Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie.

---

The Afghanistan war was driven by the 9/11 attacks perpetrated a group that had been conducting a low grade war against the United States for over a decade prior. That group was harbored by the de facto government of Afghanistan, the Taliban. Nation building is not a lie, but cannot be done everywhere. There are people groups who do not have the ethics, culture, or mentality to build a nation no matter how much money is poured into the effort. There are those who do. It is a leftist mentality that says all cultures are equal and all cultures can successfully build nations. That simply does not square with human history.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

What we have is a military industrial complex that lobbies for war because they can make billions of dollars.

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie. These aren't real efforts, that's why Afghanistan fell in half a day after we put forth $7 trillion to build it up.

In the process of war we've killed thousands of innocent people and children through mistakes and incompetence.

---

Completely disagree .

The Cold War was real. Just because the United States won it doesn't make the effort 'corrupt' .

WW2 was legit as any war could possibly be.

As was Desert Storm .
Hussein was a ruthless career criminal who had intentions of creating an empire throughout the Middle East. Had to be stopped before he become too powerful . Bush made the right choice..

Could make the argument Woodrow Wilson was foolish in allowing the British to draw us into WW1.......but again.....it was not 'corrupt'.

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

Much less so than the alternatives.

Osodecentx said:

---

Pretty good analysis. 2 questions:
1. What do you think the Russian GDP is after sanctions, say in 1 month or 6 months? I think the world's sanctions are devastating the Russian economy.

2. How many soldiers per 1,000 citizens does it take to occupy a country? IOW, what number of Russian troops won't be going home? Do you think UKR will just give up on Donbass?

---

1) Sanctions are not helping, for sure, and they are close to being, if not already in, a recession which will be harder to break from than "normal" given the ongoing sanctions. That said, there are limits to how far sanctions can go. Sanctions are designed to increase the cost, financial and political, of a given policy course. The financial parts are onerous. But the political costs not so much. Russia is not a democracy, so there is no chance of a change in govt in weeks/months as could occur in a parliamentary system. Similarly, the Russian people have an almost romantic willingness to endure hardships. It's like...what they do. So while there are demonstrations, they do not reflect the critical mass of the people in the country, who are much closer (at this time) to Putin's Slavic Orthodox nationalist worldview. There really isn't a scenario in view in 2022 where mass uprisings in Red Square topple the Putin regime. And amid all that, Putin has done a good job of surrounding himself with loyalty in security & military leadership. Finally, and most importantly......remember that the Russian economy is basically a gas station masquerading as a country. Oil/gas production/products are over half of exports and about 15% of the total economy. There will always be buyers in third world countries with lots of need and no conscience about buying things Russian. Put another way, if you were to design an economy well suited to endure sanctions that inhibit international trade and banking, it would look something like Russia's. To really hurt them, we'd have to just shut off Russian energy exports, which would be difficult to accomplish and run into a ton of international resistance as such would harm too many countries just flat need it and cannot do without it.

So don't expect sanctions to fundamentally change Russian behavior. It's just making Russian behavior more expensive.

2) The number of soldiers per/cap to pacify is a hard number to cite, because there are so many variables politically and geographically. Insurgencies are harder to mount in desert countries than jungle countries. harder in flat countries than mountainous countries. Etc.....and then there is national character - how hard are the peoples willing to fight, and for how long. The Ukranians are pegging the scale on "ungovernable" at the moment. The Russian Army, currently, may not be big enough. So Russian tactics at the moment are designed not to destroy the Ukrainian army or government, but rather to destroy the will of the Ukrainian people. Russia is well suited for such. They have no qualms about doing it and have a large army and a lot of artillery. We do not see Russians fanning out to pacify. We see them remaining in unit order to push conventional attacks. That means the battle is still engaged. And the Ukrainians show no sign of breaking. So this is going to go on for a while in "war" mode. "Pacification" mode is still out there in the future somewhere.

UKR will never "give up" on Donbas in principle, but put yourself in Zelensky's shoes: Would you sign a peace agreement that allowed the Russian Army ALL withdraw to Donbass and Crimea and stay there? that would allow the rest of the country to be spare from more war? Most leaders would, I think, be sorely tempted. A rational leader does not fight for the sake of fighting. They fight to secure a peace. Russia will keep at it as long as they think they have the initiative. Right now, it's hard to see much initiative on the UKR side. They took back a Kiev suburb yesterday. Good. But otherwise, it seems the Russians are slowly tightening the noose (as fast as December molasses, but still tightening). So every day, Russia's position at negotiations gets a little stronger, and UKR's gets a little weaker.

We have not seen Russian units "break." No retreats forced on Russian Generals. Russia will not give concessions until that starts to happen. Pressure now is all on Zelensky. And credit to him, he is standing like Churchill in his nation's darkest hour. That the outcome is not entirely foreordained means he still has a chance to salvage much of his country.

All of that explains why I urge (and I think Biden admin to some degree is doing - hard to tell how far because much is covert or unreported.....) feeding the Ukrainians most of what they ask for. Help them maul the Russian bear. We could make the Russian army unusable for the next 5 years. It would instill in the Russian military a more sober appreciation for their own inadequacies. And a military defeat in Ukraine would put the kind of strain on the Putin regime that sanctions could never come close to inflicting.

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

What we have is a military industrial complex that lobbies for war because they can make billions of dollars.

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie. These aren't real efforts, that's why Afghanistan fell in half a day after we put forth $7 trillion to build it up.

In the process of war we've killed thousands of innocent people and children through mistakes and incompetence.

---

Completely disagree .

The Cold War was real. Just because the United States won it doesn't make the effort 'corrupt' .

WW2 was legit as any war could possibly be.

As was Desert Storm .
Hussein was a ruthless career criminal who had intentions of creating an empire throughout the Middle East. Had to be stopped before he become too powerful . Bush made the right choice..

