I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Liberals want war with Russia over Ukraine
58,085 Views |
755 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by Mothra
Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Those with the least chance of getting their heads shot off always seem the most willing to enter foreign wars .
Yep. It seems that a civil war is most likely eminent. Of course it could be argued that the leftists have already started it judging by what transpired for months and months and months starting in 2020.Redbrickbear said:Rawhide said:America is so polarized, it doesn't matter if it's not Trump or Biden. Whoever it would be, one side will cheer them on matter what and the other will go completely nuts no matter what.RMF5630 said:In my opinion it has been both sides to a ridiculous level. This has got to stop. The Country can't get anything done. Dems will say that McConnell started it and GOP will say Obama started it. Time for an adult in the White House. Sorry radicals, neither Trump or Biden are it.JXL said:Sam Lowry said:This board puts the incoherence of right-wing foreign policy on hilarious display. The same people who were committed war hawks under Bush 43 became isolationists under Trump simply because of party loyalty. If Biden confronts Russia, they'll condemn him as a warmonger. If he doesn't, they'll condemn him for being weak. Now they're dancing around in a low-level panic and trying to do both at the same time since they're not sure which way he'll go. It's quite a show.C. Jordan said:You misread the Russians. They want to be a world power like the USSR again. Putin knows this kind of escapade feeds into that desire and makes him popular.Canon said:
Simply state the following:
If Russia doesn't invade a peaceful neighbor, then no Russians will die. Peace will be maintained. If Russia invaded a peaceful neighbor, they will be sending their troops to their deaths. Choose peace. Choose not to violently invade your peaceful neighbor.
They want empire, not peace.
And why don't you contact your Republican reps on this because they want confrontation with Russia.
Isn't it odd that they were silent when Trump debased himself before Putin, but are all over Biden for not being aggressive enough?
What about leftist peaceniks who are all about war as long as a Democrat is in office?
Hell, you could bring George Washington back from the dead, and half the country would still lose their collective *****
When two peoples can't live in peace together they should peacefully separate.
Oh wait Lincoln made that impossible with his tyrannical unconstitutional actions is 1861.
The USA is eventually going to have an actual civil war because both sides hate each other's guts (and rightfully so) and want blood.
Unfortunately it seems so. The right has tried to be reasonable for decades upon decades. It seems that the left wants nothing of anything reasonable.RMF5630 said:Well, I guess reasonable is out the window...Redbrickbear said:Rawhide said:America is so polarized, it doesn't matter if it's not Trump or Biden. Whoever it would be, one side will cheer them on matter what and the other will go completely nuts no matter what.RMF5630 said:In my opinion it has been both sides to a ridiculous level. This has got to stop. The Country can't get anything done. Dems will say that McConnell started it and GOP will say Obama started it. Time for an adult in the White House. Sorry radicals, neither Trump or Biden are it.JXL said:Sam Lowry said:This board puts the incoherence of right-wing foreign policy on hilarious display. The same people who were committed war hawks under Bush 43 became isolationists under Trump simply because of party loyalty. If Biden confronts Russia, they'll condemn him as a warmonger. If he doesn't, they'll condemn him for being weak. Now they're dancing around in a low-level panic and trying to do both at the same time since they're not sure which way he'll go. It's quite a show.C. Jordan said:You misread the Russians. They want to be a world power like the USSR again. Putin knows this kind of escapade feeds into that desire and makes him popular.Canon said:
Simply state the following:
If Russia doesn't invade a peaceful neighbor, then no Russians will die. Peace will be maintained. If Russia invaded a peaceful neighbor, they will be sending their troops to their deaths. Choose peace. Choose not to violently invade your peaceful neighbor.
They want empire, not peace.
And why don't you contact your Republican reps on this because they want confrontation with Russia.
Isn't it odd that they were silent when Trump debased himself before Putin, but are all over Biden for not being aggressive enough?
What about leftist peaceniks who are all about war as long as a Democrat is in office?
Hell, you could bring George Washington back from the dead, and half the country would still lose their collective *****
When two peoples can't live in peace together they should peacefully separate.
Oh wait Lincoln made that impossible with his tyrannical unconstitutional actions is 1861.
The USA is eventually going to have an actual civil war because both sides hate each other's guts (and rightfully so) and want blood.
You tossed in an ounce of fact and another pound of lies. It's not really worth arguing about. Bottom line is that your autism link is one more garbage source in a growing list of garbage sources that you've posted in support of your anti-science wingnuttery.Mothra said:Ah yes, your common retort when people call you out on your debunking bull***** %A0Should have known.Sam Lowry said:So you read it but didn't understand it. Should have known.Mothra said:Contrary to your assertions, I read the entire article, and the point remains. Gorski doesn't debunk the positive association between the two. %A0It doesn't mean they are related of course, but it would be damn near impossible to argue that the current vaccine schedule - which has significantly increased since the 80s - and the higher autism rate have not coincided with one another. %A0So again, I ask, what is it exactly you believe Gorski "debunked"?Sam Lowry said:That's because you skimmed the first few paragraphs and didn't read the section addressing DeLong's article in detail. It's the part that's called "How bad can an epidemiology paper be?"Mothra said:I am curious what you think your link debunked exactly.Sam Lowry said:Debunked.Mothra said:I am not sure what data you are referencing. %A0As I said in my post, I was referring to Sowell's claim that the prevalence of autism today can be attributed to better or different diagnosis. %A0That's a crock of *****bularry said:let's see that data on autism and measles vaccine, I'm ready to digest!Mothra said:Thomas Sowell is clueless regarding autism, BTW. %A0The increased prevalence cannot be explained by better or different diagnoses. %A0There's much data on this.Sam Lowry said:What's changed isn't me, but the GOP and the conservative movement. This is the kind of thing conservatives used to say about vaccines and vaccine mandates.Mothra said:And you were once a conservative. People change, as know all too well from your posting history.Sam Lowry said:The same people who were committed war hawks under Bush 43 became isolationists under Trump simply because of party loyalty.C. Jordan said:You misread the Russians. %A0They want to be a world power like the USSR again. %A0Putin knows this kind of escapade feeds into that desire and makes him popular. %A0Canon said:
Simply state the following:
If Russia doesn't invade a peaceful neighbor, then no Russians will die. Peace will be maintained. If Russia invaded a peaceful neighbor, they will be sending their troops to their deaths. Choose peace. Choose not to violently invade your peaceful neighbor.
