RMF5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

The only one denying an exit is the aggressor country itself. No one else.

---

It's never that simple .

There are many ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine who want the Russian military to remain .

---

There are not.

---

So these ethnic Russians who had been fighting the Ukrainians for years for independence…..don't exist ?

---

oh, they exist. but a lot of them are Spetnatz, too.

In the Donbas conflict, there are Russian troops in civilian clothes. There are Russian expatriates living in Ukraine. There are Russian speaking Ukrainians. There are Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians.

Nothing furthers Russian imperialism more than conflating those first three categories.

---

Like the South China Sea and Taiwan.

---

You bet your ass.... EXACTLY like Taiwan .

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

Canada, you seem to have an opinion that any Government friendly to the US was ill gotten. Yet, you speak of Russia and communist Governments as victims of American aggression.

What do you have against the US? You seem bitter toward the US as you list these "invasions" on par with Ukraine, where Putin has caused billions in damages and actively trying to destroy fresh water and power before winter.

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

Canada, you seem to have an opinion that any Government friendly to the US was ill gotten. Yet, you speak of Russia and communist Governments as victims of American aggression.

What do you have against the US? You seem bitter toward the US as you list these "invasions" on par with Ukraine, where Putin has caused billions in damages and actively trying to destroy fresh water and power before winter.

---

Dude...you just don't like historical facts. They are inconvenient annoyances to your preconceived thought processes .

All of what I have posted is easily obtainable.

A. Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries .
B. The US has actively attempted to alter the status quo.
C. Putin finally got pissed off and put 200,000 troops on the border to make his displeasure abundantly clear.
D. Our dementia stricken president ( or his handlers ) clearly thought Putin was bluffing....miscalculated and sent VP Harris to Europe where she AGAIN voiced her hope that Ukraine would join NATO.
E. Russia invades
F.. Thousands of Ukrainians dead.....MILLIONS more are now refugees in other countries.
G. US is now spending tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine .
H. The US destroyed natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries in international waters . A clear act of war.
I. Worse yet.....Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 US ground troops as an obvious 'trip wire' within striking distance of Russian jets.




Connect the freaking dots.

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

The conclusion is don't jack with us. Russia is getting the message and we haven't put boots on the ground and our C-i-C doesn't even know what day of the week it is.

ATL Bear said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico .

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere .

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years .


Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . .

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam .

If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .


God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

Canada, you seem to have an opinion that any Government friendly to the US was ill gotten. Yet, you speak of Russia and communist Governments as victims of American aggression.

What do you have against the US? You seem bitter toward the US as you list these "invasions" on par with Ukraine, where Putin has caused billions in damages and actively trying to destroy fresh water and power before winter.

---

Dude...you just don't like historical facts. They are inconvenient annoyances to your preconceived thought processes .

All of what I have posted is easily obtainable.

A. Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries .
B. The US has actively attempted to alter the status quo.
C. Putin finally got pissed off and put 200,000 troops on the border to make his displeasure abundantly clear.
D. Our dementia stricken president ( or his handlers ) clearly thought Putin was bluffing....miscalculated and sent VP Harris to Europe where she AGAIN voiced her hope that Ukraine would join NATO.
E. Russia invades
F.. Thousands of Ukrainians dead.....MILLIONS more are now refugees in other countries.
G. US is now spending tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine .
H. The US destroyed natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries in international waters . A clear act of war.
I. Worse yet.....Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 US ground troops as an obvious 'trip wire' within striking distance of Russian jets.




Connect the freaking dots.

---

You just don't seem to find any redeeming value in most of the US foreign policy for the past 70 years. I a not passing a value judgement, just understanding where you are coming from. I have made it very clear where I am coming from and if a bit of a flag waiver, guilty. I probably look too much at the positive. But, both our viewpoints are central to the conversation we have been having and impacts our responses. Mine too much on the US side and your too much against. Not a negative, just helps to know the perspective of who you are talking. We can stop anytime you like. There are many threads on here, I agree with you. This one, three cheers for the red, white and blue...