Could make the argument Woodrow Wilson was foolish in allowing the British to draw us into WW1.......but again.....it was not 'corrupt'.

---

We are on the same page again. Name me one place where the quality of life for the average person decreased because the US was involved?? Even Afghanistan the economy, human rights and freedom were higher with the US there than without. That is corrupt? Germany, Japan, S Korea, pretty much all of Europe, and Iraq are all better off because the US invested militarily, economically and politically in those Nations. So, no I do not agree that the US's war efforts have been corrupt.

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

What we have is a military industrial complex that lobbies for war because they can make billions of dollars.

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie. These aren't real efforts, that's why Afghanistan fell in half a day after we put forth $7 trillion to build it up.

In the process of war we've killed thousands of innocent people and children through mistakes and incompetence.

---

Completely disagree .

The Cold War was real. Just because the United States won it doesn't make the effort 'corrupt' .

WW2 was legit as any war could possibly be.

As was Desert Storm .
Hussein was a ruthless career criminal who had intentions of creating an empire throughout the Middle East. Had to be stopped before he become too powerful . Bush made the right choice..

Could make the argument Woodrow Wilson was foolish in allowing the British to draw us into WW1.......but again.....it was not 'corrupt'.

---

Agree. I'm surprised at Doc's take on this

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

What we have is a military industrial complex that lobbies for war because they can make billions of dollars.

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie. These aren't real efforts, that's why Afghanistan fell in half a day after we put forth $7 trillion to build it up.

In the process of war we've killed thousands of innocent people and children through mistakes and incompetence.

---

Completely disagree .

The Cold War was real. Just because the United States won it doesn't make the effort 'corrupt' .

WW2 was legit as any war could possibly be.

As was Desert Storm .
Hussein was a ruthless career criminal who had intentions of creating an empire throughout the Middle East. Had to be stopped before he become too powerful . Bush made the right choice..

Could make the argument Woodrow Wilson was foolish in allowing the British to draw us into WW1.......but again.....it was not 'corrupt'.

---

I'm referring to our efforts post cold war, except for Vietnam.



With all the money surrounding this, why wouldn't you question the motives behind war?


If you follow the money it clearly shows the purpose of the Afghanistan war was to have an endless war, not a successful war, in order to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and into the hands of the transnational security elite. That's exactly what took place whether your believe their efforts were genuine or corrupt.

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits. I guarantee lots of elected officials and bureaucrats and lobbyists are itching for WW3. They want it to happen because they're going to benefit from it to the tune of trillions of dollars.

The stated reasons and goals this century for war weren't accomplished so why should we continue to have those goals?

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

What we have is a military industrial complex that lobbies for war because they can make billions of dollars.

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie. These aren't real efforts, that's why Afghanistan fell in half a day after we put forth $7 trillion to build it up.

In the process of war we've killed thousands of innocent people and children through mistakes and incompetence.

---

Completely disagree .

The Cold War was real. Just because the United States won it doesn't make the effort 'corrupt' .

WW2 was legit as any war could possibly be.

As was Desert Storm .
Hussein was a ruthless career criminal who had intentions of creating an empire throughout the Middle East. Had to be stopped before he become too powerful . Bush made the right choice..

Could make the argument Woodrow Wilson was foolish in allowing the British to draw us into WW1.......but again.....it was not 'corrupt'.

---

I'm referring to our efforts post cold war, except for Vietnam.



With all the money surrounding this, why wouldn't you question the motives behind war?


If you follow the money it clearly shows the purpose of the Afghanistan war was to have an endless war, not a successful war, in order to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and into the hands of the transnational security elite. That's exactly what took place whether your believe their efforts were genuine or corrupt.

---

I think the investment is worth it.

I get to go to church or not, as I choose
I get work work, save, invest and keep the proceeds.
I get to travel wherever and whenever I want.
One of my problems is eating too much.
I own property and don't fear government confiscating it.
I am innocent until proven guilty.
I can own guns and buy ammunition.
My children get an education as we decide.

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

Communist countries killed over 100M of their own people just last century. Do you have any idea how evil humanity can be? You think war for profit is tinfoil despite worse atrocities by mankind?

You can't fathom it because you don't want to believe it

Was the Afghanistan war justified? Was $7 trillion blown, thousands of dead soldiers, innocent people killed...all to fall within half a day worth it? If I buy your premise, I would have to say yes.

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

What we have is a military industrial complex that lobbies for war because they can make billions of dollars.

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie. These aren't real efforts, that's why Afghanistan fell in half a day after we put forth $7 trillion to build it up.

In the process of war we've killed thousands of innocent people and children through mistakes and incompetence.

---

Completely disagree .

The Cold War was real. Just because the United States won it doesn't make the effort 'corrupt' .

WW2 was legit as any war could possibly be.

As was Desert Storm .
Hussein was a ruthless career criminal who had intentions of creating an empire throughout the Middle East. Had to be stopped before he become too powerful . Bush made the right choice..

Could make the argument Woodrow Wilson was foolish in allowing the British to draw us into WW1.......but again.....it was not 'corrupt'.

---

I'm referring to our efforts post cold war, except for Vietnam.



With all the money surrounding this, why wouldn't you question the motives behind war?


If you follow the money it clearly shows the purpose of the Afghanistan war was to have an endless war, not a successful war, in order to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and into the hands of the transnational security elite. That's exactly what took place whether your believe their efforts were genuine or corrupt.

---

I think the investment is worth it.

I get to go to church or not, as I choose
I get work work, save, invest and keep the proceeds.
I get to travel wherever and whenever I want.
One of my problems is eating too much.
I own property and don't fear government confiscating it.
I am innocent until proven guilty.
I can own guns and buy ammunition.
My children get an education as we decide.

