ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

By what measure is Ukraine 'sovereign', by what measure is it a 'democracy'?
How can one fight for freedom in a country without freedom of speech, religion or ability to vote?
People have been fleeing Ukraine for the last 50 years...a lot of people.

Future domestic resistance is getting annihilated and eventually Ukraine will get surrendered. They're getting Native American'ized. Blackrock and JP Morgan will help Ukraine launch a recovery bank to raise hundreds of billions of reconstruction money and own all their market share: divvying up the spoils of war.

Lets discuss the brutal truth behind this instead of the Hollywood version.

---

I'm not surprised you don't know anything about Ukraine. I'm a little surprised you don't know anything about US history. It started off with people fighting for freedom that had nothing on that list and most of the history continued with people fighting for freedom that weren't eligible to vote.

---

I also love the American war of independence (really war of secession) and revere the founding generation.

We should always listen to their advise:

"She (the United States) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit." -John Quincy Adams

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessionsby unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retainedand by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government."

-Washington's farewell address

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

we are investing none of our blood and mostly only treasure scheduled for the scrap heap, so we are mostly meeting your requirements so that Ukraine may indeed have all the sovereignty it wants.

---

If Ukraine says we are negotiating today and do not need NATO's material help (there are no manpower assistance), it stops. This is not a US initiated action, Russia invaded, Ukraine ASKED for help. It ends today is Russia leaves or Ukraine gives up.

---

Russia sees this as a US action whether you do or not. That means they're unlikely to take a deal that doesn't bind America as well. Ukraine basically has no choice but to fight until we call it off or their army collapses.

---

Putin will use that until he can't. The NATO pulling its support just gives Putin what he wants and he will take it all. Putin has no moral compass. If we are stupid enough to play a common sense win/win game with Putin, he will take everything he can. Only way to deal with Putin is keep him on his back foot, which is physically. It is all he understands.

---

If we're stupid enough not to play a common sense win/win game, Putin will take everything he can. And clearly we are that stupid.

---

You have to read the room. Putin is not operating from the same moral compass, set of values or necessary expectations as the West.

---

That may be true, though certainly not in the way that you mean. Putin spent years looking for a peaceful solution. The West wasn't interested. It's difficult to see any kind of moral values behind what we're doing at all.

---

Come on, peaceful is giving him Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine never join the EU or NATO and relitigate the end of the Cold War. Do that and he will be happy and stop raining missiles.

---

Re-litigate the end of the Cold War is exactly what the West is trying to do. Ukraine already agreed to neutral status when it left the Soviet Union.

---

LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.

That is Recto-Cranial inversion at its finest.

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

By what measure is Ukraine 'sovereign', by what measure is it a 'democracy'?
How can one fight for freedom in a country without freedom of speech, religion or ability to vote?
People have been fleeing Ukraine for the last 50 years...a lot of people.

Future domestic resistance is getting annihilated and eventually Ukraine will get surrendered. They're getting Native American'ized. Blackrock and JP Morgan will help Ukraine launch a recovery bank to raise hundreds of billions of reconstruction money and own all their market share: divvying up the spoils of war.

Let's discuss the brutal truth behind this instead of the Hollywood version.

---

I'm not surprised you don't know anything about Ukraine. I'm a little surprised you don't know anything about US history. It started off with people fighting for freedom that had nothing on that list and most of the history continued with people fighting for freedom that weren't eligible to vote.

---

Not true.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

we are investing none of our blood and mostly only treasure scheduled for the scrap heap, so we are mostly meeting your requirements so that Ukraine may indeed have all the sovereignty it wants.

---

If Ukraine says we are negotiating today and do not need NATO's material help (there are no manpower assistance), it stops. This is not a US initiated action, Russia invaded, Ukraine ASKED for help. It ends today is Russia leaves or Ukraine gives up.

---

Russia sees this as a US action whether you do or not. That means they're unlikely to take a deal that doesn't bind America as well. Ukraine basically has no choice but to fight until we call it off or their army collapses.

---

Putin will use that until he can't. The NATO pulling its support just gives Putin what he wants and he will take it all. Putin has no moral compass. If we are stupid enough to play a common sense win/win game with Putin, he will take everything he can. Only way to deal with Putin is keep him on his back foot, which is physically. It is all he understands.

---

If we're stupid enough not to play a common sense win/win game, Putin will take everything he can. And clearly we are that stupid.

---

You have to read the room. Putin is not operating from the same moral compass, set of values or necessary expectations as the West.

---

That may be true, though certainly not in the way that you mean. Putin spent years looking for a peaceful solution. The West wasn't interested. It's difficult to see any kind of moral values behind what we're doing at all.

---

Come on, peaceful is giving him Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine never join the EU or NATO and relitigate the end of the Cold War. Do that and he will be happy and stop raining missiles.

---

Re-litigate the end of the Cold War is exactly what the West is trying to do. Ukraine already agreed to neutral status when it left the Soviet Union.

---

LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.

That is Recto-Cranial inversion at its finest.

---

No one is trying to reconstitute the USSR. That's propaganda of the crudest kind, fit for consumption by TV audiences who couldn't find Russia on a map, much less Ukraine.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

we are investing none of our blood and mostly only treasure scheduled for the scrap heap, so we are mostly meeting your requirements so that Ukraine may indeed have all the sovereignty it wants.

---

If Ukraine says we are negotiating today and do not need NATO's material help (there are no manpower assistance), it stops. This is not a US initiated action, Russia invaded, Ukraine ASKED for help. It ends today is Russia leaves or Ukraine gives up.

---

Russia sees this as a US action whether you do or not. That means they're unlikely to take a deal that doesn't bind America as well. Ukraine basically has no choice but to fight until we call it off or their army collapses.

---

Putin will use that until he can't. The NATO pulling its support just gives Putin what he wants and he will take it all. Putin has no moral compass. If we are stupid enough to play a common sense win/win game with Putin, he will take everything he can. Only way to deal with Putin is keep him on his back foot, which is physically. It is all he understands.

---

If we're stupid enough not to play a common sense win/win game, Putin will take everything he can. And clearly we are that stupid.