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

Canada, you seem to have an opinion that any Government friendly to the US was ill gotten. Yet, you speak of Russia and communist Governments as victims of American aggression.

What do you have against the US? You seem bitter toward the US as you list these "invasions" on par with Ukraine, where Putin has caused billions in damages and actively trying to destroy fresh water and power before winter.

---

Dude...you just don't like historical facts. They are inconvenient annoyances to your preconceived thought processes .

All of what I have posted is easily obtainable.

A. Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries .
B. The US has actively attempted to alter the status quo.
C. Putin finally got pissed off and put 200,000 troops on the border to make his displeasure abundantly clear.
D. Our dementia stricken president ( or his handlers ) clearly thought Putin was bluffing....miscalculated and sent VP Harris to Europe where she AGAIN voiced her hope that Ukraine would join NATO.
E. Russia invades
F.. Thousands of Ukrainians dead.....MILLIONS more are now refugees in other countries.
G. US is now spending tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine .
H. The US destroyed natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries in international waters . A clear act of war.
I. Worse yet.....Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 US ground troops as an obvious 'trip wire' within striking distance of Russian jets.




Connect the freaking dots.

---

You just don't seem to find any redeeming value in most of the US foreign policy for the past 70 years. I a not passing a value judgement, just understanding where you are coming from.

This one, three cheers for the red, white and blue...

---

For God's sake who can anyone be this dense ?

Russia invaded when we threatened the regions status quo.

Just like WE have invaded countries in defense of OUR regions status quo .Repeatedly........several times...over and over .



Do I 'support Putin in this insanity '....hell no.

I want the KGB murderer removed.


But its ridiculous to turn a blind eye to the actions and miscalculations of this dementia suffering president .

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

Canada, you seem to have an opinion that any Government friendly to the US was ill gotten. Yet, you speak of Russia and communist Governments as victims of American aggression.

What do you have against the US? You seem bitter toward the US as you list these "invasions" on par with Ukraine, where Putin has caused billions in damages and actively trying to destroy fresh water and power before winter.

---

Dude...you just don't like historical facts. They are inconvenient annoyances to your preconceived thought processes .

All of what I have posted is easily obtainable.

A. Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries .
B. The US has actively attempted to alter the status quo.
C. Putin finally got pissed off and put 200,000 troops on the border to make his displeasure abundantly clear.
D. Our dementia stricken president ( or his handlers ) clearly thought Putin was bluffing....miscalculated and sent VP Harris to Europe where she AGAIN voiced her hope that Ukraine would join NATO.
E. Russia invades
F.. Thousands of Ukrainians dead.....MILLIONS more are now refugees in other countries.
G. US is now spending tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine .
H. The US destroyed natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries in international waters . A clear act of war.
I. Worse yet.....Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 US ground troops as an obvious 'trip wire' within striking distance of Russian jets.




Connect the freaking dots.

---

You just don't seem to find any redeeming value in most of the US foreign policy for the past 70 years. I a not passing a value judgement, just understanding where you are coming from.

This one, three cheers for the red, white and blue...

---

For God's sake who can anyone be this dense ?

Russia invaded when we threatened the regions status quo.

Just like WE have invaded countries in defense of OUR regions status quo .Repeatedly........several times...over and over .



Do I 'support Putin in this insanity '....hell no.

I want the KGB murderer removed.


But its ridiculous to turn a blind eye to the actions and miscalculations of this dementia suffering president .

---

You don't have to keep going... We are at an impasse, I get it. I understand every word you say, I do not agree with you. Simple as that. No hard feelings, it was a conversation.

Dense, probably. Better than bitter...

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

The extremist are in the South, pushing for Russia to annex them. You complain of the CIA and NATO training the Ukrainian military, that was common knowledge. We had National Guard & Active troops working with them for 30 years. Unlike Russia that has had Spetznaz instigating this war. How easy is it to find information about that? The US and NATO have been transparent since Ukraine became a sovereign nation, at least as much as you can expect in that area of defense.