---

Oh yea because Afghanistan was totally going to invade the US and end our way of life...

Please.

It's sad that I'm arguing that bloodshed isn't justified and you guys think I'm the crazy one.

The Afghanistan war ended with the Taliban acquiring $85 billion worth of military equipment. This operation ended up bolstering terrorism, yet you guys act like it was totally justified.

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

---

Explain this:

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

---

Explain this:

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/

---

He doesn't think very clearly? Apparently he is a troubled man.
Brand has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder. He also suffered from bulimia, pornography addiction, and experienced a period of self-harming.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

IMO the United States has not been inherently 'corrupt' in its war interests since the Spanish-American War.

Though Vietnam was certainly misguided.

---

What we have is a military industrial complex that lobbies for war because they can make billions of dollars.

The Afghanistan war was driven by money. The idea of nation building is a lie. These aren't real efforts, that's why Afghanistan fell in half a day after we put forth $7 trillion to build it up.

In the process of war we've killed thousands of innocent people and children through mistakes and incompetence.

---

Completely disagree .

The Cold War was real. Just because the United States won it doesn't make the effort 'corrupt' .

WW2 was legit as any war could possibly be.

As was Desert Storm .
Hussein was a ruthless career criminal who had intentions of creating an empire throughout the Middle East. Had to be stopped before he become too powerful . Bush made the right choice..

Could make the argument Woodrow Wilson was foolish in allowing the British to draw us into WW1.......but again.....it was not 'corrupt'.

---

I'm referring to our efforts post cold war, except for Vietnam.



With all the money surrounding this, why wouldn't you question the motives behind war?


If you follow the money it clearly shows the purpose of the Afghanistan war was to have an endless war, not a successful war, in order to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States and into the hands of the transnational security elite. That's exactly what took place whether your believe their efforts were genuine or corrupt.

---

Doc, you serve?

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

---

Explain this:

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/

---

He doesn't think very clearly? Apparently he is a troubled man.
Brand has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder. He also suffered from bulimia, pornography addiction, and experienced a period of self-harming.

---

And George Bush had a cocaine problem and Bill Clinton had a sex addiction.

Brand is spot on here. Why should people making decisions about war be able to profit DIRECTLY from it? Do you not see the conflict there or motivation to lean towards war?

I'm not saying war isn't ever justified. What my stance boils down to is the fact that we can't trust the justification behind war when it's beneficial to those who gain profits when things get more deadly.

How can ya'll be against that or think it's conspiracy? There's plenty of evidence showing the financial ties. Even President Eisenhower warned us about this.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

---

Explain this:

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/

---

He doesn't think very clearly? Apparently he is a troubled man.
Brand has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder. He also suffered from bulimia, pornography addiction, and experienced a period of self-harming.

---

And George Bush had a cocaine problem and Bill Clinton had a sex addiction.

Brand is spot on here. Why should people making decisions about war be able to profit DIRECTLY from it? Do you not see the conflict there or motivation to lean towards war?

I'm not saying war isn't ever justified. What my stance boils down to is the fact that we can't trust the justification behind war when it's beneficial to those who gain profits when things get more deadly.

How can ya'll be against that or think it's conspiracy? There's plenty of evidence showing the financial ties. Even President Eisenhower warned us about this.

---

I agree that contractors in all industries have too much influence. It is no different in tech, communications or even transportation. They sell product lines rather than solve problems. I cannot count the number of times a product is pushed rather than what we need.

I do not agree with you on the incompetence of the military costing lives. Those Fire Support guys, Combat Controllers, and Pilots that call in the ordinance do the best they can under typically bad circumstances. I have never met one that didn't care if they were off. To say that the weapons they control killed people through incompetence, I don't go there with you. Has it happened, sure. But not to the level you are talking.

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

---

Explain this:

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/

---

He doesn't think very clearly? Apparently he is a troubled man.
Brand has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder. He also suffered from bulimia, pornography addiction, and experienced a period of self-harming.

---

And George Bush had a cocaine problem and Bill Clinton had a sex addiction.

Brand is spot on here. Why should people making decisions about war be able to profit DIRECTLY from it? Do you not see the conflict there or motivation to lean towards war?

I'm not saying war isn't ever justified. What my stance boils down to is the fact that we can't trust the justification behind war when it's beneficial to those who gain profits when things get more deadly.

How can ya'll be against that or think it's conspiracy? There's plenty of evidence showing the financial ties. Even President Eisenhower warned us about this.

---

I agree that contractors in all industries have too much influence. It is no different in tech, communications or even transportation. They sell product lines rather than solve problems. I cannot count the number of times a product is pushed rather than what we need.

I do not agree with you on the incompetence of the military costing lives. Those Fire Support guys, Combat Controllers, and Pilots that call in the ordinance do the best they can under typically bad circumstances. I have never met one that didn't care if they were off. To say that the weapons they control killed people through incompetence, I don't go there with you. Has it happened, sure. But not to the level you are talking.

---

I wasn't referring to the incompetence of military, I was referring to the incompetence of politicians, Presidents and bureaucrats who make decisions the military carries out.

More than 387,000 innocent civilians have been killed in the since 2001. Some of those were the US accidentally bombing homes, hospitals or a miss identified target.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/25/lost-innocents#

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

---

This bunch isn't even aware that 500k have been killed in the Ethiopian civil war in the past 16 months. The government is using Turkish drones to air strike refugee camps.

There's no financial ties to the US there.

It severely outweighs the crimes against humanity that Russia has committed against Ukraine...yet there is no Ethiopian flags on social media, no calls for intervention and no discussion whatsoever.

Why is that the case? Logic says money $$.