---

You have to read the room. Putin is not operating from the same moral compass, set of values or necessary expectations as the West.

---

That may be true, though certainly not in the way that you mean. Putin spent years looking for a peaceful solution. The West wasn't interested. It's difficult to see any kind of moral values behind what we're doing at all.

---

Come on, peaceful is giving him Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine never join the EU or NATO and relitigate the end of the Cold War. Do that and he will be happy and stop raining missiles.

---

Re-litigate the end of the Cold War is exactly what the West is trying to do. Ukraine already agreed to neutral status when it left the Soviet Union.

---

over 30 years ago! They are condemned to the ****ty Russian economy forever?

NATO never agreed to not expand. There is less evidence for your claim than for the Budapect Memorandum, which does exist but you argued was non-binding. There is no agreement saying that NATO will not expand.

You are mistaking the discussion of the reunification of Germany for NATO as a whole. Baker said Germany wouldn't expand one inch east if Germany was in NATO and the US could ensure it didn't happen. That was the Russian fear of an independent Germany, like in WW1 and WW2.

---

I'm not the one arguing that the Budapest Memorandum is non-binding. That's the position of the US government. It was Russia and Ukraine who agreed to Ukraine's neutrality as a term of withdrawal from the Soviet Union.

---

The two are intertwined. Ukraine gave up the Nukes because NATO said it would protect Ukraine from this exact scenario. So, if the Budapest Memorandum is not binding for defense, neutrality is null and void when Russia invaded. Russia nullified any agreements when it took Crimea and Obama let them.

---

The Russians would argue that Ukraine violated neutrality long before that, by seeking membership in NATO. But all of this is academic. It's clear now that Russia won't tolerate Ukraine's joining. Even Western leaders are beginning to understand this, which is why they punted at the 2023 summit.

---

No, they can't let Ukraine in NATO until war is over. NATO is not going to war with Russia, no matter what some on here say. Once it is over, I will bet Ukraine is in NATO. I think it will be without Donbas and Crimea.

---

But why without Donbas and Crimea?

Have we not been endlessly told by Western corporate media that the great Ukrainian spring offensive along with billions in American arms would drive the Ruskie-Nazi scum out of the country by harvest time?

Have they been lying to us?

I mean they told us the Afghan army would last longer than 6 weeks but surely they are not lying about this…

---

Simple, Russia has that territory and it will be difficult to dislodge a larger foe.

I have a tendency to look for win/wins or middle ground and that is the most logical to me. Russia gets the territory they want and Ukraine gets the security and economic path it wants.

But, that is just me. I am also a moderate politically that believes the best solutions give something to both sides. Most of this Board would rather burn it down than give anything because they are so caught up in being right. They believe compromise is weakness and leads to mediocrity. Although I do find it interesting Reagan the King Conservative compromised constantly.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

Because you're not trying to make sense of it. The war in Ukraine would already be over if we hadn't supported Ukraine, by virtue of logistics. Russia will, at some point in time, attempt to do to Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria exactly what it has done to Ukraine if we do not stop them in Ukraine. One by one, Russia will create instability in each one of those countries, then a conflict thru which they will stumble and fumble its way to victory, turning what should be lighting campaigns of days into highly destructive wars of months & years by simple weight of numbers, outlasting each one of them. Butterbean sucked as a boxer but he'd beat your girlfriend up real bad if you let him.

Or we can just stop them now. Which we have. (You're welcome.) We can use the bed RUSSIA made for itself in Ukraine to grind up all those thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, to actually fire those millions of rounds of ammunition, and make Russia take another 50 years to rebuild what it has lost. And we are close to doing that. Again, you're welcome.

Russia is a thoroughly corrupt country which is, as it has been for most of its history, badly lagging Western Europe in almost every socio-economic yardstick that matters. Even worse, they know that, yet choose to fight rather than embrace reforms that would make them far mightier, and seek to drag neighboring states back into their orbit to create a buffer of backwardness to keep enlightenment at bay. From behind that buffer they will seek to destabilize every single element of US foreign policy. They've done it consistently for the last hundred years, and are manifestly intent on doing for another century. The only question is, will we them? It is not in our interest to let them do so.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why would Florida even want independence? The young men had to fight in wars for centuries while not even being allowed to vote. Sounds like they had it coming and Russia would be doing them a favor.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

we are investing none of our blood and mostly only treasure scheduled for the scrap heap, so we are mostly meeting your requirements so that Ukraine may indeed have all the sovereignty it wants.

---

If Ukraine says we are negotiating today and do not need NATO's material help (there are no manpower assistance), it stops. This is not a US initiated action, Russia invaded, Ukraine ASKED for help. It ends today is Russia leaves or Ukraine gives up.

---

Russia sees this as a US action whether you do or not. That means they're unlikely to take a deal that doesn't bind America as well. Ukraine basically has no choice but to fight until we call it off or their army collapses.

---

Putin will use that until he can't. The NATO pulling its support just gives Putin what he wants and he will take it all. Putin has no moral compass. If we are stupid enough to play a common sense win/win game with Putin, he will take everything he can. Only way to deal with Putin is keep him on his back foot, which is physically. It is all he understands.

---

If we're stupid enough not to play a common sense win/win game, Putin will take everything he can. And clearly we are that stupid.

---

You have to read the room. Putin is not operating from the same moral compass, set of values or necessary expectations as the West.

---

That may be true, though certainly not in the way that you mean. Putin spent years looking for a peaceful solution. The West wasn't interested. It's difficult to see any kind of moral values behind what we're doing at all.

---

Come on, peaceful is giving him Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine never join the EU or NATO and relitigate the end of the Cold War. Do that and he will be happy and stop raining missiles.

---

Re-litigate the end of the Cold War is exactly what the West is trying to do. Ukraine already agreed to neutral status when it left the Soviet Union.

---

LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.

That is Recto-Cranial inversion at its finest.

---

Such a BS propaganda stance....

You have no proof that Russia is trying (or even can) reconstitute the USSR.

Russia is an economically backward state that is in demographic decline and it can't even militarily win a fight against its much smaller neighbor.