This all goes back to the 90's. Russia and Yeltson agreed to Ukrainian sovereignty. He was there with Clinton when the Budapest Memorandum was signed. As non-binding as it is, it does say the US and Britain will support Ukraine defense. Sending advisors and troops to train the Ukrainians is consistent with that agreement. What did they expect them to do? Give back the Nukes and everyone stay away in perpetuity?

I will grant you the NATO memberships for the Baltics and Poland is problematic. I understand what the Russians said about not moving East. But, if those nations want in and not to simply exist as buffers so Russia and Putin feel comfortable? We are talking 44 million people who need to put their lives in limbo so Russia has a comfort zone???? IF we had a competent and functional UN, that would be a place for them to step in and create a compromise.

---

Yeah , if the Russians were training thousands of their troops in Mexico while pushing for the Mexicans to join the Warsaw Pact ……

The US would be totally fine with it .

Good grief , take a step back and look at this situation without the jingoistic blinders .

This US engineered process in Ukraine was needlessly provocative.

Ukraine is not vital to US security needs . Never has been .

---

If we were there when the agreement was signed? They agreed to the US and Britain supporting Ukraine to protect their sovereignty. Good Grief, you act like this all happened as some clandestine backroom that poor Russia didn't know what was going on. It went on before Putin was in power, this isn't some new situation that now needs Russia's attention.

As for Mexico, the US would not agree to the Russian's backstopping Mexican independence in writing. Russia is there now trying to sell Mexico military equipment. Don't see the US attacking. I don't remember M1's rolling into Nicaragua when Putin supplied Cuba? Ortega? Venezula? Peru? Brazil? I don't see us invading nations that accept China's Roads and Belts money. You are talking out your ass on this one. Russia and China have been very active in the Western Hemisphere. The US has not invaded any of them. I know Bay of Pigs in 1961, that was 60 years ago. Even Noriega was over 30 years ago.

Geez, you act like Russia is a child. They were part of the agreement and signed it. They agreed to it when the wall came down and they wanted their missiles back. They agreed to the US working with the biolabs, because the fear was they were not soundly run. You act like Russia is some type of victim. They are the aggressor here.

---

We invaded Cuba …but that's ok.
We invaded Panama …but that's ok.
We invaded Grenada …but that's ok .
We invaded Nicaragua , Haiti , MEXICO and the Dominican Republic .

But somehow that's different .

Amazing double standard you got there fella .

---

It is very different. We left those countries without engaging in occupation, and those countries remain sovereign and intact.

---

Your comment requires a broad sense of humor.

US occupation of Nicaragua lasted for 20 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US .

US occupation of Haiti lasted for almost 19 years. Resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

US invasion of Panama resulted with Panama Defense Forces being dissolved, their president getting kidnapped and thrown into US federal prison. Where he remained for almost 15 years. The United Nations General Assembly and Organization of American States condemned the invasion as a violation of international law. Net result ....regime change friendly to the US.

Grenada invasion resulted in regime change friendly to the US.

Pershing 'Expedition' into Mexico lasted just under one year. Result....failure to capture Pancho Villa elevated him to everlasting hero status with many Mexicans . Also left decades of Mexican bitterness toward all 'gringos' .

US invaded Columbia ....aiding local rebels in their declaration of independence . Result...the United States acquired the 'Canal Zone' under far better terms than the Columbian government had been willing to offer. The US occupied the Panama Canal Zone for 76 years.

US occupied the Dominican Republic for 8 years. Result...establishment of a puppet government friendly to the US.

The US invaded Cuba in the CIA led Bay of Pigs operation . The plan was approved by Eisenhower and carried out by his successor JFK. Result...total failure with the capture of over 1200 'volunteers'. Many of whom were later executed by Castro . Castro's fear of still another US attempt to invade his island directly led to his request for military aid from the Soviet Union . Such aid included nuclear missiles leading to the Cuban Missile crisis .





There are other instances.

But the conclusions should be plainly obvious to anyone .

---

Canada, you seem to have an opinion that any Government friendly to the US was ill gotten. Yet, you speak of Russia and communist Governments as victims of American aggression.

What do you have against the US? You seem bitter toward the US as you list these "invasions" on par with Ukraine, where Putin has caused billions in damages and actively trying to destroy fresh water and power before winter.