This is how I feel:

After 9/11, neocons cynically and vocally adopted all the right-wing views on social issues to ingratiate themselves into the GOP in order to exploit the party for their warmongering desires. Now they're doing the same with liberal social issues and Dems:https://t.co/msEe335I4o

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 25, 2022

Doc Holliday said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

---

Explain this:

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/

---

He doesn't think very clearly? Apparently he is a troubled man.
Brand has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder. He also suffered from bulimia, pornography addiction, and experienced a period of self-harming.

---

And George Bush had a cocaine problem and Bill Clinton had a sex addiction.

Brand is spot on here. Why should people making decisions about war be able to profit DIRECTLY from it? Do you not see the conflict there or motivation to lean towards war?

I'm not saying war isn't ever justified. What my stance boils down to is the fact that we can't trust the justification behind war when it's beneficial to those who gain profits when things get more deadly.

How can ya'll be against that or think it's conspiracy? There's plenty of evidence showing the financial ties. Even President Eisenhower warned us about this.

---

I agree that contractors in all industries have too much influence. It is no different in tech, communications or even transportation. They sell product lines rather than solve problems. I cannot count the number of times a product is pushed rather than what we need.

I do not agree with you on the incompetence of the military costing lives. Those Fire Support guys, Combat Controllers, and Pilots that call in the ordinance do the best they can under typically bad circumstances. I have never met one that didn't care if they were off. To say that the weapons they control killed people through incompetence, I don't go there with you. Has it happened, sure. But not to the level you are talking.

---

I wasn't referring to the incompetence of military, I was referring to the incompetence of politicians, Presidents and bureaucrats who make decisions the military carries out.

More than 387,000 innocent civilians have been killed in the since 2001. Some of those were the US accidentally bombing homes, hospitals or a miss identified target.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/25/lost-innocents#

---

Ok, I will go with you on that recently. The last well run action was the Gulf War, Bush did a good job managing that. We got in, we got out, we took part in UN No Fly. I was good with that one.

I do agree that both Iraq and Afghanistan I could never figure out the end game. If it was nation building, fine. But, then do what we did in Germany and Japan. If not, get out after accomplishing mission. The never ending nebulous mission and the disgraceful way we left was incompetence.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Canon said:

---

That meme could literally have "police" at the top and the 25 dead black criminals who violently resisted arrest in the chair. Then "BLM" at the bottom. That's what that meme is worth and how twisted it is.

---

The US is allowed to take over countries, bomb the **** out of thousands of innocent civilians and destabilize the a region without anyone acting like its a humanitarian crisis.

You're cool with that?

I didn't take you for a John McCain warhawk type.

---

You should re-evaluate your meme if that's your belief. I'd start with Korea.

---

I'm supposed to believe the US isn't corrupt in its war efforts?

---

I'd like to see the rationale of it being "corrupt". Just because companies that sell weaponry make money on those sales, or that non combatants were killed in a war doesn't infer "corruption".

---

We wouldn't have engaged in modern wars (post 1989) if there wasn't profit to be made.

We're motivated to escalate war ON PURPOSE for profits.

---

Sorry, but that's complete tinfoil horse***** The negative economic impact of war is so much greater than any profit uptick in defense contractors, or energy companies (surprised you haven't pegged that one too), that's an absurd assessment.

---

We the people eat the costs of the negative impacts of war, they don't. Why do you think they care about the country's wellbeing? We're $31T in debt...since when have they given a damn about how their efforts hurt us?

---

Because of a strong defense establishment, you are free to espouse any political view you desire

---

Explain this:

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/

---

He doesn't think very clearly? Apparently he is a troubled man.
Brand has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and bipolar disorder. He also suffered from bulimia, pornography addiction, and experienced a period of self-harming.

---

And George Bush had a cocaine problem and Bill Clinton had a sex addiction.

Brand is spot on here. Why should people making decisions about war be able to profit DIRECTLY from it? Do you not see the conflict there or motivation to lean towards war?

I'm not saying war isn't ever justified. What my stance boils down to is the fact that we can't trust the justification behind war when it's beneficial to those who gain profits when things get more deadly.

How can ya'll be against that or think it's conspiracy? There's plenty of evidence showing the financial ties. Even President Eisenhower warned us about this.

---

Bush and Clinton were elected by the country, Brand isn't. I see nothing in his life's experience that would commend his opinion to me over any other entertainment industrial complex minion. Brand is clearly a troubled individual (lives in England?). His opinion isn't worth much to me.

Some politicians have acted poorly, no question. We can discuss the legislation that would prohibit Congressmen from investing in stocks. I would oppose it, but it is a legitimate topic for discussion, just like term limits and a number of other topics.

Several complexes besides the military Industrial complex have profited from a large, poorly vetted national budget; legal industrial complex, poverty industrial complex, media industrial complex, Trump industrial complex, pharmaceutical industrial complex, conspiracy theory industrial complex, etc.

I'm not saying that every aspect of every war was justified

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

---

No one's questioning there would be profit. It is being posited by Doc that profit is the reason for the conflict. That's the tinfoil gullibility of "corruption" I'm addressing.

I'm happy to discuss policy, including a likelihood I'd agree on some failings and misguided pursuits (Iraq War). That's not the conversation.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

---

This bunch isn't even aware that 500k have been killed in the Ethiopian civil war in the past 16 months. The government is using Turkish drones to air strike refugee camps.

There's no financial ties to the US there.

It severely outweighs the crimes against humanity that Russia has committed against Ukraine...yet there is no Ethiopian flags on social media, no calls for intervention and no discussion whatsoever.

Why is that the case? Logic says money $$.