Yet its going to somehow invade 15 other countries and recreate the Soviet Union? Please

You need that to be true so that war against Russia seems logical and down right prudent.

Its a lie.

What Russia is obviously doing is trying to keep itself surround by friendly States. Especially those it sees as having long historic-cultural ties to (Belarus, Ukraine) or that are vital to its national interest (Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan)


The USA would never allow hostile military alliances to surround it. We would act the same in reference to Canada or Mexico.

NATO has been creeping up to the borders of Russia for the past 25 years.....not Russian forces creeping into Central Europe.

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

Russia will, at some point in time, attempt to do to Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria exactly what it has done to Ukraine if we do not stop them in Ukraine.

---

If those countries are so important to US/Western hegemony then put them in NATO.

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

Russia will, at some point in time, attempt to do to Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria exactly what it has done to Ukraine if we do not stop them in Ukraine.

---

If those countries are so important to US/Western hegemony then put them in NATO.

---

Well NATO is already in the Baltic States, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.

And Finland joined this summer.

Obviously Russia is not going to actual attack those states....and it would mean the end of the Russian Federation if they ever did.

Whiterock is just rooting for it to happen.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.

Pacific US Territories - Guam, Wake and Somoa. Some already say that they should not be under US control and be independent. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for those territories?

Hawaii - There are those that believe the US took it illegally and want the Hawaiian Kingdom reinstated today. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for a State many feel we illegally took?

Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands - Got them in the Spanish American War, another War that has been brought up by those on this Board as illegal.

Besides some saying that we would be better off like Canada and not having fought the Revolution. That the Southern States should have been allowed to leave and Lincoln was a criminal. So, take Ukraine out of it.

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose. There has been MORE than enough said on this Board about the US Foreign Policy to beg the question...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.

Pacific US Territories - Guam, Wake and Somoa. Some already say that they should not be under US control and be independent. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for those territories?

Hawaii - There are those that believe the US took it illegally and want the Hawaiian Kingdom reinstated today. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for a State many feel we illegally took?

Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands - Got them in the Spanish American War, another War that has been brought up by those on this Board as illegal.

Besides some saying that we would be better off like Canada and not having fought the Revolution. That the Southern States should have been allowed to leave and Lincoln was a criminal. So, take Ukraine out of it.

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose. There has been MORE than enough said on this Board about the US Foreign Policy to beg the question...

---

Well Hawaii was taken illegally....but its now a U.S. State and there is no danger in anyone taking Hawaii away from the USA.

[In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day.]

Of course if the people of Hawaii might want their independence... well I have personally views on that...but I though you guys were part of the "secession is illegal" camp? We all know very well that D.C. would burn Honolulu to the ground (just like Atlanta) before it let Hawaii become independent.

So Hawaii can not get out of the American Union even if its wants to do so.

More importantly all this talk is fanciful at best...insane at worst.

NO ONE is trying to take American territories in the Pacific or invade the EU.

We are not going to find Chinese fleets invading American Guam or find Russian tanks rolling into Poland.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.

Pacific US Territories - Guam, Wake and Somoa. Some already say that they should not be under US control and be independent. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for those territories?

Hawaii - There are those that believe the US took it illegally and want the Hawaiian Kingdom reinstated today. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for a State many feel we illegally took?

Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands - Got them in the Spanish American War, another War that has been brought up by those on this Board as illegal.

Besides some saying that we would be better off like Canada and not having fought the Revolution. That the Southern States should have been allowed to leave and Lincoln was a criminal. So, take Ukraine out of it.

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose. There has been MORE than enough said on this Board about the US Foreign Policy to beg the question...

---

Well Hawaii was taken illegally....but its now a U.S. State and there is no danger in anyone taking Hawaii away from the USA.

[In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day.]

Of course if the people of Hawaii might want their independence... well I have personally views on that...but I though you guys were part of the "secession is illegal" camp? We all know very well that D.C. would burn Honolulu to the ground (just like Atlanta) before it let Hawaii become independent.

So Hawaii can not get out of the American Union even if its wants to do so.

More importantly all this talk is fanciful at best...insane at worst.

NO ONE is trying to take American territories in the Pacific or invade the EU.

We are not going to find Chinese fleets invading American Guam or find Russian tanks rolling into Poland.

---

Not Russian Tanks, Wagnar...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.

Pacific US Territories - Guam, Wake and Somoa. Some already say that they should not be under US control and be independent. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for those territories?

Hawaii - There are those that believe the US took it illegally and want the Hawaiian Kingdom reinstated today. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for a State many feel we illegally took?

Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands - Got them in the Spanish American War, another War that has been brought up by those on this Board as illegal.

Besides some saying that we would be better off like Canada and not having fought the Revolution. That the Southern States should have been allowed to leave and Lincoln was a criminal. So, take Ukraine out of it.

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose. There has been MORE than enough said on this Board about the US Foreign Policy to beg the question...

---

Well Hawaii was taken illegally....but its now a U.S. State and there is no danger in anyone taking Hawaii away from the USA.

[In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day.]

Of course if the people of Hawaii might want their independence... well I have personally views on that...but I though you guys were part of the "secession is illegal" camp? We all know very well that D.C. would burn Honolulu to the ground (just like Atlanta) before it let Hawaii become independent.

So Hawaii can not get out of the American Union even if its wants to do so.

More importantly all this talk is fanciful at best...insane at worst.

NO ONE is trying to take American territories in the Pacific or invade the EU.

We are not going to find Chinese fleets invading American Guam or find Russian tanks rolling into Poland.

---

Not Russian Tanks, Wagnar...

---

China, Russia, and Iran can fund as many private military companies/paramilitary groups as they want.

None have any chance of stealing territory from the USA or EU

We need a modern update of the John Adam's miniseries dialogue around the supposed "French threat" to the USA but for our times.