They want empire, not peace.
And why don't you contact your Republican reps on this because they want confrontation with Russia.
Isn't it odd that they were silent when Trump debased himself before Putin, but are all over Biden for not being aggressive enough?
What say you, Sammy? Should we go to war with Russia over Ukraine?
Of course there is a positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21623535/
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-propaganda-in-baltimore-sun/
BTW, I am quite familiar with Dave Gorski. He's the prominent vax proponent, blowhard and troll who got in trouble for being critical of a researcher who published concerns over the rush to get the COVID vaccine out - not because Gorski disagreed with the researcher's concerns and data, of course - but because he thought publishing those concerns - regardless of their truthfulness - would cause vaccine hesitancy. %A0In short, he doesn't want the truth published because of the effect it might have on the public. %A0Remarkable. %A0
And that's the guy you're citing.
BTW, almost everything in your second paragraph is a lie. The researcher in question was not concerned about the speed of the vaccine rollout, Gorski did disagree with his (lack of) data, and the only trouble that ensued was an unsuccessful attempt to harass Gorski into submission by emailing his chairman.
As for Gorski, as usual you don't have your facts straight. Gorski, who isn't even an immunologist, attacked a real immunologist - Dr. Noorchashm - for questioning whether it was safe for those who've had COVID-19 (and therefore the antibodies associated therewith) to receive the vaccine, due to a myriad of reasons. He therefore suggested screening people before they received the vaccine to find out if they had the antibodies, and he put this suggestion in a letter to both the FDA and Pfizer. It was not a scientific study, nor did it purport to be, but was merely a letter of concern with a reasonable request that individuals be tested for COVID antibodies prior to receiving the vaccine.
His letter didn't receive much notice until Robert Kennedy mentioned it. Well, Gorski, being the internet blowhard, troll and vax-Nazi that he is (no wonder you like him) decided he would essentially libel Dr. Noorchashm online, not so much because of the content of the letter, but because Kennedy mentioned his letter. In short, Gorski wasn't really all that concerned with the potential negative ramifications mentioned in Dr. Noorchashm's letter, but was more concerned that, in his own words, Dr. Noorchashm's "idea had been co-opted by a leader in the antivaccine movement." Gorski admitted as much in his blog.
And of course Gorski - who loves to throw around the anti-vaxx moniker - labeled Dr. Noorchashm an anti-vaxxer when Noorchashm is anything but. %A0He supports mass vaccination for COVID-19, albeit with testing for antibodies prior to getting the jab, and has been a strong supporter of vaccines throughout his career.
Those are the facts. %A0Can't wait to read your bull**** spin.
I understand. It's of course easier to make the conclusory and unsupported assertion that someone is a liar than to actually point out the lies. It's your "go to" response.Sam Lowry said:You tossed in an ounce of fact and another pound of lies. It's not really worth arguing about. Bottom line is that your autism link is one more garbage source in a growing list of garbage sources that you've posted in support of your anti-science wingnuttery.Mothra said:Ah yes, your common retort when people call you out on your debunking bull***** %A0Should have known.Sam Lowry said:So you read it but didn't understand it. Should have known.Mothra said:Contrary to your assertions, I read the entire article, and the point remains. Gorski doesn't debunk the positive association between the two. %A0It doesn't mean they are related of course, but it would be damn near impossible to argue that the current vaccine schedule - which has significantly increased since the 80s - and the higher autism rate have not coincided with one another. %A0So again, I ask, what is it exactly you believe Gorski "debunked"?Sam Lowry said:That's because you skimmed the first few paragraphs and didn't read the section addressing DeLong's article in detail. It's the part that's called "How bad can an epidemiology paper be?"Mothra said:I am curious what you think your link debunked exactly.Sam Lowry said:Debunked.Mothra said:I am not sure what data you are referencing. %A0As I said in my post, I was referring to Sowell's claim that the prevalence of autism today can be attributed to better or different diagnosis. %A0That's a crock of *****bularry said:let's see that data on autism and measles vaccine, I'm ready to digest!Mothra said:Thomas Sowell is clueless regarding autism, BTW. %A0The increased prevalence cannot be explained by better or different diagnoses. %A0There's much data on this.Sam Lowry said:What's changed isn't me, but the GOP and the conservative movement. This is the kind of thing conservatives used to say about vaccines and vaccine mandates.Mothra said:And you were once a conservative. People change, as know all too well from your posting history.Sam Lowry said:The same people who were committed war hawks under Bush 43 became isolationists under Trump simply because of party loyalty.C. Jordan said:You misread the Russians. %A0They want to be a world power like the USSR again. %A0Putin knows this kind of escapade feeds into that desire and makes him popular. %A0Canon said:
Simply state the following:
If Russia doesn't invade a peaceful neighbor, then no Russians will die. Peace will be maintained. If Russia invaded a peaceful neighbor, they will be sending their troops to their deaths. Choose peace. Choose not to violently invade your peaceful neighbor.
They want empire, not peace.
And why don't you contact your Republican reps on this because they want confrontation with Russia.
Isn't it odd that they were silent when Trump debased himself before Putin, but are all over Biden for not being aggressive enough?
What say you, Sammy? Should we go to war with Russia over Ukraine?
Of course there is a positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21623535/
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaccine-propaganda-in-baltimore-sun/
BTW, I am quite familiar with Dave Gorski. He's the prominent vax proponent, blowhard and troll who got in trouble for being critical of a researcher who published concerns over the rush to get the COVID vaccine out - not because Gorski disagreed with the researcher's concerns and data, of course - but because he thought publishing those concerns - regardless of their truthfulness - would cause vaccine hesitancy. %A0In short, he doesn't want the truth published because of the effect it might have on the public. %A0Remarkable. %A0
And that's the guy you're citing.