---

Dude...you just don't like historical facts. They are inconvenient annoyances to your preconceived thought processes .

All of what I have posted is easily obtainable.

A. Ukraine has been in the Russian sphere of influence for centuries .
B. The US has actively attempted to alter the status quo.
C. Putin finally got pissed off and put 200,000 troops on the border to make his displeasure abundantly clear.
D. Our dementia stricken president ( or his handlers ) clearly thought Putin was bluffing....miscalculated and sent VP Harris to Europe where she AGAIN voiced her hope that Ukraine would join NATO.
E. Russia invades
F.. Thousands of Ukrainians dead.....MILLIONS more are now refugees in other countries.
G. US is now spending tens of billions of dollars in Ukraine .
H. The US destroyed natural gas pipelines belonging to other countries in international waters . A clear act of war.
I. Worse yet.....Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 US ground troops as an obvious 'trip wire' within striking distance of Russian jets.




Connect the freaking dots.

---

You just don't seem to find any redeeming value in most of the US foreign policy for the past 70 years. I a not passing a value judgement, just understanding where you are coming from.

This one, three cheers for the red, white and blue...

---

For God's sake who can anyone be this dense ?

Russia invaded when we threatened the regions status quo.

Just like WE have invaded countries in defense of OUR regions status quo .Repeatedly........several times...over and over .



Do I 'support Putin in this insanity '....hell no.

I want the KGB murderer removed.


But its ridiculous to turn a blind eye to the actions and miscalculations of this dementia suffering president .

---

You don't have to keep going... We are at an impasse, I get it. I understand every word you say, I do not agree with you. Simple as that. No hard feelings, it was a conversation.

Dense, probably. Better than bitter...

---

Not bitter…frustrated.

Have seen this exact same routine involving Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

And only when all the bodies were buried and the cripples were hidden back with their families ….only then did people finally realize they had been lied to by our government.

Yet here we go again …..same nightmare 4th verse .

God help us all.

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of US involvement in this mess ?

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

For almost all of those 220 years, Ukraine has been under Russian rule in some form or another. Now suddenly it's a crisis.

---

And they've desired not be for pretty much all of it.

---

Exactly...nothing new.

---

So Sam. Does Ukraine's desire to be free of Russia count in this at all? Do they have any say? Or, because you and others believe they have been in the Russian "sphere of influence" for 220 years, their die is cast.

---

Most of Ukraine desires peace and would benefit from our cooperation in a negotiated settlement. They accept our weapons instead because that's all we're willing to give.

---

snd you know this how? We're you in the meetings?

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

escalated which civil war?

---

The Donbas war.

---

Ah. You mean the war for Ukrainian Territorial Integrity.

Now. How, exactly, did they "escalate?" Beyond actually attempting to restore Ukrainian sovereignty.....

---

Violating ceasefires, interfering with pullbacks, threatening Zelensky, attacking civilians, murdering Russian-speaking Ukrainians, disrupting government proceedings, staging violent protests, making it clear that they would never accept a peace deal.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I know it because Zelensky won a landslide on the promise to make a deal with Russia. He was unable because of right-wing extremists who threatened him and escalated the civil war with our support.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So now it's Zelensky's fault that Russia invaded? He forced them to?

---

I'm saying the extremists escalated the war, not Zelensky.

---

escalated which civil war?

---

The Donbas war.

---

Ah. You mean the war for Ukrainian Territorial Integrity.

Now. How, exactly, did they "escalate?" Beyond actually attempting to restore Ukrainian sovereignty.....

---

Violating ceasefires, interfering with pullbacks, threatening Zelensky, attacking civilians, murdering Russian-speaking Ukrainians, disrupting government proceedings, staging violent protests, making it clear that they would never accept a peace deal.

---

Why should they?
Why should Zelensky?
Why should anyone cede a big hunk of their country to a larger and more powerful neighbor?
For that matter, what have we seen from Zelensky in the last 6 months suggests there is any daylight between him and these "extremists" you are conjuring?

Again, like Canada, the implicit premise of your argument is that Russia has rights to Ukraine. Not all of it, of course, just the parts that touch Russia! and everyone else best stay out of it.