[Alexander Hamilton: Let us not forget there are those in our own country, sir, who would prefer secession to our continued Union. If they should be so bold as to act on their threats, in the event, say, of a French victory, we must be prepared to bring the renegades back into the fold by force if necessary.
John Adams: Never in my life have I heard a man speak more like a fool. Your actions, Mr. Hamilton, would precipitate the very thing that you pretend to protect against; the dissolution of this nation. May I inform you as well, sir, that I am in possession of intelligence that confirms that we are as likely to see a French army on these shores as we are on the surface of the moon! You dream of empire, Mr. Hamilton!
Alexander Hamilton: You question my loyalty, sir?
John Adams: Oh, no, Mr. Hamilton, I question your sanity. Now either you are stark raving mad, or I am! Good day, sir!]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.

Pacific US Territories - Guam, Wake and Somoa. Some already say that they should not be under US control and be independent. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for those territories?

Hawaii - There are those that believe the US took it illegally and want the Hawaiian Kingdom reinstated today. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for a State many feel we illegally took?

Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands - Got them in the Spanish American War, another War that has been brought up by those on this Board as illegal.

Besides some saying that we would be better off like Canada and not having fought the Revolution. That the Southern States should have been allowed to leave and Lincoln was a criminal. So, take Ukraine out of it.

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose. There has been MORE than enough said on this Board about the US Foreign Policy to beg the question...

---

Well Hawaii was taken illegally....but its now a U.S. State and there is no danger in anyone taking Hawaii away from the USA.

[In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day.]

Of course if the people of Hawaii might want their independence... well I have personally views on that...but I though you guys were part of the "secession is illegal" camp? We all know very well that D.C. would burn Honolulu to the ground (just like Atlanta) before it let Hawaii become independent.

So Hawaii can not get out of the American Union even if its wants to do so.

More importantly all this talk is fanciful at best...insane at worst.

NO ONE is trying to take American territories in the Pacific or invade the EU.

We are not going to find Chinese fleets invading American Guam or find Russian tanks rolling into Poland.

---

Not Russian Tanks, Wagnar...

---

China, Russia, and Iran can fund as many private military companies/paramilitary groups as they want.

None have any chance of stealing territory from the USA or EU

We need a modern update of the John Adam's miniseries dialogue around the supposed "French threat" to the USA but for our times.

[Alexander Hamilton: Let us not forget there are those in our own country, sir, who would prefer secession to our continued Union. If they should be so bold as to act on their threats, in the event, say, of a French victory, we must be prepared to bring the renegades back into the fold by force if necessary.
John Adams: Never in my life have I heard a man speak more like a fool. Your actions, Mr. Hamilton, would precipitate the very thing that you pretend to protect against; the dissolution of this nation. May I inform you as well, sir, that I am in possession of intelligence that confirms that we are as likely to see a French army on these shores as we are on the surface of the moon! You dream of empire, Mr. Hamilton!
Alexander Hamilton: You question my loyalty, sir?
John Adams: Oh, no, Mr. Hamilton, I question your sanity. Now either you are stark raving mad, or I am! Good day, sir!]

---

Didn't he also send the Marines to Tripoli?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Totally and complete westernization of the Ukrainian state

Ukrainian President Zelensky signed a law that will move the country’s Christmas Day holiday from early January to Dec. 25 — another way to “abandon the Russian heritage” and put distance between the two countries currently embroiled in war. https://t.co/QCPVMLKgkC

— The Hill (@thehill) July 30, 2023

---

Ukraine does not want to be in the Russian sphere of influence. You and others here seem to totally disregard what the Ukraine state wants and where it wants to align in favor of Russia.

Ukraine clearly wants to align with the west and the EU. Why are people supporting forcing them to stay in Russian control? This is not Georgia or Chechnya, Ukraine is a sovereign nation.

---

Ukraine can have all the sovereignty it wants.

Some of us just don't want to invest US blood and treasure in that fight.

And Chechnya tried self determination, too. Just a little too Islamy to draw Western support.

---

we are investing none of our blood and mostly only treasure scheduled for the scrap heap, so we are mostly meeting your requirements so that Ukraine may indeed have all the sovereignty it wants.

---

If Ukraine says we are negotiating today and do not need NATO's material help (there are no manpower assistance), it stops. This is not a US initiated action, Russia invaded, Ukraine ASKED for help. It ends today is Russia leaves or Ukraine gives up.

---

Russia sees this as a US action whether you do or not. That means they're unlikely to take a deal that doesn't bind America as well. Ukraine basically has no choice but to fight until we call it off or their army collapses.

---

Putin will use that until he can't. The NATO pulling its support just gives Putin what he wants and he will take it all. Putin has no moral compass. If we are stupid enough to play a common sense win/win game with Putin, he will take everything he can. Only way to deal with Putin is keep him on his back foot, which is physically. It is all he understands.

---

If we're stupid enough not to play a common sense win/win game, Putin will take everything he can. And clearly we are that stupid.

---

You have to read the room. Putin is not operating from the same moral compass, set of values or necessary expectations as the West.

---

That may be true, though certainly not in the way that you mean. Putin spent years looking for a peaceful solution. The West wasn't interested. It's difficult to see any kind of moral values behind what we're doing at all.

---

Come on, peaceful is giving him Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine never join the EU or NATO and relitigate the end of the Cold War. Do that and he will be happy and stop raining missiles.

---

Re-litigate the end of the Cold War is exactly what the West is trying to do. Ukraine already agreed to neutral status when it left the Soviet Union.

---

LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.

That is Recto-Cranial inversion at its finest.

---

Such a BS propaganda stance....

You have no proof that Russia is trying (or even can) reconstitute the USSR.

Russia is an economically backward state that is in demographic decline and it can't even militarily win a fight against its much smaller neighbor.

Yet its going to somehow invade 15 other countries and recreate the Soviet Union? Please

You need that to be true so that war against Russia seems logical and down right prudent.

Its a lie.

What Russia is obviously doing is trying to keep itself surround by friendly States. Especially those it sees as having long historic-cultural ties to (Belarus, Ukraine) or that are vital to its national interest (Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan)


The USA would never allow hostile military alliances to surround it. We would act the same in reference to Canada or Mexico.

NATO has been creeping up to the borders of Russia for the past 25 years.....not Russian forces creeping into Central Europe.