BTW, almost everything in your second paragraph is a lie. The researcher in question was not concerned about the speed of the vaccine rollout, Gorski did disagree with his (lack of) data, and the only trouble that ensued was an unsuccessful attempt to harass Gorski into submission by emailing his chairman.
As for Gorski, as usual you don't have your facts straight. Gorski, who isn't even an immunologist, attacked a real immunologist - Dr. Noorchashm - for questioning whether it was safe for those who've had COVID-19 (and therefore the antibodies associated therewith) to receive the vaccine, due to a myriad of reasons. He therefore suggested screening people before they received the vaccine to find out if they had the antibodies, and he put this suggestion in a letter to both the FDA and Pfizer. It was not a scientific study, nor did it purport to be, but was merely a letter of concern with a reasonable request that individuals be tested for COVID antibodies prior to receiving the vaccine.
His letter didn't receive much notice until Robert Kennedy mentioned it. Well, Gorski, being the internet blowhard, troll and vax-Nazi that he is (no wonder you like him) decided he would essentially libel Dr. Noorchashm online, not so much because of the content of the letter, but because Kennedy mentioned his letter. In short, Gorski wasn't really all that concerned with the potential negative ramifications mentioned in Dr. Noorchashm's letter, but was more concerned that, in his own words, Dr. Noorchashm's "idea had been co-opted by a leader in the antivaccine movement." Gorski admitted as much in his blog.
And of course Gorski - who loves to throw around the anti-vaxx moniker - labeled Dr. Noorchashm an anti-vaxxer when Noorchashm is anything but. %A0He supports mass vaccination for COVID-19, albeit with testing for antibodies prior to getting the jab, and has been a strong supporter of vaccines throughout his career.
Those are the facts. %A0Can't wait to read your bull**** spin.
I know you no longer believe in one's personal freedom to make one's own medical decisions, but the good news is your side has not yet won that battle, and we can agree to disagree. I would suggest you continue to get jabbed as often as you like. I realize this is a very scary disease for you.
"Russia has deployed elements of 10 army groups and an army corps near Ukraine. Of those, 3 are permanently stationed to cover Russia's south-western borders. The increase is therefore substantial in terms of size and capabilities, but also broad in terms of the territory covered."
AgreedMothra said:My bad experience does indeed color my point of view, no question. But I am not saying the mRNA vaccines will have the same side effects as the MMR vaccine. I am instead suggesting a cautious approach toward them, especially by people who are not high risk to die from COVID.Osodecentx said:I think you are imputing complications of MMR (I haven't seen proof of autism caused by MMR) to mRNA vaccines. You've had a bad experience with a traditional vaccine and I think that colors your POV on all vaccines.Mothra said:Osodecentx said:MMR isn't a mRNA vaccineMothra said:I am not sure what data you are referencing. As I said in my post, I was referring to Sowell's claim that the prevalence of autism today can be attributed to better or different diagnosis. That's a crock of *****bularry said:let's see that data on autism and measles vaccine, I'm ready to digest!Mothra said:Thomas Sowell is clueless regarding autism, BTW. The increased prevalence cannot be explained by better or different diagnoses. There's much data on this.Sam Lowry said:What's changed isn't me, but the GOP and the conservative movement. This is the kind of thing conservatives used to say about vaccines and vaccine mandates.Mothra said:And you were once a conservative. People change, as know all too well from your posting history.Sam Lowry said:The same people who were committed war hawks under Bush 43 became isolationists under Trump simply because of party loyalty.C. Jordan said:You misread the Russians. They want to be a world power like the USSR again. Putin knows this kind of escapade feeds into that desire and makes him popular.Canon said:
Simply state the following:
If Russia doesn't invade a peaceful neighbor, then no Russians will die. Peace will be maintained. If Russia invaded a peaceful neighbor, they will be sending their troops to their deaths. Choose peace. Choose not to violently invade your peaceful neighbor.
They want empire, not peace.
And why don't you contact your Republican reps on this because they want confrontation with Russia.
Isn't it odd that they were silent when Trump debased himself before Putin, but are all over Biden for not being aggressive enough?
What say you, Sammy? Should we go to war with Russia over Ukraine?
Of course there is a positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21623535/
I know. Relevance?
Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Good thing French didn't think that way. Don't tell me ancient history and it doesn't count.
A nation can't have allegiances and then back out when asked to fulfill. If you want Russia and China to fill the void in leadership they will.
There is personal believe and policy believes. Would I want my son to go to Ukraine, no. Just like my Dad didn't want me to go to Saudi or my Uncle Viet Nam.But those are parents believes. Is it right policy wise to go, yes. Sorry, but the US can't not go if NATO activates.
Canon said:How much of an invasion and violent annexation of foreign territory is acceptable?bularry said:Does Russia want all of Ukraine? or just that Eastern strip? I'm not suremidgett said:
Read recently (can't find the article) about Putin's negotiating style. This is how he was taught coming up in the Russian leadership.
You go to the meeting. You take your armed thugs with you. The other party will come to the meeting and bring their armed thugs, too.
If the two parties can't negotiate a deal acceptable to both parties, blood will spill. No one wants there to be blood on their own side.
If the other party doesn't come armed, you decide all the details of the deal.
If true, Putin is looking for weakness. He knows if the US shows a strong hand and the willingness to use it, that an agreement must be reached. If the US doesn't show a strong hand, he's gonna do what he wants.
It'll be interesting to see if Putin thinks Biden is serious. If not, Ukraine may be Russia's soon.
Does Ukraine get a say in this? What happened to 75 years of holding the line on Communism and encouraging a conversion to Democracy? Why did we pay to have troops in Europe all these years if we are just going to be Chamberlin in 39? Putin can we give you just the eastern part or do you want it all? I am at a loss that because it is a Dem in the White House we just abandon 75 years of policy. Do we give over the Baltics? Poland? East Germany? Lets just go back to 1962 borders. But, can't miss a subject to attack the opposing party can we? Sickening.
