Canada2017 said:RMF5630 said:LIB,MR BEARS said:I don't disagree. But they have shown themselves to be much weaker than NATO thought. It's going to cost them a great deal of capital to get to where they thought they were.whiterock said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Even if Russia ultimately wins this war, they have been proven to be no match for NATO weaponry.whiterock said:Canada2017 said:Golem said:There will always be more phases. As long as there are authoritarian leftists, there will always be war.whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:We're gonna spend trillions of dollars on this war.whiterock said:generally speaking, when someone else is willing to send their sons & daughters to fight your enemy to the death, you help their sons & daughters fight & die in order to prevent having to send your own sons & daughters to fight & die, the only caveat being not to be so cavalier about doing it that you get drawn directly into the conflict.Doc Holliday said:How is Greenwalds'stweet literally quoting Jefferey Goldberg's comments to the Atlantic a defense of Russian media?trey3216 said:no joke. Greenwold, Tucker, and several others have actually done interviews with and defended the completely controlled russian media. They aren't even remotely appreciable on this issue.Bear8084 said:
Speaking of Russian propaganda....
We got hoodwinked into the Iraq war for bogus reasons and burned through nearly $8trillion and lost a war because of US intelligence. You have to be a complete fool to just obey all liberal media and the intelligence community.
Why are you guys not skeptical?
And also generally speaking, the mightiest powers on the planet have considerably broader latitude to do that than lesser powers, just because, generally speaking no on wants to provoke the mightiest powers.
We should send arms & ammunition to help defend UKR right down to the last Ukrainian.
If that prevents us from spending trillions on climate initiatives to save the planet, I'm all for it.
The strongest rationale for doing what we are doing in UKR is that it's far, far cheaper and far, far safer for our kids and grandkids, than having to fight Russia directly on NATO soil over the future of NATO territories.
This is just the first phase of WWIII, boys. If we win it now, there won't be anymore phases.
Exactly
Indeed. Which is why when an adversary affords you the opportunity, crush him. Destroy his armies and navies. Force him to withdraw and spend many years and billions to rebuild. Sometimes, those mighty nations never rebuild. Because they are past prime.
See Phillip II, 1588
See Mehmet IV 1683
Russia is, demographically and economically and militarily, way past prime. A loss here, to lowly Ukraine, permanently alters the course of Russian history, in a way that permanent benefits all of Europe. We get to do it on someone else's soil, with someone else's soldiers, and they are eager to do it. All we have to do is supply the arms and training. Enormously beneficial risk-return equation.
Russia is going to lose this war. The quicker we get on with making it happen, the quicker the dying stops.
The longer term threat, should Ukr fall into the Russian orbit, ala Belarus, is not outright invasion. It's political destabilization. With Russia (et al) next door, what happens when a pro-Russian party wins national elections? What happens when that party takes power and starts jonesing about leaving NATO, or just posing opposition to everything Nato tries to do? Look how agitated people get when Hungary advises caution on the current crisis. What will happen when a Poland (or other) starts making Orbsn look like a hawk?
It is error to think we have no stake in Ukr.
We are defending NATO right now.
In Ukraine.
FBI counter-intelligence better beef up, Russia about to go all out Chinese to steal tech... .
DOJ and FBI have far more important priorities established .
Houses of political opponents.
Pillow salesmen.
Pro life advocates who dare protect their 12 year old children .
Dangerous clown world .
Damn Canada, we are either lock step.or 180 opposite, no in between!
Agree 100%