---

Note that in WR's analysis, Russia having a buffer around itself is a threat to the US and its allies. Yet in the same analysis, Russia being directly on Western borders is also a threat to the US and its allies. The only logical conclusion is that Russia has no right to exist.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.

Pacific US Territories - Guam, Wake and Somoa. Some already say that they should not be under US control and be independent. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for those territories?

Hawaii - There are those that believe the US took it illegally and want the Hawaiian Kingdom reinstated today. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for a State many feel we illegally took?

Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands - Got them in the Spanish American War, another War that has been brought up by those on this Board as illegal.

Besides some saying that we would be better off like Canada and not having fought the Revolution. That the Southern States should have been allowed to leave and Lincoln was a criminal. So, take Ukraine out of it.

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose. There has been MORE than enough said on this Board about the US Foreign Policy to beg the question...

---

Well Hawaii was taken illegally....but its now a U.S. State and there is no danger in anyone taking Hawaii away from the USA.

[In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day.]

Of course if the people of Hawaii might want their independence... well I have personally views on that...but I though you guys were part of the "secession is illegal" camp? We all know very well that D.C. would burn Honolulu to the ground (just like Atlanta) before it let Hawaii become independent.

So Hawaii can not get out of the American Union even if its wants to do so.

More importantly all this talk is fanciful at best...insane at worst.

NO ONE is trying to take American territories in the Pacific or invade the EU.

We are not going to find Chinese fleets invading American Guam or find Russian tanks rolling into Poland.

---

Not Russian Tanks, Wagnar...

---

China, Russia, and Iran can fund as many private military companies/paramilitary groups as they want.

None have any chance of stealing territory from the USA or EU

We need a modern update of the John Adam's miniseries dialogue around the supposed "French threat" to the USA but for our times.

[Alexander Hamilton: Let us not forget there are those in our own country, sir, who would prefer secession to our continued Union. If they should be so bold as to act on their threats, in the event, say, of a French victory, we must be prepared to bring the renegades back into the fold by force if necessary.
John Adams: Never in my life have I heard a man speak more like a fool. Your actions, Mr. Hamilton, would precipitate the very thing that you pretend to protect against; the dissolution of this nation. May I inform you as well, sir, that I am in possession of intelligence that confirms that we are as likely to see a French army on these shores as we are on the surface of the moon! You dream of empire, Mr. Hamilton!
Alexander Hamilton: You question my loyalty, sir?
John Adams: Oh, no, Mr. Hamilton, I question your sanity. Now either you are stark raving mad, or I am! Good day, sir!]

---

Didn't he also send the Marines to Tripoli?

---

That was Jefferson.

And of course after Muslim Barbary pirates from North Africa had been attacking American ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

I believe this poll. 30% of Americans are fucking stupid pic.twitter.com/VrQ6hscJCL

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) August 3, 2023

Isn't the answer consistently because the Biden Crime Family got millions?

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.

Pacific US Territories - Guam, Wake and Somoa. Some already say that they should not be under US control and be independent. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for those territories?

Hawaii - There are those that believe the US took it illegally and want the Hawaiian Kingdom reinstated today. Is risking Russia or Chinese nukes worth it for a State many feel we illegally took?

Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands - Got them in the Spanish American War, another War that has been brought up by those on this Board as illegal.

Besides some saying that we would be better off like Canada and not having fought the Revolution. That the Southern States should have been allowed to leave and Lincoln was a criminal. So, take Ukraine out of it.

At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose. There has been MORE than enough said on this Board about the US Foreign Policy to beg the question...

---

Well Hawaii was taken illegally....but its now a U.S. State and there is no danger in anyone taking Hawaii away from the USA.

[In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day.]

Of course if the people of Hawaii might want their independence... well I have personally views on that...but I though you guys were part of the "secession is illegal" camp? We all know very well that D.C. would burn Honolulu to the ground (just like Atlanta) before it let Hawaii become independent.

So Hawaii can not get out of the American Union even if its wants to do so.

More importantly all this talk is fanciful at best...insane at worst.

NO ONE is trying to take American territories in the Pacific or invade the EU.

We are not going to find Chinese fleets invading American Guam or find Russian tanks rolling into Poland.

---

Not Russian Tanks, Wagnar...

---

China, Russia, and Iran can fund as many private military companies/paramilitary groups as they want.

None have any chance of stealing territory from the USA or EU

We need a modern update of the John Adam's miniseries dialogue around the supposed "French threat" to the USA but for our times.

[Alexander Hamilton: Let us not forget there are those in our own country, sir, who would prefer secession to our continued Union. If they should be so bold as to act on their threats, in the event, say, of a French victory, we must be prepared to bring the renegades back into the fold by force if necessary.
John Adams: Never in my life have I heard a man speak more like a fool. Your actions, Mr. Hamilton, would precipitate the very thing that you pretend to protect against; the dissolution of this nation. May I inform you as well, sir, that I am in possession of intelligence that confirms that we are as likely to see a French army on these shores as we are on the surface of the moon! You dream of empire, Mr. Hamilton!
Alexander Hamilton: You question my loyalty, sir?
John Adams: Oh, no, Mr. Hamilton, I question your sanity. Now either you are stark raving mad, or I am! Good day, sir!]

---

Didn't he also send the Marines to Tripoli?

---

That was Jefferson.

And of course after Muslim Barbary pirates from North Africa had been attacking American ships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars

---

You are correct, Adams paid them not to attack our ships.

Because some would prefer secession doesn't make it legal. They disregarded the Articles of Confederation which would have given them that right for a strong Federal Govt. Mainly because the set up you prefer cannot work for a one nation setup, it would result in Europe 2.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Strawman argument. nobody in this or any other thread has made a single statement that Ukraine is a part of our Union or Nato.

We're just ridiculing the lengths to which others will go to appease Russian imperialism.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

Russia will, at some point in time, attempt to do to Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria exactly what it has done to Ukraine if we do not stop them in Ukraine.

---

If those countries are so important to US/Western hegemony then put them in NATO.

---

Well NATO is already in the Baltic States, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.