This is how I feel:

After 9/11, neocons cynically and vocally adopted all the right-wing views on social issues to ingratiate themselves into the GOP in order to exploit the party for their warmongering desires. Now they're doing the same with liberal social issues and Dems:https://t.co/msEe335I4o

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 25, 2022

---

I've been to refugee camps in Uganda and Chad. I've seen what Chinese munitions sold in exchange for Sudanese energy rights does to a toddler. You think I don't know or care about this stuff? Africa's always been ignored by US policy because unfortunately we don't have much self interest in the region. Terrorism only has us halfway interested, and that's mostly Saharan Africa. China does, and they play the soft war game of arms sales and debt facilitation.

But you also have to realize that Africa's wars are mostly internal Civil Wars and not a foreign invasion. If you think Ethiopia is bad, research Congo. We don't usually get involved with Civil Wars unless they threaten allies or potentially us. ISIS was the concern in Syria which we got involved for a little while. But Trump was correct to pull back and out. Libya was a mistake, but mostly facilitated by Europe. The folly of the Arab Spring was the belief these people actually want freedom as Western standards would perceive. They don't. The Afghanistan exit proved that in the shortest order.

Finally, these are policy discussion around geo political reasoning. I'm fine with debating different approaches, including more toward isolationism. But if the argument is "war for profit and corruption", I can't engage that irrationality.

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

---

This bunch isn't even aware that 500k have been killed in the Ethiopian civil war in the past 16 months. The government is using Turkish drones to air strike refugee camps.

There's no financial ties to the US there.

It severely outweighs the crimes against humanity that Russia has committed against Ukraine...yet there is no Ethiopian flags on social media, no calls for intervention and no discussion whatsoever.

Why is that the case? Logic says money $$.

This is how I feel:

After 9/11, neocons cynically and vocally adopted all the right-wing views on social issues to ingratiate themselves into the GOP in order to exploit the party for their warmongering desires. Now they're doing the same with liberal social issues and Dems:https://t.co/msEe335I4o

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 25, 2022

---

I've been to refugee camps in Uganda and Chad. I've seen what Chinese munitions sold in exchange for Sudanese energy rights does to a toddler. You think I don't know or care about this stuff? Africa's always been ignored by US policy because unfortunately we don't have much self interest in the region. Terrorism only has us halfway interested, and that's mostly Saharan Africa. China does, and they play the soft war game of arms sales and debt facilitation.

But you also have to realize that Africa's wars are mostly internal Civil Wars and not a foreign invasion. If you think Ethiopia is bad, research Congo. We don't usually get involved with Civil Wars unless they threaten allies or potentially us. ISIS was the concern in Syria which we got involved for a little while. But Trump was correct to pull back and out. Libya was a mistake, but mostly facilitated by Europe. The folly of the Arab Spring was the belief these people actually want freedom as Western standards would perceive. They don't. The Afghanistan exit proved that in the shortest order.

Finally, these are policy discussion around geo political reasoning. I'm fine with debating different approaches, including more toward isolationism. But if the argument is "war for profit and corruption", I can't engage that irrationality.

---

The US has been late to the game in Africa. The colonial nations had first crack and the US just hasn't found the need. Let's face it from Egypt, Siani & Libya to the north and Apartheid South Africa to the south there has not been an incentive to get involved. Every time we tried we got stung with little or no benefit.

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

---

This bunch isn't even aware that 500k have been killed in the Ethiopian civil war in the past 16 months. The government is using Turkish drones to air strike refugee camps.

There's no financial ties to the US there.

It severely outweighs the crimes against humanity that Russia has committed against Ukraine...yet there is no Ethiopian flags on social media, no calls for intervention and no discussion whatsoever.

Why is that the case? Logic says money $$.

This is how I feel:

After 9/11, neocons cynically and vocally adopted all the right-wing views on social issues to ingratiate themselves into the GOP in order to exploit the party for their warmongering desires. Now they're doing the same with liberal social issues and Dems:https://t.co/msEe335I4o

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 25, 2022

---

I've been to refugee camps in Uganda and Chad. I've seen what Chinese munitions sold in exchange for Sudanese energy rights does to a toddler. You think I don't know or care about this stuff? Africa's always been ignored by US policy because unfortunately we don't have much self interest in the region. Terrorism only has us halfway interested, and that's mostly Saharan Africa. China does, and they play the soft war game of arms sales and debt facilitation.

But you also have to realize that Africa's wars are mostly internal Civil Wars and not a foreign invasion. If you think Ethiopia is bad, research Congo. We don't usually get involved with Civil Wars unless they threaten allies or potentially us. ISIS was the concern in Syria which we got involved for a little while. But Trump was correct to pull back and out. Libya was a mistake, but mostly facilitated by Europe. The folly of the Arab Spring was the belief these people actually want freedom as Western standards would perceive. They don't. The Afghanistan exit proved that in the shortest order.

Finally, these are policy discussion around geo political reasoning. I'm fine with debating different approaches, including more toward isolationism. But if the argument is "war for profit and corruption", I can't engage that irrationality.

---

If it's not for profit, the only answer is stupidity which is far worse. How can that many people get it wrong for so long?

Does the US needs to risk WWIII for Germany or Ukraine?

Biden might send troops to Ukraine. Would that move motivated by stupidity but no way a trillion/s dollar money grab?

ATL Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

---

No one's questioning there would be profit. It is being posited by Doc that profit is the reason for the conflict. That's the tinfoil gullibility of "corruption" I'm addressing.

I'm happy to discuss policy, including a likelihood I'd agree on some failings and misguided pursuits (Iraq War). That's not the conversation.

---

Not a lot of daylight between us. The intent of my post was to note how it's easy to see that profit motive on the US side did not create the situation - Russian nationalism, and Russian invasion did. (there is a profit motive for Russia, but that is not Doc's assertion....) That said, now that the conflict has started, profit motive on the US side will assert itself, and the odds of having some success is "not zero."

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I'm shocked at how naive some of you are.