Here are the facts your post ignores. The U.S. has no obligation to defend Ukraine. As pointed out many posts above, Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor has an offer to become one even been extended. The Budapest Memorandum merely recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, and included an agreement not to act aggressively against Ukraine. It did not include a commitment to defend Ukraine against all aggressors. Thus, contrary to your assertions, there are no obligations to fulfill.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Good thing French didn't think that way. Don't tell me ancient history and it doesn't count.
A nation can't have allegiances and then back out when asked to fulfill. If you want Russia and China to fill the void in leadership they will.
There is personal believe and policy believes. Would I want my son to go to Ukraine, no. Just like my Dad didn't want me to go to Saudi or my Uncle Viet Nam.But those are parents believes. Is it right policy wise to go, yes. Sorry, but the US can't not go if NATO activates.
To the extent Biden made promises to Ukraine, quite frankly, those were ill-thought out and certainly not legally binding. Biden has a long history of poor foreign policy positions. This is but another.
My dad went to Vietnam. He did it because his country asked him to. But he will readily acknowledge that our country's decision to go there was a huge mistake that needlessly cost thousands of American lives. Your idea that going to Vietnam was "right policy wise" is simply incredible to me. It is pretty much universally recognized as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. And it was.
If we truly commit to putting U.S. troops on Russia's borders, it could lead to a nuclear war. It is foolish to say going to war with Russia over Ukraine and risking ending civilization as we know it is good policy wise. It's incredible to me that we still have war hawks who think as you do. That is not Reaganesque. It is not Republican. It is not conservative.
What's ironic about this entire situation is that we had libs on this board and across the country telling us for years that Trump's actions would lead to war. The irony is that our current Democrat president has brought us closer to nuclear war with Russia than any president since Reagan - yet another example of the Biden administration being a complete and total cluster ****. He's made Trump look like Abraham Lincoln. Example No. 5,036 why "conservatives" who voted for anyone other than Trump were fools.
Mothra said:Here are the facts your post ignores. The U.S. has no obligation to defend Ukraine. As pointed out many posts above, Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor has an offer to become one even be extended. The Budapest Memorandum merely recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, and included an agreement not to act aggressively against Ukraine. It did not include a commitment to defend Ukraine against all aggressors. Thus, contrary to your assertions, there are no obligations to fulfill.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Good thing French didn't think that way. Don't tell me ancient history and it doesn't count.
A nation can't have allegiances and then back out when asked to fulfill. If you want Russia and China to fill the void in leadership they will.
There is personal believe and policy believes. Would I want my son to go to Ukraine, no. Just like my Dad didn't want me to go to Saudi or my Uncle Viet Nam.But those are parents believes. Is it right policy wise to go, yes. Sorry, but the US can't not go if NATO activates.
To the extent Biden made promises to Ukraine, quite frankly, those were ill-thought out and certainly not legally binding. Biden has a long history of poor foreign policy positions. This is but another.
My dad went to Vietnam. He did it because his country asked him to. But he will readily acknowledge that our country's decision to go there was a huge mistake that needlessly cost thousands of American lives. Your idea that going to Vietnam was "right policy wise" is simply incredible to me. It is pretty much universally recognized as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. And it was.
If we truly commit to putting U.S. troops on Russia's borders, it could lead to a nuclear war. Only a fool would say going to war with Russia over Ukraine and risking ending civilization as we know it is good policy wise. It's incredible to me that we still have war hawks who think as you do.
What's ironic about this entire situation is that we had libs on this board and across the country telling us for years that Trump's actions would lead to war. The irony is that our current Democrat president has brought us closer to nuclear war with Russia than any president since Reagan - yet another example of the Biden administration being a complete and total cluster ****.
I don't disagree that the current Admin is a cluster.
I do disagee with your position about nuclear war or there is no obligation to help Ukraine. There is more than the letter of the law or signed treaties. This has been a 23 year old fight for Ukraine. The US and NATO have played a role in courting Ukraine west, that the fact Putin has done this shows he and his puppets are on their heels. Ukraine wants to go west. Abandon them, US and NATO lose whatever credibility we have left. Ukraine is taking on Russia for sovereignty, we have an obligation to help. Moving troops to their pre-positioned positions in NATO and making carrier is the proper course, regardless of who is in the WH. Also, cut the leftie/conservative crap. Discuss the issue. I have voted Republican since Reagan. I seved. I deployed to Saudi for 6 months in 1991. I know what I am asking, but that comes with enlistment. It is also why we have troops around the world, to be available in times like this. I agree with doing what may Bush Sr did, put together a coalition, set goals, stick to them and get out. I am not for Iraq or Afghanistan the way we did them
A. The United States is under no obligation to go to war in defense of Ukraine.
B. In a conventional war the US can not possibly defeat Russia as our forces would be outnumbered by a huge number . Our 'allies' are not willing to go to war over Ukraine.
C . Which leaves only the nuclear option . No one with an ounce of sense can possibly believe Ukraine is worth the deaths of hundred s of millions of people.
D. Actions of Biden's handlers are far more dangerous to the people of the United States than any Russian invasion of Ukraine.
B. In a conventional war the US can not possibly defeat Russia as our forces would be outnumbered by a huge number . Our 'allies' are not willing to go to war over Ukraine.
C . Which leaves only the nuclear option . No one with an ounce of sense can possibly believe Ukraine is worth the deaths of hundred s of millions of people.
D. Actions of Biden's handlers are far more dangerous to the people of the United States than any Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In your original post to me, you said conservatives and Neville Chamberlain are strange bedfellows, suggesting of course that my position is not conservative. And of course you've invoked Reagan on this very thread. That is why I mentioned the political aspects of your position. While going to war with Russia over Ukraine might have been something a neo-conservative hawk like Bush II would have done, it is not a traditionally conservative position.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:Here are the facts your post ignores. The U.S. has no obligation to defend Ukraine. As pointed out many posts above, Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor has an offer to become one even be extended. The Budapest Memorandum merely recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, and included an agreement not to act aggressively against Ukraine. It did not include a commitment to defend Ukraine against all aggressors. Thus, contrary to your assertions, there are no obligations to fulfill.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Good thing French didn't think that way. Don't tell me ancient history and it doesn't count.