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

Sam Lowry is now channeling his inner Brandon.

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Can't believe anyone would dare add Guantanamo , Puerto Rico , and the PHILIPPINES to such a list . Do you even read US history bro ? Investigate the concentration camps the US Army established in the Philippines....the civilian casualties . Good grief.

Even if anyone desired to choke down such a ridiculous list.......how does it change the reality of US actions leading to the invasion of Ukraine ? . How can anyone believe this invasion happened in a geo political vacuum ?

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Can't believe anyone would dare add Guantanamo , Puerto Rico , and the PHILIPPINES to such a list . Do you even read US history bro ? Investigate the concentration camps the US Army established in the Philippines....the civilian casualties . Good grief.

Even if anyone desired to choke down such a ridiculous list.......how does it change the reality of US actions leading to the invasion of Ukraine ? . How can anyone believe this invasion happened in a geo political vacuum ?

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

You are all over the board. Are we now adding individual acts to the conversation? So, only times where the US was involved and nothing bad happened???

We are talking about a policy for a Nation to help a Nation that has been invaded. You say we should not do it because of the cost. I say that there are numerous examples where the US taking part, supporting or even fighting with an ally has produced long term positive relationships and been worthy of doing.

If we want to go down a checklist of atrocities that happened throughout history, I can say whole heartedly, I am against atrocities against people.

You do realize a policy or position can be correct and the execution be horrible, evil or mismanaged. I know you do because you bring Biden's handling of the Afghan situation constantly. Doesn't change that we should get out of Afghanistan...

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a brilliant guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a smart guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

I do agree with the Biden issue. No argument. His team is doing a solid job right now, but you have a point on his mental acuity.

Personally, I think the professionals at the Pentagon learned their lesson in Afghanistan. They seem to have things tightened down on this one. Not gonna let that happen again.

Not our place to negotiate. That is up to Ukraine, we are supporting not fighting

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a smart guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

Personally, I think the professionals at the Pentagon learned their lesson in Afghanistan. They seem to have things tightened down on this one. Not gonna let that happen again.

---

Ok....fair enough....based on exactly what do you have this new found faith in Pentagon professionalism ?

Blowing up natural gas pipelines in international waters ?

Placing 4700 light infantry troops with limited armor and artillery support within striking distance of an
'incident' ?

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a brilliant guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

Congress approves forn aid. Not Biden.
Three letter agencies enact CA, not Biden. He has people under him who approve it based on existing findings.

Biden could send troops in, but no one here advocates that. Stop arguing against something no one here is suggesting

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a brilliant guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

Congress approves forn aid. Not Biden.
Three letter agencies enact CA, not Biden. He has people under him who approve it based on existing findings.

Biden could send troops in, but no one here advocates that. Stop arguing against something no one here is suggesting

---

Consider you one of the best posters on this board ....certainly the most internationally experienced.

You know damn well ( since at least the late 50's ) US presidents have continually pulled Congress into various foreign 'police actions'. And after the fact...funding always followed.

Step by bloody step .

Only this time instead of a JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton , or Bush calling the shots .

We have a full on dementia case running the show.

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a brilliant guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

and again, you ignore that Ukraine has been actively trying to pull itself out of Russian orbit for much longer than that. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that FACT is incomprehensible.

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a brilliant guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

and again, you ignore that Ukraine has been actively trying to pull itself out of Russian orbit for much longer than that. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that FACT is incomprehensible.

---

I absolutely accept the fact that MOST of Ukrainians want to ( justifiably ) pull out of the Russian orbit .

But you keep attempting to frame this mess within very simplistic parameters .

There are thousands of ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine who don't want to be part of this transition. They have been fighting a civil war for years .

And exactly how is this mess in the vital strategic interests of the United States ? Why is it worth tens of billions of dollars to US taxpayers who will inevitably get stuck with the tab ?

Canada2017 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a brilliant guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

and again, you ignore that Ukraine has been actively trying to pull itself out of Russian orbit for much longer than that. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that FACT is incomprehensible.