Watch:

---

I'm shocked at how gullible you are.

---

The dynamic described is real, undeniable.
Reasonable people can disagree on the degree of influence it has on policy.
But the influence is, to borrow a phrase from elsewhere in the thread, "not zero."

The key balancing facts in this situation are: The conflict over whether Ukraine joins classical liberalism (the EU) or retreats with Russia into an autocratically nationalist Orthodox Slavic world is a deeply philosophical disagreement. Ukraine decided to turn west. Russia saw that as direct national security threat and invaded Ukraine. The war has turned into a quagmire of death and destruction.

The military industrial complex (MIC) did not create that situation.
But that situation will attract many billions of US taxpayer dollars worth of policy response.
The MIC will be able to profit from it.
Handsomely.

---

This bunch isn't even aware that 500k have been killed in the Ethiopian civil war in the past 16 months. The government is using Turkish drones to air strike refugee camps.

There's no financial ties to the US there.

It severely outweighs the crimes against humanity that Russia has committed against Ukraine...yet there is no Ethiopian flags on social media, no calls for intervention and no discussion whatsoever.

Why is that the case? Logic says money $$.

This is how I feel:

After 9/11, neocons cynically and vocally adopted all the right-wing views on social issues to ingratiate themselves into the GOP in order to exploit the party for their warmongering desires. Now they're doing the same with liberal social issues and Dems:https://t.co/msEe335I4o

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 25, 2022

---

and the Horn of Africa is not on the same tier of "national security interest" as Ukraine, either. That is not the entirety of the reason for muted press coverage, but neither is it irrelevant.

Greenwald's point about the neo-cons is also not irrelevant. NeoCons are focused on foreign affairs. They're by definition not terribly motivated by domestic policy. They'll form a coalition with those who are willing.

Remember the Reagan Coalition was always described as a three legged stool: Social conservatives + fiscal conservatives + foreign policy conservatives. None of those three adopted the worldview of the others. They just found enough common ground to support each other. Fast forward 4 years, and we find the America First coalition guiding the GOP is structurally hostile to the activist foreign policy aims of the NeoCons, while the woke crowd running the Democrat Party is not.

So it all makes sense.
Times are a-changin.

And within that context, seeking to help the Ukrainians slay the Russian bear is not exactly classical NeoCon democracy building in non-fertile territory, and has benefits on its own, regardless how the rebuild goes.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

It's never zero, and scarcely higher now than before the war started.

If Putin thought starting a war in Ukraine had the remotest chance of triggering thermonuclear war, he would not have invaded Ukraine.

Two things are driving the chatter about looming Armageddon: 1) the radical left, who never wants to risk political capital on any conflict that does not involve domestic culture wars; and 2) moderates and libertarian conservatives who perceive Dems & Republicans as a "uniparty" who seek military engagement for financial and political gain.

Putin miscalculated and is bogged down. We should open the floodgates of military aid and let the Ukrainians maul him, for a number of reason, not the least of which is demonstrating to China that Taiwan is not to be ****ed with.

Mearsheimer et al are right on the geopolitics of Ukraine but wrong on the question of self-determination. Yes, Ukraine is a shatterzone adjacent to Russia but their future is their own and we gain nothing by abandoning them to a slow strangling by the Russian bear. Tyrants most of all must understand that we will not alligator arm an aspiring democracy.

---

Every expert disagrees with your assessment. Russian war doctrine says nukes can/should be used.

---

You are mis-hearing and then mis-interpreting what they're saying. (and some of them are just plain wrong). In a Cold War scenario, where Russian troops were pouring thru the Fulda Gap, the risk of use of nuclear weapons was quite high because Russian doctrine allows field commanders to decide if/when to use tactical nukes in battle. Virtual certainty that tactical nuclear weapons (artillery) would have been employed on European soil. Very likely that such would escalate to theater nukes (short-range ballistic missile) as well. Much political contention in European parliaments about USA deploying Pershing II systems (for reasons mentioned previously). Whether or not that would have invited intercontinental nuclear exchanges between Russia and the USA was much topic for debate, which was never and will never be settled because it is a hypothetical. Don't know your age, but the Cold War was mine and I was an active participant in the silent part of it.

In the current situation, Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces. Further, neither Russian troops or Russian soil would be at risk of a US counter-strike, since US forces are not engaged in Ukraine.

The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic. Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict. NATO all along has clearly signaled it will not commit forces to the conflict, as long as the conflict stays in Ukraine. Putin knew that. He also knew, as I have noted in other threads, that NATO itself would be a formidable barrier for any NATO nation to touch, much less enter the Ukraine crisis, as any unilateral action at all would risk Article 5 protections, which were of most concern to the smaller nations closest to the conflict (Poland, Baltics, et al...). In other words, Putin knew he would get a one-on-one cage match with Kiev. Ergo his choice to go in. He paid no attention whatsoever to all the pre-war drama. He knew his hands were free to act as he wished.

Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Given the nature of the weapons systems...capabilities, cost, threat profile....jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Such is really quite silly.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
He has no chance of defeating them; engagement with them would court either defeat or destruction.
People hyping nuclear war between Nato and Russia are just waiving their skirt.
Not going to happen.

There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA. We must steel our nerves and do exactly what the envelope affords us, and that is to feed military equipment and munitions to Ukraine, openly and unreservedly, to make Russia bleed profusely. The bear has a tiger by the tail and we have nothing to gain by letting the bear smother the tiger. Now is the time to teach Putin lessons about deterrence: 1) that the West will not alligator arm support for democracy, anywhere, at any time; and 2) that we will not hesitate to facilitate the destruction of a Russian Army in a place the Russian Army should not be.