A nation can't have allegiances and then back out when asked to fulfill. If you want Russia and China to fill the void in leadership they will.
There is personal believe and policy believes. Would I want my son to go to Ukraine, no. Just like my Dad didn't want me to go to Saudi or my Uncle Viet Nam.But those are parents believes. Is it right policy wise to go, yes. Sorry, but the US can't not go if NATO activates.
To the extent Biden made promises to Ukraine, quite frankly, those were ill-thought out and certainly not legally binding. Biden has a long history of poor foreign policy positions. This is but another.
My dad went to Vietnam. He did it because his country asked him to. But he will readily acknowledge that our country's decision to go there was a huge mistake that needlessly cost thousands of American lives. Your idea that going to Vietnam was "right policy wise" is simply incredible to me. It is pretty much universally recognized as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. And it was.
If we truly commit to putting U.S. troops on Russia's borders, it could lead to a nuclear war. Only a fool would say going to war with Russia over Ukraine and risking ending civilization as we know it is good policy wise. It's incredible to me that we still have war hawks who think as you do.
What's ironic about this entire situation is that we had libs on this board and across the country telling us for years that Trump's actions would lead to war. The irony is that our current Democrat president has brought us closer to nuclear war with Russia than any president since Reagan - yet another example of the Biden administration being a complete and total cluster ****.
I don't disagree that the current Admin is a cluster.
I do disagee with your position about nuclear war or there is no obligation to help Ukraine. There is more than the letter of the law or signed treaties. This has been a 23 year old fight for Ukraine. The US and NATO have played a role in courting Ukraine west, that the fact Putin has done this shows he and his puppets are on their heels. Ukraine wants to go west. Abandon them, US and NATO lose whatever credibility we have left. Ukraine is taking on Russia for sovereignty, we have an obligation to help. Moving troops to their pre-positioned positions in NATO and making carrier is the proper course, regardless of who is in the WH. Also, cut the leftie/conservative crap. Discuss the issue. I have voted Republican since Reagan. I seved. I deployed to Saudi for 6 months in 1991. I know what I am asking, but that comes with enlistment. It is also why we have troops around the world, to be available in times like this. I agree with doing what may Bush Sr did, put together a coalition, set goals, stick to them and get out. I am not for Iraq or Afghanistan the way we did them
Russia is not Iraq, and unlike Kuwait, we have little if anything to gain from defending one of the most corrupt countries in the world from the other major nuclear power. I simply cannot believe what you are suggesting here - literally going to war with Russia. It is simply incredible to me. We have avoided war with the other major nuclear superpower since 1945. And you would risk an all out nuclear war with a country that could wipe us out with the push of a button. Simply incredible.
I understand that if you were in the armed forces, you would do what our leaders ask. That does not mean our leaders have made anywhere close to the correct decision.
Yup.Canada2017 said:
A. The United States is under no obligation to go to war in defense of Ukraine.
B. In a conventional war the US can not possibly defeat Russia as our forces would be outnumbered by a huge number . Our 'allies' are not willing to go to war over Ukraine.
C . Which leaves only the nuclear option . No one with an ounce of sense can possibly believe Ukraine is worth the deaths of hundred s of millions of people.
D. Actions of Biden's handlers are far more dangerous to the people of the United States than any Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Canada2017 said:
A. The United States is under no obligation to go to war in defense of Ukraine.
B. In a conventional war the US can not possibly defeat Russia as our forces would be outnumbered by a huge number . Our 'allies' are not willing to go to war over Ukraine.
C . Which leaves only the nuclear option . No one with an ounce of sense can possibly believe Ukraine is worth the deaths of hundred s of millions of people.
D. Actions of Biden's handlers are far more dangerous to the people of the United States than any Russian invasion of Ukraine.
A. True. It is wise to root up the first mesquite tree you see, however, before the nasty thorny tree takes overtakes everything.
B. That's not correct. Ukraine is a means by which Russian gas enters Europe. As soon as that dependence is broken, the need to control collateral damage will inspire a sea change…especially from Germany. And don't discount the hatred Eastern European countries harbor for the evil empire.
C. Unlikely. Very unlikely. So unlikely it's not worth discussing.
D. True.
Mothra said:In your original post to me, you said conservatives and Neville Chamberlain are strange bedfellows, suggesting of course that my position is not conservative. And of course you've invoked Reagan on this very thread. That is why I mentioned the political aspects of your position. While going to war with Russia over Ukraine might have been something a neo-conservative hawk like Bush II would have done, it is not a traditionally conservative position.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:Here are the facts your post ignores. The U.S. has no obligation to defend Ukraine. As pointed out many posts above, Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor has an offer to become one even be extended. The Budapest Memorandum merely recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, and included an agreement not to act aggressively against Ukraine. It did not include a commitment to defend Ukraine against all aggressors. Thus, contrary to your assertions, there are no obligations to fulfill.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Good thing French didn't think that way. Don't tell me ancient history and it doesn't count.
A nation can't have allegiances and then back out when asked to fulfill. If you want Russia and China to fill the void in leadership they will.
There is personal believe and policy believes. Would I want my son to go to Ukraine, no. Just like my Dad didn't want me to go to Saudi or my Uncle Viet Nam.But those are parents believes. Is it right policy wise to go, yes. Sorry, but the US can't not go if NATO activates.
To the extent Biden made promises to Ukraine, quite frankly, those were ill-thought out and certainly not legally binding. Biden has a long history of poor foreign policy positions. This is but another.
My dad went to Vietnam. He did it because his country asked him to. But he will readily acknowledge that our country's decision to go there was a huge mistake that needlessly cost thousands of American lives. Your idea that going to Vietnam was "right policy wise" is simply incredible to me. It is pretty much universally recognized as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. And it was.
If we truly commit to putting U.S. troops on Russia's borders, it could lead to a nuclear war. Only a fool would say going to war with Russia over Ukraine and risking ending civilization as we know it is good policy wise. It's incredible to me that we still have war hawks who think as you do.