---

I absolutely accept the fact that MOST of Ukrainians want to ( justifiably ) pull out of the Russian orbit .

But you keep attempting to frame this mess within very simplistic parameters .

There are thousands of ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine who don't want to be part of this transition. They have been fighting a civil war for years .

And exactly how is this mess in the vital strategic interests of the United States ? Why is it worth tens of billions of dollars to US taxpayers who will inevitably get stuck with the tab ?

---

An invasion isn't a civil war. Never has been.

Bear8084 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Golem said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How is this germane to anything today? Are you just mad at the US or is there something of relevance here? Maybe you're pro-Putin or Russia, I don't know. We're giving weapons to a country fighting an invader. They want to fight the invader. All the other BS aside, that's what's happening. We're not even giving them real serious weapons, so we're even showing restraint and deference to escalation. I'm not understanding your angles here.

---

---

Just got to be kidding.

1. Pointed out that Russia is protecting its national security rejecting still another country attempting to allow NATO forces along its border. Just like the US would do if Russia attempt to change the status quo in Mexico. Nato did not attempt to deploy troops to Ukraine. Nato has not yeven admitted Ukraine. Ukraine did not even apply to Nato until less than 30 days ago. Nato is not going to admit Ukraine until Russia is defeated, and terms/timetable will be part of the Ukrainian reconstruction IF/when it's approved, which it may not be. More likely will be the partnership arrangement Sweden and Finland enjoyed.

2. The someone stated the US would never invade Mexico under such circumstances . Well guess what....the historical record clearly shows the US has REPEADEDLY invaded countries here in the western hemisphere.
I said we would not invade Mexico to stop Russian arms/ammo shipments. I said we WOULD invade Mexico should Russia land troops there. And in such a scenario President Whiterock would go further than that. Any Russian naval vessel not in port would be sunk. Any Russian aircraft not on or over Russian soil would be shot down. And a combined arms operation involving 100k+ US troops would invade Mexico to seek/destroy the Russian Army, remnants of which would parade as POWS down the docks of the Port of Houston in front the entire assembled US media to document their safe delivery into the hands of UN transport ships for their return voyage via the Panama Canal to Vladivostok. Let Russia get them home via their decrepit Siberian Railway.

We would have little trouble accomplishing any of that.
(and Putin knows it. a scenario so silly it's hardly worth mentioning...and not remotely analogous to what's happening in Ukraine.)

3. THEN someone stated ...' well gee that doesn't count because we don't OCCUPY the countries we invade ( CHUCKLE as if THAT makes a difference ! ) . Regardless the historical record clearly shows the US does occupy countries for extended period of time .. Panama 76 years, Haiti 19 years, Nicaragua 20 years , Dominican Republic 8 years . It does make a difference.
Russia invaded to annex another country. We invaded to enforce treaties, to protect US business interests at risk to unstable governments, to release US citizens trapped in an unstable political environment, to stop incursions of bandits who were killing US citizens INSIDE the USA, to create and protect critical national security infrastructure, to apprehend a head of state under indictment in US courts, etc... Sure, America-phobes cite all that as pretext for imperialism, but it fails basic inspection, as none of those actions added a square-inch of territory to the USA. So....your whole argument here is a false equivalency. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is completely at odds with both American ethos and policy execution during the periods you cited.

Some guys ( ignorant of past US foreign policy 'interventions' ) want to make this deal 'good vs evil' ...but brother ..its not that simple . ]
I described it as "liberal order versus Napoleonic Era."
I'll stand by that.
Put me down for "liberal order."

Sure, Putin should not have invaded. He miscalculated the leadership abilities of the Ukrainian president and the prolonged economic response of the West . Putin screwed up big time .

But there is NO WAY the Biden administration should have kept pushing NATO membership ( with the not so subtle threat of NATO weapons ) on Ukraine . Especially with 200,000 Russian troops on the Ukrainian border.
Talking about it is not doing it. In fact, talking about it is a great way to suggest that Russian initiatives involving Syria, Iran, China, etc...." are not without a cost.