---

Thanks for a thoughtful response.
My trouble with your response is all of the declarative sentences which assume perfect knowledge of Putin's thoughts and calculations. If you are incorrect on any of them we could have a cataclysm. As noted in an earlier post, the chance of cataclysm is never zero.

Below is a partial list of your sure fire observations about a man and a country:
Russian tactical use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine poses no threat to US troops or soil, as US troops are not in battle with Russian forces.
The scenarios where the war in Ukraine invited a wider nuclear war are simply not realistic.
Russia is not going to take ANY action to invite NATO into the conflict.
Putin knew that.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
Provision of sophisticated weapon systems by NATO nations to Ukraine has already been done.
Such did not invite a nuclear response.
jet fighters are not an escalation.
Polish jets to Kiev is not going to cause Russia to launch nukes at ANY Nato nation.
Putin is not a madman. He's quite clear-eyed, and is merely acting within the envelope he (correctly) knows conditions afford him.
Putin knows he is no match for Nato or the USA.
Not going to happen.
There is ZERO chance that Putin would have invaded UKR if he though such would expose his country to a nuclear response from the USA.

---

Summary:
7 of those 10 items are facts in evidence.
The other 3 are obvious conclusions based on those facts.

---

I count 1 fact in evidence, 3 predictions, and 6 opinions, many of which are dubious.

---

Fact 1: Russia has taken no action to invite Nato direct intervention in the conflict. Literally, Nato confirms it verbally every day.
Fact 2: Stingers and Javelins have been provided. They are sophisticated weapon systems. A Javelin & 10 rounds is a 7-digit spend.
Fact 3: Russia has taken no retaliatory action for initial, subsequent, and future (billions of dollars worth just approved) weapons deliveries, despite Javelins and Stingers being primarily responsible for bogging down the Russian offensive.
Fact 4: Putin is not a madman.
Fact 5: Given what we have seen thus far, not one single person on earth could possibly think Russia is a match for Nato.
Fact 6: Putin has never taken an action to invite a nuclear response from USA. In fact, no one on earth since 1946 has done so.
Fact 7: Russian tactical nukes are not currently a threat to US or Nato troops, as neither US nor Nato troops are engaged in Ukraine, nor are they engaged with Russian forces anywhere in the world. Tactical nukes are not intercontinental nukes. They are not intermediate nukes. They are battlefield nukes, artillery, dozens of miles range, not hundreds or thousands of miles range. (Know your weapons before you post, dude...)

Given the above facts, the following are obvious conclusions:
1.) Putin has 100% negative incentives to take actions that would invite Nato involvement in Ukraine. He's got all he can handle, barely, with Ukrainians in Ukraine. Only a madman would take action to invite NATO to wade in. (See Fact 4.) Miscalculation is not evidence of being a madman. Putin merely thought Ukraine would roll over like Chechnya, Transnistra, Georgia, Tajikistan, Crimea, Donetsk, etc..... So did literally everyone else.
2.) Given #1, the perverse incentives the existence of NATO afforded to Putin have been offset; he is so thoroughly engaged with the Ukrainian mess he created that he has literally no options for escalation other than to just launch nukes. (See Fact 4.) He does not have the military resources to open up a second front in the Baltics or Poland, etc.... He can't gain air superiority against Ukraine, so how is he going to bomb Nato bases? He has revealed the profound military weakness of Russia, who is having to purchase Chinese MREs due to outdated Russian stocks. Meaning? Putin can't feed his armies 50 miles from his own borders, fer crissakes. So he has ZERO conventional military options for escalation. It's either hug the cactus he's on, or nuke his way out of trouble. ( Again, before you argue the latter, see Fact 4.) The guy has been planning this for two decades. He's going to regroup and plot for the future, not end the future for Mother Russia.
3.) Given the Used Polish Migs are worth a few million dollars, and are carbon copies of equipment already in Ukrainian inventory. They could not possibly be any more escalatory than the Javelins & Stingers we have already provided. Moreover, see Items 1&2 - Putin is not going to respond to the transfer of Migs by attacking Nato and triggering Article 5. Nor is he going to proceed directly to strategic nuclear exchange. (See fact 4.) He's going to have to just take it, because he can't do anything about it, because he's holding a Ukranian tar baby.

We didn't think we'd be here 30 days ago.
We thought it'd all be over by now, Kiev ruled by a Russian puppet, Russian army starting to head home. But we're not where we thought we'd be. And because of that, we have a wonderful opportunity to cripple Russia for a generation. We cannot pass on this opportunity, for to do so undermines deterrence. We must make him rue the day he launched an unprovoked attack on a functioning democracy. We must make him understand that democracy wishes him no ill, but we will spare no rod when it comes to teaching him that wherever democracies exist they WILL be supplied inexhaustibly with the means to defend themselves.

Failure to spank Putie-Poot hard at this moment would be a strategic mistake that would cause him to question our resolve to defend the Baltics. We must show no mercy until Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine. When your adversary only respects power, show him power.....without so much as an American bootlace crossing the Ukrainian border.

---

I generally agree that we should make Putin pay a price. You are relying heavily on assumptions, however, which increase the chances that we lose control of the situation. I'm sure Putin isn't a madman in the sense that he has a diagnosable psychotic illness. Does that mean he couldn't make a rational calculation that using nukes was appropriate? His position is that he could. That should carry some weight in our own calculations.

Whether sending MiGs is an escalation depends partly on the intent behind it and, equally important, how the other side interprets it. Your comparison with Javelins and Stingers misses this aspect. Based on public statements, Biden's people understand it.

American troops don't necessarily have to be in battle with Russian troops in order for tactical nukes to be a threat. We've run simulations where we establish a small no-fly zone in western Ukraine strictly to protect refugees. Despite our assurances, Putin reads this as a sign that NATO is intervening, and he uses tactical nukes preemptively. This demands a response, and it escalates from there. I understand that this may not be realistic in your opinion. But your opinion is just that. Others disagree.