And Finland joined this summer.

Obviously Russia is not going to actual attack those states....and it would mean the end of the Russian Federation if they ever did.

Whiterock is just rooting for it to happen.

---

another straw man. Each time I have mentioned this scenario, I have talked about destabilization. LIttle Green Men. Political intrigues. Coups. All designed to destabilize a regime, if not the entire society, for the purposes of prying it away from the Western orbit and back under Russian control. That is how it started in Ukraine. That is how it will start everywhere. Even after the eventual Russian defeat in Ukraine. We cannot prevent Russia from having historic ambitions which far outstrip their abilities. But we can ensure they do not have the resources to make quick work of defeating any miscalculations they may have, buy leaving Ukraine littered with the rusty hulks fifty thousand or so armored vehciles and artillery pieces pockmarked with thousands of holes and spalling craters..

The Putin regime, and any non-democratic regime which follows it, will never give up trying to regain hegemony and/or outright annexation of those states. They stated it. They've acted on it. And it is all consistent with Russian nationalist worldview. And throughout their history they've engaged in counter-productive policies, to include wars they had no business starting. But when a knucklehead starts a war, you have to go beat that knucklehead into submission. That is nasty and expensive business. So when you find yourself actually in that business.....finish the job. Because if you don't, they'll be back again sooner than you'd like and you'll have to pound them flat again in another nasty, expensive war.

Peace in Ukraine today guarantees more instability and war within a decade.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Just because we do not have a legal or even moral responsibility doesn't make supporting Ukraine advantageous for the US and NATO. Actually, the fact that we are helping a Nation that was invaded without a legal or moral responsibility to do so says even more about the positive nature of NATO and the US. Actually proud of the US and NATO stepping up even if not popular with some.

By the way, according to you and several others on this site, the ONLY time the US or NATO should help a Nation struggling toward democracy or even existence is if we have a binding legal agreement in place prior to the ask and ONLY if it doesn't piss off Putin or Xi. That is ridiculous.

In Ukraine's case we actually have the US and NATO on record saying they would help Ukraine defend themselves if they turned over nuclear weapons, but according to the Patriots on this site that is 'not binding" so we shouldn't honor it. But a comment made in an interview on the Bug River in 1945 is iron-clad. Unreal...

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Come on, peaceful is giving him Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine never join the EU or NATO and relitigate the end of the Cold War. Do that and he will be happy and stop raining missiles.

Re-litigate the end of the Cold War is exactly what the West is trying to do. Ukraine already agreed to neutral status when it left the Soviet Union.

---

LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.

That is Recto-Cranial inversion at its finest.

---

Such a BS propaganda stance....

You have no proof that Russia is trying (or even can) reconstitute the USSR.

Russia is an economically backward state that is in demographic decline and it can't even militarily win a fight against its much smaller neighbor.

Yet its going to somehow invade 15 other countries and recreate the Soviet Union? Please

You need that to be true so that war against Russia seems logical and down right prudent.

Its a lie.

What Russia is obviously doing is trying to keep itself surround by friendly States. Especially those it sees as having long historic-cultural ties to (Belarus, Ukraine) or that are vital to its national interest (Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan)


The USA would never allow hostile military alliances to surround it. We would act the same in reference to Canada or Mexico.

NATO has been creeping up to the borders of Russia for the past 25 years.....not Russian forces creeping into Central Europe.

---

another straw man argument. Russian leadership has openly lamented the loss of Russian status, the loss of Russian territory, the loss of control of Eastern Europe, the spread of Nato, etc...... Russia has never in its entire history, been in a stronger geopolitical position than they were during the Cold War. They controlled every single one of the invasion routes to Mother Russia. Now, it's all gone. They want it back. And as long as Russia is an autocratic system, they will never stop wanting it back. No, they will not have to invade 15 other countries. But it it is worth noting they've already invaded 2 (Georgia, Ukraine) and pulled one (Belarus) back into Russian orbit.

Their long understood desires are being put into action right in front of your eyes, and you refuse to acknowledge it, alternatively saying such hegemony is their right (being in their national interest) yet not within their capability.

You have allowed a visceral reaction against our war policy to drive your perception of events to the point of nearly complete blindness.

The Russian geopolitical position in post-WWII Europe is not the natural order of things. It is a high-water mark of Russian power. And that moment is passed. Russia must come to terms with that. And will, in the Crimean marches.

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

Russia will, at some point in time, attempt to do to Finland, the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria exactly what it has done to Ukraine if we do not stop them in Ukraine.

---

If those countries are so important to US/Western hegemony then put them in NATO.

---

Well NATO is already in the Baltic States, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.

And Finland joined this summer.

Obviously Russia is not going to actual attack those states....and it would mean the end of the Russian Federation if they ever did.

Whiterock is just rooting for it to happen.

---

another straw man. Each time I have mentioned this scenario, I have talked about destabilization. LIttle Green Men. Political intrigues. Coups. All designed to destabilize a regime, if not the entire society, for the purposes of prying it away from the Western orbit and back under Russian control. That is how it started in Ukraine. That is how it will start everywhere. Even after the eventual Russian defeat in Ukraine. We cannot prevent Russia from having historic ambitions which far outstrip their abilities. But we can ensure they do not have the resources to make quick work of defeating any miscalculations they may have, buy leaving Ukraine littered with the rusty hulks fifty thousand or so armored vehciles and artillery pieces pockmarked with thousands of holes and spalling craters..

The Putin regime, and any non-democratic regime which follows it, will never give up trying to regain hegemony and/or outright annexation of those states. They stated it. They've acted on it. And it is all consistent with Russian nationalist worldview. And throughout their history they've engaged in counter-productive policies, to include wars they had no business starting. But when a knucklehead starts a war, you have to go beat that knucklehead into submission. That is nasty and expensive business. So when you find yourself actually in that business.....finish the job. Because if you don't, they'll be back again sooner than you'd like and you'll have to pound them flat again in another nasty, expensive war.

Peace in Ukraine today guarantees more instability and war within a decade.