What's ironic about this entire situation is that we had libs on this board and across the country telling us for years that Trump's actions would lead to war. The irony is that our current Democrat president has brought us closer to nuclear war with Russia than any president since Reagan - yet another example of the Biden administration being a complete and total cluster ****.
I don't disagree that the current Admin is a cluster.
I do disagee with your position about nuclear war or there is no obligation to help Ukraine. There is more than the letter of the law or signed treaties. This has been a 23 year old fight for Ukraine. The US and NATO have played a role in courting Ukraine west, that the fact Putin has done this shows he and his puppets are on their heels. Ukraine wants to go west. Abandon them, US and NATO lose whatever credibility we have left. Ukraine is taking on Russia for sovereignty, we have an obligation to help. Moving troops to their pre-positioned positions in NATO and making carrier is the proper course, regardless of who is in the WH. Also, cut the leftie/conservative crap. Discuss the issue. I have voted Republican since Reagan. I seved. I deployed to Saudi for 6 months in 1991. I know what I am asking, but that comes with enlistment. It is also why we have troops around the world, to be available in times like this. I agree with doing what may Bush Sr did, put together a coalition, set goals, stick to them and get out. I am not for Iraq or Afghanistan the way we did them
Russia is not Iraq, and unlike Kuwait, we have little if anything to gain from defending one of the most corrupt countries in the world from the other major nuclear power. I simply cannot believe what you are suggesting here - literally going to war with Russia. It is simply incredible to me. We have avoided war with the other major nuclear superpower since 1945. And you would risk an all out nuclear war with a country that could wipe us out with the push of a button. Simply incredible.
I understand that if you were in the armed forces, you would do what our leaders ask. That does not mean our leaders have made anywhere close to the correct decision.
My comment about Chamberlin is because usually Conservatives, myself included, use him as an example of appeasement not working. You cannot use appeasement with Putin, he will only take more.
I also disagree that foreign aid is a "what do we get out of it" proposition, at least it didn't used to be at least with those trying to become more democratic.
RMF5630 said:Mothra said:In your original post to me, you said conservatives and Neville Chamberlain are strange bedfellows, suggesting of course that my position is not conservative. And of course you've invoked Reagan on this very thread. That is why I mentioned the political aspects of your position. While going to war with Russia over Ukraine might have been something a neo-conservative hawk like Bush II would have done, it is not a traditionally conservative position.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:Here are the facts your post ignores. The U.S. has no obligation to defend Ukraine. As pointed out many posts above, Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor has an offer to become one even be extended. The Budapest Memorandum merely recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, and included an agreement not to act aggressively against Ukraine. It did not include a commitment to defend Ukraine against all aggressors. Thus, contrary to your assertions, there are no obligations to fulfill.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Good thing French didn't think that way. Don't tell me ancient history and it doesn't count.
A nation can't have allegiances and then back out when asked to fulfill. If you want Russia and China to fill the void in leadership they will.
There is personal believe and policy believes. Would I want my son to go to Ukraine, no. Just like my Dad didn't want me to go to Saudi or my Uncle Viet Nam.But those are parents believes. Is it right policy wise to go, yes. Sorry, but the US can't not go if NATO activates.
To the extent Biden made promises to Ukraine, quite frankly, those were ill-thought out and certainly not legally binding. Biden has a long history of poor foreign policy positions. This is but another.
My dad went to Vietnam. He did it because his country asked him to. But he will readily acknowledge that our country's decision to go there was a huge mistake that needlessly cost thousands of American lives. Your idea that going to Vietnam was "right policy wise" is simply incredible to me. It is pretty much universally recognized as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. And it was.
If we truly commit to putting U.S. troops on Russia's borders, it could lead to a nuclear war. Only a fool would say going to war with Russia over Ukraine and risking ending civilization as we know it is good policy wise. It's incredible to me that we still have war hawks who think as you do.
What's ironic about this entire situation is that we had libs on this board and across the country telling us for years that Trump's actions would lead to war. The irony is that our current Democrat president has brought us closer to nuclear war with Russia than any president since Reagan - yet another example of the Biden administration being a complete and total cluster ****.
I don't disagree that the current Admin is a cluster.
I do disagee with your position about nuclear war or there is no obligation to help Ukraine. There is more than the letter of the law or signed treaties. This has been a 23 year old fight for Ukraine. The US and NATO have played a role in courting Ukraine west, that the fact Putin has done this shows he and his puppets are on their heels. Ukraine wants to go west. Abandon them, US and NATO lose whatever credibility we have left. Ukraine is taking on Russia for sovereignty, we have an obligation to help. Moving troops to their pre-positioned positions in NATO and making carrier is the proper course, regardless of who is in the WH. Also, cut the leftie/conservative crap. Discuss the issue. I have voted Republican since Reagan. I seved. I deployed to Saudi for 6 months in 1991. I know what I am asking, but that comes with enlistment. It is also why we have troops around the world, to be available in times like this. I agree with doing what may Bush Sr did, put together a coalition, set goals, stick to them and get out. I am not for Iraq or Afghanistan the way we did them
Russia is not Iraq, and unlike Kuwait, we have little if anything to gain from defending one of the most corrupt countries in the world from the other major nuclear power. I simply cannot believe what you are suggesting here - literally going to war with Russia. It is simply incredible to me. We have avoided war with the other major nuclear superpower since 1945. And you would risk an all out nuclear war with a country that could wipe us out with the push of a button. Simply incredible.
I understand that if you were in the armed forces, you would do what our leaders ask. That does not mean our leaders have made anywhere close to the correct decision.
My comment about Chamberlin is because usually Conservatives, myself included, use him as an example of appeasement not working. You cannot use appeasement with Putin, he will only take more.
I also disagree that foreign aid is a "what do we get out of it" proposition, at least it didn't used to be at least with those trying to become more democratic.
Putin: I'll just take South Ossetia
Putin: I'll just take Crimea
Putin: I'll just take the Ukraine
Putin: I'll just take……
Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
Canada2017 said:
Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
At which country would you draw the line?