Perhaps most important, we need to be clear about our reasons for anything and everything we do. Defending democracy everywhere is not a strategic goal. It's a propaganda point, perhaps even an ideal, but it's not something Putin will ever understand as American policy because it never really has been and never will be. We don't want to get carried away and expand our goals based on ideological cheer-leading. There's already evidence of this in your plan, which starts with tacks and banana peels and ends with driving Russia out of Ukraine and pressuring Putin's regime itself -- which by the way is inconsistent with your claim that democracy wishes him no ill. Our policy of regime change in Ukraine was a big part of what created this mess. The worst lesson we could learn here is that Russia calls for more of the same.

whiterock said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecent said:

---

UK and Russia were not incorrect about the character or nature of Adoph Hitler. Knew about the death camps, Knew that he held expansionist nationalist views of a grander Germany and would push as far as the envelope afforded. Knew he would renege/cheat on international agreements. The errors were all in miscalculation. Chamberlain thought ceding on the Sudentland would finally satiate Hitler, that by giving him all the German speaking territories, he'd stop. Stalin thought he was gaining half of Poland for nothing, and that Germany would turn west & get chewed up by the UK/French alliance. (pretty shrewd calculation by Stalin, who was not a madman either).

---

When an adversary does something you do not expect, it does not ipso facto mean your adversary is a madman. It more likely means you were a chump. That you miscalculated. And anyone who was surprised about what Putin did here is a chump. He has talking for 15 years about Nato's westward expansion being unacceptable. He acted already on his warnings in both Georgia and Crimea. And still EU/Nato pressed on.

I mean, seriously. There are so many layers of "not a madman" going on here. Arguably a better case could be made about "what the hell was Europe thinking?" about how they pressed & pressed & pressed a course of action which could hardly be better designed to threaten Russian interests. Not just Nato hegemony over the shatterzone, but Nato membership all the way to the Russian border? Lots & lots & lots of wise people on our side warned about that, but the Open Society idealists just waived it off as racism, patriarcy, etc....

No, launching Russian artillery into Ukrainian cities is not "madman" stuff. It's "Mongol" stuff. He's laying siege to Ukranian cities and applying escalating pressure to force concessions from leadership to submit & pay homage. Very old history is playing out before our eyes. What is happening now in Ukraine has happened hundreds of times before.....the Alans did it. The Huns did it. The Kazars did it. The Golden Horde did it. Prince Nevsky did it. Grigory Potemkin did it. Hitler did it. I left out a bunch of folks who also "did it." And each time it was all about securing tribute (wealth) from an indefensible territory which could then serve as a shatterzone to protect the motherland.

Thanks to (somewhat traditional) Russian military incompetence, the Ukranian war is now a war of attrition. In a war of attrition, the country with larger population/economy usually prevails by just bleeding/starving out the little guy over time with non-stop conflict the little guy cannot sustain, even if the little guy wins most of the battles. (the tactic Grant employed in the Civil War).

So, Mr. President. The Ukraine War is in the oven. What do we want to do about preventing the NEXT war (Baltics, Caucasus, Moldova, etc.....) Are we going to help the Ukranians maul Russia so bad they might even win and even if not it would take russia a decade to recover?

I would counsel that if we do not inflict a Pavlovian lesson here, we will be right back in the same situation in different geography in 2-5 years. If we allow fears of escalation to under-react, we will merely hasten horizontal escalation into new geography.

So think harder, Mr. President. What are you going to do?

---

What if you're the one who is miscalculating?

---

What if Earth gets sucked into a giant black hole?

---

Oso probably thinks Russia would nuke us for that.

---

You used the word "probably" concerning the thoughts of a one of your countrymen who graduated from the same university. You used "probably" because you don't really know, i.e. you don't have perfect knowledge of my mind or thought process.
But when it came to Putin's mind and thought process, you were certain when you could;dn't possibly know..

As I said in another post, I agree with your analysis because it is a good guess, but it is only a guess.

---

Not a guess at all. A sound assessment rooted in relevant history and a thorough knowledge and experience in foreign affairs, to include countless hours bantering back & forth with real live Soviet diplomats about affairs of the day in the Cold War. They were admirably fearless in defending their position, even that day when they shot down KAL-007.

---

That is an informed guess, not perfect knowledge.
Your opinion is more informed than mine, but it is a guess nevertheless

---

You do realize that when you're quibbling over the difference between assessment or guess, you're pretty much out of ammo, don't you?

In the intel community, a disagreement over assessment is worked out by having the minority view get a call out in text, or if significant enough in substance or vote, an inset box.

So what is your assessment? You really believe that we risk nuclear response when....at what point? How far can we push Putin before HE escalates to a level you find unacceptable (and define what that level looks like).

---

Good question.

If he is not crazy, I believe it is as simple as when he has no option.

Ukraine is not that. This is his choice, he can take Crimea and the Russian dominant provinces and be done. If he chooses. Even if NATO rolls into Ukraibe-west.

Until Putin has no option, I dont belive nukes are on the table short of keeping us in check. Actual use would only happen if we went into Russia proper or tried to take him out.

---

And that brings us to an unreported dynamic at play. Why is Putin shelling cities rather than making infantry assaults on them? There is a rational reason. He's trying to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people, to separate them from their "unreasonable" government, unreasonable meaning "unwilling to negotiate to spare the people." And of course there is a fairly large kernel of truth in that - Zelensky is not willing to cede to Russian demands because, at this moment, he has a position of relative advantage. Putin of course realizes that, which is why he's not even willing to come to the table.

---

There's a much more obvious reason for shelling the cities. Sending infantry in the current conditions would be extremely costly in terms of Russian lives and morale.

Both parties do appear to be at the table.