---

I know no one can quote any such statement, but I'll ask again anyway.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Just because we do not have a legal or even moral responsibility doesn't make supporting Ukraine advantageous for the US and NATO. Actually, the fact that we are helping a Nation that was invaded without a legal or moral responsibility to do so says even more about the positive nature of NATO and the US. Actually proud of the US and NATO stepping up even if not popular with some.

By the way, according to you and several others on this site, the ONLY time the US or NATO should help a Nation struggling toward democracy or even existence is if we have a binding legal agreement in place prior to the ask and ONLY if it doesn't piss off Putin or Xi. That is ridiculous.

In Ukraine's case we actually have the US and NATO on record saying they would help Ukraine defend themselves if they turned over nuclear weapons, but according to the Patriots on this site that is 'not binding" so we shouldn't honor it. But a comment made in an interview on the Bug River in 1945 is iron-clad. Unreal...

---

Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Just because we do not have a legal or even moral responsibility doesn't make supporting Ukraine advantageous for the US and NATO. Actually, the fact that we are helping a Nation that was invaded without a legal or moral responsibility to do so says even more about the positive nature of NATO and the US. Actually proud of the US and NATO stepping up even if not popular with some.

By the way, according to you and several others on this site, the ONLY time the US or NATO should help a Nation struggling toward democracy or even existence is if we have a binding legal agreement in place prior to the ask and ONLY if it doesn't piss off Putin or Xi. That is ridiculous.

In Ukraine's case we actually have the US and NATO on record saying they would help Ukraine defend themselves if they turned over nuclear weapons, but according to the Patriots on this site that is 'not binding" so we shouldn't honor it. But a comment made in an interview on the Bug River in 1945 is iron-clad. Unreal...

---

Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.

---

All the while they are asking for our support. Sort of hard to buy that one, Sam. They asked us for help and continue to ask. The alternative is let Russia roll over the Nation and not answer their requests. Yeah, that is much more compassionate and humane.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Just because we do not have a legal or even moral responsibility doesn't make supporting Ukraine advantageous for the US and NATO. Actually, the fact that we are helping a Nation that was invaded without a legal or moral responsibility to do so says even more about the positive nature of NATO and the US. Actually proud of the US and NATO stepping up even if not popular with some.

By the way, according to you and several others on this site, the ONLY time the US or NATO should help a Nation struggling toward democracy or even existence is if we have a binding legal agreement in place prior to the ask and ONLY if it doesn't piss off Putin or Xi. That is ridiculous.

In Ukraine's case we actually have the US and NATO on record saying they would help Ukraine defend themselves if they turned over nuclear weapons, but according to the Patriots on this site that is 'not binding" so we shouldn't honor it. But a comment made in an interview on the Bug River in 1945 is iron-clad. Unreal...

---

Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.

---

All the while they are asking for our support. Sort of hard to buy that one, Sam. They asked us for help and continue to ask. The alternative is let Russia roll over the Nation and not answer their requests. Yeah, that is much more compassionate and humane.

---

Ukraine wanted a trade deal with Russia. Instead they got Poroshenko, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted the Minsk Agreements. Instead they got a civil war, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted peace in 2022. Instead they got the destruction of their country, because that's what we wanted.

Now you're telling us it's all about what Ukraine wants? Sort of hard to buy that one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Just because we do not have a legal or even moral responsibility doesn't make supporting Ukraine advantageous for the US and NATO. Actually, the fact that we are helping a Nation that was invaded without a legal or moral responsibility to do so says even more about the positive nature of NATO and the US. Actually proud of the US and NATO stepping up even if not popular with some.

By the way, according to you and several others on this site, the ONLY time the US or NATO should help a Nation struggling toward democracy or even existence is if we have a binding legal agreement in place prior to the ask and ONLY if it doesn't piss off Putin or Xi. That is ridiculous.

In Ukraine's case we actually have the US and NATO on record saying they would help Ukraine defend themselves if they turned over nuclear weapons, but according to the Patriots on this site that is 'not binding" so we shouldn't honor it. But a comment made in an interview on the Bug River in 1945 is iron-clad. Unreal...

---

Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.

---

All the while they are asking for our support. Sort of hard to buy that one, Sam. They asked us for help and continue to ask. The alternative is let Russia roll over the Nation and not answer their requests. Yeah, that is much more compassionate and humane.

---

Ukraine wanted a trade deal with Russia. Instead they got Poroshenko, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted the Minsk Agreements. Instead they got a civil war, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted peace in 2022. Instead they got the destruction of their country, because that's what we wanted.

Now you're telling us it's all about what Ukraine wants? Sort of hard to buy that one.

---

You are forgetting they asked for javelins when Russia took Crimea and the got blankets... This invasion was set up by Obamal/Biden's weakness. Russia didn't move under Trump's watch. Trump left, invasion. So, yes you could blame the US Democratic White House for this mess.

Biden is at least giving the Ukrainians a fighting chance. But, I don't get the impression that means anything to some on this Board. Apparently, letting Ukraine be under Russia's boot is better.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Just because we do not have a legal or even moral responsibility doesn't make supporting Ukraine advantageous for the US and NATO. Actually, the fact that we are helping a Nation that was invaded without a legal or moral responsibility to do so says even more about the positive nature of NATO and the US. Actually proud of the US and NATO stepping up even if not popular with some.

By the way, according to you and several others on this site, the ONLY time the US or NATO should help a Nation struggling toward democracy or even existence is if we have a binding legal agreement in place prior to the ask and ONLY if it doesn't piss off Putin or Xi. That is ridiculous.

In Ukraine's case we actually have the US and NATO on record saying they would help Ukraine defend themselves if they turned over nuclear weapons, but according to the Patriots on this site that is 'not binding" so we shouldn't honor it. But a comment made in an interview on the Bug River in 1945 is iron-clad. Unreal...

---

Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.

---

All the while they are asking for our support. Sort of hard to buy that one, Sam. They asked us for help and continue to ask. The alternative is let Russia roll over the Nation and not answer their requests. Yeah, that is much more compassionate and humane.