Seriously. You're analysis presumes that Russia can do anything it wants, but we must bend to myriad constraints that prevent us from putting any pressure on Putin whatsoever.

THAT was Biden's miscalculation ....a historic blunder..

NOW Biden ( or his handlers ) have put 4700 troops of the 101st relatively close to the Ukrainian border. Easily the stupidest move I have witnessed since Vietnam.
Russia brings in 3rd country troops to assist with use of suicide drones in a terror bombing against Ukrainian cities. We redeploy a single brigade within a NATO country in a way that implicitly threatens Kaliningrad. Suicide drone bombings stop.

So Russia escalates indiscriminately.
We clear our throat..
Bombing stops.
Well played, Biden admin.
I mean, seriously.
THAT's how a major power sends a minor power scurrying back to the shadows.

Think about this for a moment......Russia is looking to IRAN for help!


If anyone makes another stupid miscalculation with those boys......and we have a few casualties .

WW3 could be front and center .
Non Sequitur. Moving 4700 troops around in your own geography is not going to provoke an attack from a country already mired in a war they cannot win. It's going to highlight how weak Russia's position really is.

God I hope not......but Biden is half brain dead and Putin doesn't give a *****

Wars have begun involving far less.

---

Pour a scotch. Chill.

---

A Commander in Chief we all agree is suffering from dementia .....an administration we all agree has committed one incredibly stupid / destructive act after another ........is NOW somehow magically competent to lead a proxy war against the world's biggest owner of hydrogen bombs ?

I will pour that vodka ( hate scotch ) if you can provide a rational answer to just TWO questions ...........






Exactly when did Biden mental capacity improve so dramatically as to regain your confidence .?

If Biden hasn't gained your confidence ....exactly WHO do you think is in competent control of tUS involvement in this mess ?

---

I am very hard on Oso and Sam, et al....for deciding not to support the Republican party just because they don't like the captain of the ship (or in Sam's case actually trying to start a mutiny).

Similarly.....

I'm not going to let Russia run amok (to our disadvantage) just because I don't like the captain of our ship.

Our institutions are pretty good. Given a policy direction, they can execute at a very high level. And they are.

I'm only surprised that they have been given direction to act. Democrats have historically avoided spending a penny on foreign adventure in order to spend their last dime waging culture wars at home. Have direct experience in that...... So basically very surprised to see what they've been willing to do in Ukr. not quite as forward leaning as I'd have been, but a passing grade by any measure. I suspect Susan Rice is running the foreign policy wing of this WH. She's a smart cookie. Plenty smart enough to handle this not-terribly-sticky situation in Ukraine. Russia is NOT going to risk drawing Nato in under any circumstances. It would invite multiple layers of lose-lose dynamics. Like burning your house down to stop a robbery.

---

So the same people in charge of the Afghanistan debacle are going to successfully lead a proxy war in Ukraine yet keep the US out of a direct confrontation with Russia ?

That's comforting.

The same administration that is spending trillions of dollars it doesn't possess has your blessing to spend tens of billions of dollars on behalf of Ukraine .

Inflation is double digit , crime is spiraling out of control, millions of illegals are flooding into the US and there is widespread concern that this administration will steal the November midterms .

But these woke individuals are going to lead our country safely to victory in Ukraine . Unlike the thousands of lives and trillions of dollars wasted in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq , and Afghanistan.

Can't possibly agree with your expectations.

Only way this doesn't deteriorate into still another cluster is if Putin is removed.

---

Your fears would have a lot more gravity if we were doing anything more than shipping arms/ammo to Ukraine, and providing limited training assistance. To accept your argument that such limited involvement is an existential threat is to effectively emasculate US power. It is not a case for peace. It is a case for isolationism.

We...neither the US nor Nato....has to put up with what Russia is doing. It would be one thing if they were any good. But they're not. And now everybody knows it. Time to make Putin pay for his mistake. And the longer he keeps at it, the more he will lose.

it's Putin's choice where we go from here.
We will stand our ground.

---

The 'ground ' you want to stand on is not ours . Never has been. The ground you want to spend billions of dollars defending ( while all hell is going on right here in the US ) is not in any way vital to the strategic interests of the United States .