Canon said:RMF5630 said:Mothra said:In your original post to me, you said conservatives and Neville Chamberlain are strange bedfellows, suggesting of course that my position is not conservative. And of course you've invoked Reagan on this very thread. That is why I mentioned the political aspects of your position. While going to war with Russia over Ukraine might have been something a neo-conservative hawk like Bush II would have done, it is not a traditionally conservative position.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:Here are the facts your post ignores. The U.S. has no obligation to defend Ukraine. As pointed out many posts above, Ukraine is not a NATO member, nor has an offer to become one even be extended. The Budapest Memorandum merely recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine, and included an agreement not to act aggressively against Ukraine. It did not include a commitment to defend Ukraine against all aggressors. Thus, contrary to your assertions, there are no obligations to fulfill.RMF5630 said:Mothra said:I am fine with supporting democracy and capitalism in other parts of the world. The difference between us is you seem to be fine with spilling American blood to achieve it, which quite frankly I find shocking. It's as if Vietnam taught you nothing.RMF5630 said:ATL Bear said:
If Ukraine wasn't full of white Europeans, we'd likely consider it a ****hole country. A modest upgrade from Albania. Bad economy constantly needing IMF intervention. Using conflict and potential conflict as their ticket to more economic subsidies to see if they can pass Sudan on the GDP list. Nothing cheesier than military conflict cheese.
If you check the 'Merica ego at the door you can see this is a turd. And Let's not bring the Euro military jobs program for nations who haven't seen the business end of enemy weaponry since Hitler offed himself, otherwise known as NATO, into this charade. Let the bluster blow over. Russia just wants to keep Ukraine at baby brother status. Let's not break out the boots and bullets for a pet project of some State/DOD working group on Eastern Europe.
Haven't we spent the past 75 years working to bring countries to democracy, personal choice and capitalism? Your racist comment is way off base or have you forgotten about Korea, Viet Nam, Cuba, El Salvador, Taiwan, Phillipines, and several African countries none of which are white. This race-centric view of the world is a younger generation thing at least in foreign relations.
Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, East Germany,, Poland are all success stories of the Cold War. Millions of people have a better shot at a life, not perfect but better. What you propose leaves them at the mercy of thugs. But, I guess that means nothing today.
Good thing French didn't think that way. Don't tell me ancient history and it doesn't count.
A nation can't have allegiances and then back out when asked to fulfill. If you want Russia and China to fill the void in leadership they will.
There is personal believe and policy believes. Would I want my son to go to Ukraine, no. Just like my Dad didn't want me to go to Saudi or my Uncle Viet Nam.But those are parents believes. Is it right policy wise to go, yes. Sorry, but the US can't not go if NATO activates.
To the extent Biden made promises to Ukraine, quite frankly, those were ill-thought out and certainly not legally binding. Biden has a long history of poor foreign policy positions. This is but another.
My dad went to Vietnam. He did it because his country asked him to. But he will readily acknowledge that our country's decision to go there was a huge mistake that needlessly cost thousands of American lives. Your idea that going to Vietnam was "right policy wise" is simply incredible to me. It is pretty much universally recognized as one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history. And it was.
If we truly commit to putting U.S. troops on Russia's borders, it could lead to a nuclear war. Only a fool would say going to war with Russia over Ukraine and risking ending civilization as we know it is good policy wise. It's incredible to me that we still have war hawks who think as you do.
What's ironic about this entire situation is that we had libs on this board and across the country telling us for years that Trump's actions would lead to war. The irony is that our current Democrat president has brought us closer to nuclear war with Russia than any president since Reagan - yet another example of the Biden administration being a complete and total cluster ****.
I don't disagree that the current Admin is a cluster.
I do disagee with your position about nuclear war or there is no obligation to help Ukraine. There is more than the letter of the law or signed treaties. This has been a 23 year old fight for Ukraine. The US and NATO have played a role in courting Ukraine west, that the fact Putin has done this shows he and his puppets are on their heels. Ukraine wants to go west. Abandon them, US and NATO lose whatever credibility we have left. Ukraine is taking on Russia for sovereignty, we have an obligation to help. Moving troops to their pre-positioned positions in NATO and making carrier is the proper course, regardless of who is in the WH. Also, cut the leftie/conservative crap. Discuss the issue. I have voted Republican since Reagan. I seved. I deployed to Saudi for 6 months in 1991. I know what I am asking, but that comes with enlistment. It is also why we have troops around the world, to be available in times like this. I agree with doing what may Bush Sr did, put together a coalition, set goals, stick to them and get out. I am not for Iraq or Afghanistan the way we did them
Russia is not Iraq, and unlike Kuwait, we have little if anything to gain from defending one of the most corrupt countries in the world from the other major nuclear power. I simply cannot believe what you are suggesting here - literally going to war with Russia. It is simply incredible to me. We have avoided war with the other major nuclear superpower since 1945. And you would risk an all out nuclear war with a country that could wipe us out with the push of a button. Simply incredible.
I understand that if you were in the armed forces, you would do what our leaders ask. That does not mean our leaders have made anywhere close to the correct decision.
My comment about Chamberlin is because usually Conservatives, myself included, use him as an example of appeasement not working. You cannot use appeasement with Putin, he will only take more.
I also disagree that foreign aid is a "what do we get out of it" proposition, at least it didn't used to be at least with those trying to become more democratic.
Putin: I'll just take South Ossetia
Putin: I'll just take Crimea
Putin: I'll just take the Ukraine
Putin: I'll just take……
Putin will redraw the Warsaw Pact lines of allowed.
Canon said:Canada2017 said:
Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
At which country would you draw the line?
I feel like I am reading a history of 1939.
Canon said:Canada2017 said:
Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
At which country would you draw the line?
Florida
So what ?
If after 75 years Europeans are still unwilling to defend themselves against Russian aggression….it is their own fault .
If after 75 years Europeans are still unwilling to defend themselves against Russian aggression….it is their own fault .
No ground war in Asia. No nuke war over Ukraine.Canada2017 said:
So what ?