---

Ukraine wanted a trade deal with Russia. Instead they got Poroshenko, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted the Minsk Agreements. Instead they got a civil war, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted peace in 2022. Instead they got the destruction of their country, because that's what we wanted.

Now you're telling us it's all about what Ukraine wants? Sort of hard to buy that one.

---

Biden is at least giving the Ukrainians a fighting chance.

---

At this point not even Biden believes that, if he ever did.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Most of the pro war arguments I'm hearing is that we should use this war to weaken Russia because they're a threat while simultaneously saying that Ukraine is going to win because Russia is so weak...meaning Russia isn't really a threat.

It doesn't make sense.

---

What doesn't make sense is how Americans today don't understand how freedom is won. We have a bunch of cowards that would fold at the first sign of any Russian threat to us.

You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.

---

Well, we have had

• The British winning the Revolutionary War would have been better.
• Lincoln was wrong to fight the South, they should have been allowed to leave.
• We should not have thrown Sadaam out of Kuwait
• We should not support Taiwan

So, I am not sure they would support a fight to defend US territory. I would say they would concede Hawaii, Guam, Wake Island, Puerto Rico and American Samoa in a moment.

---

yeah, losing all of those little islands will not affect the price of steak in South Dakota, so pffft.... And who needs Florida? It's just plumb crazy to keep draining swamps full of pythons and alligators to build amusement parks as honey pots to groom kids, and then have to clean up one hurricane cleanup after the other every year. Hell, let's dump the liability. It's a defacto proviince of Cuba anyway. And why are we farting around with Maine? It's just a peat bog full of cranberries and mosquitoes. and......

---

Why do some of yall keeping acting like the USA would allow official territory of the U.S. or States of the Union to be conquered by an outside power.

Or that the USA would even allow a enrolled ally of the USA to lose territory to an aggressor.

Again.....for the 1,000th time. When did Ukraine become a State within our Union or an enrolled treaty ally of the United States?

Some of you knuckleheads act like Ukraine is already a U.S. State

We have zero legal or even moral responsibility to fight a proxy war of Ukraine

---

Just because we do not have a legal or even moral responsibility doesn't make supporting Ukraine advantageous for the US and NATO. Actually, the fact that we are helping a Nation that was invaded without a legal or moral responsibility to do so says even more about the positive nature of NATO and the US. Actually proud of the US and NATO stepping up even if not popular with some.

By the way, according to you and several others on this site, the ONLY time the US or NATO should help a Nation struggling toward democracy or even existence is if we have a binding legal agreement in place prior to the ask and ONLY if it doesn't piss off Putin or Xi. That is ridiculous.

In Ukraine's case we actually have the US and NATO on record saying they would help Ukraine defend themselves if they turned over nuclear weapons, but according to the Patriots on this site that is 'not binding" so we shouldn't honor it. But a comment made in an interview on the Bug River in 1945 is iron-clad. Unreal...

---

Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.

---

All the while they are asking for our support. Sort of hard to buy that one, Sam. They asked us for help and continue to ask. The alternative is let Russia roll over the Nation and not answer their requests. Yeah, that is much more compassionate and humane.

---

Ukraine wanted a trade deal with Russia. Instead they got Poroshenko, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted the Minsk Agreements. Instead they got a civil war, because that's what we wanted.

Ukraine wanted peace in 2022. Instead they got the destruction of their country, because that's what we wanted.

Now you're telling us it's all about what Ukraine wants? Sort of hard to buy that one.

---

Not to mention is hard to even know what the people of Ukraine want today because there are NO elections in the country.

They have been indefinitely suspended.

Its very possible that most Ukrainians want a negotiated end to this war...even if that means formally giving up Donbas and Crimea.

But we can't know that because there are no damn elections under Zelensky (and the CIA behind him)

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Come on, peaceful is giving him Crimea and Donbas, Ukraine never join the EU or NATO and relitigate the end of the Cold War. Do that and he will be happy and stop raining missiles.

Re-litigate the end of the Cold War is exactly what the West is trying to do. Ukraine already agreed to neutral status when it left the Soviet Union.

---

LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.

That is Recto-Cranial inversion at its finest.

---

Such a BS propaganda stance....

You have no proof that Russia is trying (or even can) reconstitute the USSR.

Russia is an economically backward state that is in demographic decline and it can't even militarily win a fight against its much smaller neighbor.

Yet its going to somehow invade 15 other countries and recreate the Soviet Union? Please

You need that to be true so that war against Russia seems logical and down right prudent.

Its a lie.

What Russia is obviously doing is trying to keep itself surround by friendly States. Especially those it sees as having long historic-cultural ties to (Belarus, Ukraine) or that are vital to its national interest (Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan)


The USA would never allow hostile military alliances to surround it. We would act the same in reference to Canada or Mexico.

NATO has been creeping up to the borders of Russia for the past 25 years.....not Russian forces creeping into Central Europe.

---

another straw man argument. Russian leadership has openly lamented the loss of Russian status, the loss of Russian territory, the loss of control of Eastern Europe, the spread of Nato, etc......

Their long understood desires are being put into action right in front of your eyes, and you refuse to acknowledge it, alternatively saying such hegemony is their right (being in their national interest) yet not within their capability.

---

That is the whole point.

NATO exists to prevent any return of Russian hegemony over the rest of Europe.

Its also a fact that Russia DOES NOT have the ability (economically, demographically, militarily) to ever dominate Europe.

Lets compare:

USSR: 286 million people, fertility rate of 2.5, 8,649,500 sq miles in size, largest military on earth, 2nd largest economy on earth. Troops stationed right in the heart of Berlin

Russian Federation: 144 million people, fertility rate of 1.5 and well below replacement, 6,501,670 sq miles in size, not even close to the largest military (mere shell of its former size), and not even a top 10 economy on earth. Can't even put troops in Estonia (which used to be part of the USSR)


They can't be a world power even if they wanted to be. Freaking Brazil has a bigger economy than them.

And if they could somehow get their economic, demographic, and military act together (which they can not do). NATO has the blocked at all points.

They are screwed

All they can do, is what they are currently doing, and that is try and exercise some control over their border area (Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan)