…just the flick of a pen!muddybrazos said:whiterock said:Not true. We have industrial capacity to spare.muddybrazos said:Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
We are currently operating on peacetime replenishment rates.....industrial capacity to maintain existing stocks, to replace outdated stocks, and develop new systems. We can, with he flick of a pen, expand production by orders of magnitude. Defense industries are not going to tool up for more capacity unless they get confirmed long-term contracts in hand. If Biden will just sign the purchase orders, the flow can double, triple, etc......
Russia, on the other hand, has almost fully mobilized its industry. Whatever you think Russian capacity is, multiply it times 20x and that's what Nato can do.
Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.We have sent almost all of our war stocks, weapons systems and ammunition to Ukraine.
— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) November 24, 2023
We don't have a great deal left.
The war in Ukraine is lost.
Make Peace you fools!
I'm just going by what I heard from Macgregor 6 months ago. Dont we have less manufacturing capability than we had say 10 or 20 years ago thanks to green BS offshoring our factories?
I actually think Donald Trump could close the show if he picks Tim Scott as his running mate. It would make Democrats heads explode. They will go into full attack mode out of instinct and make the KKK look like a church choir.Realitybites said:
Scott: Better than Stefanik, but basically the DEI junior senator from South Carolina. Liberty score: C. Betrays the base on key votes, especially fiscal votes and those on the pro-life issue. Not someone worthy of being a breath away from the starter QB role.
whiterock said:muddybrazos said:Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.
Except they still have 5500 nuclear warheads. That does get your attention.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:muddybrazos said:Well, he is right that we have no more missiles and ammo. We also dont have the industrial capacity to make more misslies and ammo to supply Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. It would probably take 10 years to get stockpiles up to fight these wars.sombear said:We understand what he's saying, but he doesn't know what he's talking about:Redbrickbear said:[Money Down A Ukrainian Rathole:whiterock said:Faulty assumption. If NATO will supply Ukraine with enough arty rounds,BaylorGuy314 said:whiterock said:KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:I'm willing to admit I was wrong about him.KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:
Communist sympathizers will vote for Biden while the fascists vote for Trump. I'll take none of the above.
Which leaves you free to criticize the occupant of the White House regardless who it is.
Guess that is a clever approach regarding this free message board; but it won't aid your grandchildren much.
Strongly dislike Trump as well.
But now it s either a dementia case with a desire to get the US in still another war or an egomaniac who has a track record of avoiding war.
LOL it's Door #3: it's patently obvious that it would be a major setback for the USA if Russia were to roll up a win in Ukraine. (Which is definitely the case, no matter how hard you work to ignore it.)
It's also bad politics to be saddled with a big loss….
This is my exact point. Ukraine cannot win this conflict. We are spending money in Ukraine because it creates Russian citizen dissent towards Putin and puts them in a bad financial situation. Of course, it puts us in a bad financial situation as well but our taxpayers don't seem to care. And our administration can say we are trying to help the Ukrainians instead of saying they got us into a war.
Ultimately, if we don't want Russia to win, then we need to physically be there at the border. It won't cost much more to do it than we're spending now but it won't be popular. If we think Russia is gonna win anyways then stop spending money. Help the citizens get out, give humanitarian aid, and be done.
US supporters of Ukraine are probably still basking in the Slava Ukraini glow from the House's vote this past weekend. Allow Philip Pilkington to cast a shadow of realism across your smiling faces:Do you understand what he's saying? All that money cannot buy Ukrainian soldiers who don't exist, nor can it buy weapons that haven't been built yet. So, when Ukraine falls to Russia later this year, what happens when the American people see that all this money was wasted and that US lawmakers had every reason to know that it could not win the war for Ukraine, because Ukraine's problems are beyond the ability of money to solve?Quote:
Quote:
The second problem is a military one. First of all, the Ukrainians are experiencing a personnel crisis. They have already sent much of their male population to the frontline (to be killed or injured) and they are now having trouble pressing more men into service. Obviously, an aid bill cannot help with this grim reality. Secondly, they have severe weapons and ammunition shortages. American lawmakers say that the aid package will solve this by providing more weapons, but the reality is that these weapons do not exist because the Western powers lack the industrial power to produce them.
This is where the potential for a legitimacy crisis comes in. Supporters of the package have now promised that it will keep the Russian army at bay. Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that Ukrainian defence lines are buckling and there is even chatter that the city of Kharkiv might fall to the Russians in the coming weeks. Some are speculating that Russia might be gearing up for a major offensive either in spring or summer.
If Russia does start to take major amounts of territory or, worse, if the Ukrainian frontline collapses altogether then the American public will watch the promises used to justify the aid package collapse in real time.
To put a finer point on it: what happens when the American people begin to understand that the ruling class including many Republicans in Washington spent tens of billions of dollars that could have been used (say) to protect the ungoverned US southern border, instead of Ukraine's border with Russia … and have nothing to show for it?]
"Philip Pilkington is a macroeconomist and investment professional, and the author of The Reformation in Economics"
Dude. Russia has a smaller economy than TEXAS.
And a per capita income like mexico
Which is why its hard to understand the endless freakouts about the danger of RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA!
Its a poor country with 25% still not having indoor toilets and is in rapid demographic collapse.
Its not a world power