If after 75 years Europeans are still unwilling to defend themselves against Russian aggression….it is their own fault .
If I had confidence in the administration I don't want a war over Ukraine. We can't cure or prevent every evil in the world
That is a very short sighted view. You do not be a world leader sitting on the sidelines, someone will fill that void. But, according to you it don't matter? Let me guess our nuclear weapons make us a world leader?Canada2017 said:
So what ?
If after 75 years Europeans are still unwilling to defend themselves against Russian aggression….it is their own fault .
RMF5630 said:That is a very short sighted view. You do not be a world leader sitting on the sidelines, someone will fill that void. But, according to you it don't matter? Let me guess our nuclear weapons make us a world leader?Canada2017 said:
So what ?
If after 75 years Europeans are still unwilling to defend themselves against Russian aggression….it is their own fault .
Let me guess….there is zero chance of you getting put on the front lines of any combat zone .
Let me guess….there is zero chance of you losing your legs in a minefield . Zero chance of getting 3rd degree burns in an armored vehicle .
No, I don't give a damn about 'world leadership'. It hasn't meant jack **** since the end of WW2……except in tens of thousands of body bags and the waste of trillions of dollars needed here in the US.
I went when I served in 90 and sat on Green Ramp (Pope Air Base) at Fort Bragg in 87 during the Libya crisis. But that is not the discussion here.Canada2017 said:RMF5630 said:That is a very short sighted view. You do not be a world leader sitting on the sidelines, someone will fill that void. But, according to you it don't matter? Let me guess our nuclear weapons make us a world leader?Canada2017 said:
So what ?
If after 75 years Europeans are still unwilling to defend themselves against Russian aggression….it is their own fault .
Let me guess….there is zero chance of you getting put on the front lines of any combat zone .
Let me guess….there is zero chance of you losing your legs in a minefield . Zero chance of getting 3rd degree burns in an armored vehicle .
No, I don't give a damn about 'world leadership'. It hasn't meant jack **** since the end of WW2……except in tens of thousands of body bags and the waste of trillions of dollars needed here in the US.
You are mixing personal feelings with public policy. I agree that one death or casualty is a tragedy. How an individual deals with something, such as enlisting or not, is their business and I do not question the decision made that is best for you. However, you cannot govern a nation from that position.
RMF5630 said:I went when I served in 90 and sat on Green Ramp (Pope Air Base) at Fort Bragg in 87 during the Libya crisis. But that is not the discussion here.Canada2017 said:RMF5630 said:That is a very short sighted view. You do not be a world leader sitting on the sidelines, someone will fill that void. But, according to you it don't matter? Let me guess our nuclear weapons make us a world leader?Canada2017 said:
So what ?
If after 75 years Europeans are still unwilling to defend themselves against Russian aggression….it is their own fault .
Let me guess….there is zero chance of you getting put on the front lines of any combat zone .
Let me guess….there is zero chance of you losing your legs in a minefield . Zero chance of getting 3rd degree burns in an armored vehicle .
No, I don't give a damn about 'world leadership'. It hasn't meant jack **** since the end of WW2……except in tens of thousands of body bags and the waste of trillions of dollars needed here in the US.
You are mixing personal feelings with public policy. I agree that one death or casualty is a tragedy. How an individual deals with something, such as enlisting or not, is their business and I do not question the decision made that is best for you. However, you cannot govern a nation from that position.
So you are NOT going be putting your ass on the line for Ukraine ? But all guns blazing on your keyboard .
Shocking.
Welcome to 'ignore'.
The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .
Yup, which is why anyone willing to risk American deaths and potential nuclear war over Ukraine is being ridiculous.ATL Bear said:
The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .
War mongers are going to war monger.
I am not sure why. The two situations are not even remotely similar.RMF5630 said:Canon said:Canada2017 said:
Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
At which country would you draw the line?
I feel like I am reading a history of 1939.
In 1939 Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1stRMF5630 said:Canon said:Canada2017 said:
Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
At which country would you draw the line?
I feel like I am reading a history of 1939.
Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later.
The Soviet Union also invaded Poland from the east at the end of Sept.
They divided the country between them.
For some reason Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR even though they had also invaded Poland.
So is Russia working with Germany to conquer and divide up Ukraine between the two? If not then this is not really a 1939 analogy that works.
If self interest is the goal, use it as a chip to establish better energy rights for Ukraine (Europe access for example) or something else. Just because I'm not willing to go to war over it doesn't mean we shouldn't get something in return for the concession.Mothra said:Yup, which is why anyone willing to risk American deaths and potential nuclear war over Ukraine is being ridiculous.ATL Bear said:
The only demand is literally no NATO for a nation that isn't part of it, never invited, and with resistance to it within NATO. That's the principle any hostilities would be fighting about. .
War mongers are going to war monger.
Ok, 1938. You get the point. They gave Germany the Sudetenland because of ethnic similarities. Hitler agreed not to invade other lands if they did this. Didn't work out well. That is what I am talking about, you do not see any similarities between 2022 Ukraine and 1938/39 Czech? Totally different??Redbrickbear said:In 1939 Hitler invaded Poland on Sept. 1stRMF5630 said:Canon said:Canada2017 said:
Same 'domino' concerns embroiled the United States in Vietnam.
They proved to be false .
Bottom line…..
Ukraine is not worth the blood of US servicemen or ( potentially ) US civilians.
Silly internet jargon aside there is no way short of nuclear weapons to stop the huge number of Russian ground troops and tanks stationed in that region. Our forces are far too few, too soft, and the supply lines far too long .
Finally , take a rational look at our current Commander in Chief, his conduct over the last 12 months , and the 'quality' of his cabinet.
Not remotely a close call.
The US needs to stand clear .
At which country would you draw the line?
I feel like I am reading a history of 1939.
Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later.
The Soviet Union also invaded Poland from the east at the end of Sept.
They divided the country between them.
For some reason Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR even though they had also invaded Poland.
So is Russia working with Germany to conquer and divide up Ukraine between the two? If not then this is not really a 1939 analogy that works.
You know forget it.