And you insist on ignoring the historical record on how we got involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan….weapons and advisors first .

Remote places far from the United States where we also 'stood our ground '

Until we got tired of burying our people into it .

Yet here we are again playing 'worlds policeman' . A role that rarely works in the long term . It's a sickening repetitive process because we never remember the costs associated with it .

Earlier in this thread you were more honest .
You admitted your pleasure playing this 'brinkmanship' game .

Even knowing full well such games have cost the lives of millions of people . The vast majority of whom had no idea what the hell they were dying for . Didn't know why they were being blown to bits in an air strike , executed along with their children or returned home with missing limbs and suicidal tendencies.

Putin has to be deposed or assassinated . Unlikely to 'win' this war under the terms desired by the Ukrainian president and US war hawks unless this happens.

Till then the risk of escalating the war is very real .

Just as it did in Korea , Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And with a commander in chief obviously suffering from dementia…the risk is even higher .

---

I disagree that it does not work in the long term. There have been failures, no doubt. But, Germany, Japan, Korea, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Hawaii, Guantanamo, Italy, Bahrain, England, and I believe you will see Poland enter into the realm of Nations the US helped be free and still have either become States, US Territories or forward bases. There are more, just not well versed in them.

In the immortal words of the Diceman, they ain't all golden... But the strategy is not the blunder you describe.

---

Now the same idiot who falls asleep during interviews , left billions of dollars worth weapons to the Taliban , can't hold a train of thought for 2 minutes , blew up international pipelines and opens our borders to millions of illegals .........


is suddenly competent to fight a proxy war without expanding it ?


Exactly when did Biden regain his brain function and your confidence in his abilities ?

---

Your whole position on this seems to be, if the US doesn't have a good president, then we, as a nation, should become fortress USA, shut down all foreign policy, stop opposing existential threats, stop supporting allies and hope they leave us alone....pretty pretty please.

How deep is your bunker?

---

How deep is your psychosis ? ( see its easy to insult others.... now lets get back to the facts )

Biden caused this mess by repeating calling for Ukrainian membership into NATO . A membership that would do NOTHING to enhance the national security interests of the United States .

Even when Putin placed 200,000 troops on the Ukrainian border they STILL called for Ukrainian membership into NATO. An incredible miscalculation not equaled in the last 50 years of US strategic blundering .

Putin invades ...shocking right ? Not as if the US hasn't done similar 'interventions' repeatedly in the Western Hemisphere when various leftists gained power in poverty stricken countries.


Now you are a brilliant guy .......experienced world traveler. You know damn well the US has been actively attempting to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit since at least the Obama years. You also know Biden is widely regarded as a tottering joke throughout much of the world . Not a matter of 'good' president or 'bad'.

Instead one needs to take hold of the fact.......Biden is the OLDEST president in US history . One that exhibits horrible dementia on a regular basis . Yet we are playing the most dangerous game of 'brinkmanship ' since the Cuban Missile Crisis with a such a Commander in Chief in ( nominal ) control .


Insanity



Forget the Rambo bull*****....negotiate an end to this evolving nightmare.

---

and again, you ignore that Ukraine has been actively trying to pull itself out of Russian orbit for much longer than that. The fact that you can't even acknowledge that FACT is incomprehensible.

---

I absolutely accept the fact that MOST of Ukrainians want to ( justifiably ) pull out of the Russian orbit .

But you keep attempting to frame this mess within very simplistic parameters .

There are thousands of ethnic Russians living in eastern Ukraine who don't want to be part of this transition. They have been fighting a civil war for years .

And exactly how is this mess in the vital strategic interests of the United States ? Why is it worth tens of billions of dollars to US taxpayers who will inevitably get stuck with the tab ?

---

An invasion isn't a civil war. Never has been.

---

Civil war has been ongoing since 2014.

One can certainly point to illegal Russian participation in the civil war........but to pretend that of thousands ethnic Russians living in Ukraine aren't involved......is ludicrous .

None of this mess is clear cut 'good vs evil'.

And none of this region has been ever been considered vital to US National Security .