Using your data, so why let them recover? You just made an argument for continuing to bleed Russia until they are a regional power.Redbrickbear said:That is the whole point.whiterock said: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......Redbrickbear said:Quote:LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.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.
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.
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.
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)
Why Are We in Ukraine?
321,523 Views |
5859 Replies |
Last: 3 days ago by whiterock
FLBear5630 said:Using your data, so why let them recover? You just made an argument for continuing to bleed Russia until they are a regional power.Redbrickbear said:That is the whole point.whiterock said: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......Redbrickbear said:Quote:LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.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.
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.
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.
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)
Who said we are?
Dissolving NATO might (big might) let them recover European power status....but I sincerely doubt it would even help them.
Even if NATO were to dissolve tomorrow the EU is the big player on the continent and would probably just truly integrate is military forces together and fill the vacuum. Franco-German-Polish led EU military alliance would crush any Russian asperations on the continent.
Plus, with the demographic, political, and economic problems Russia has they probably will never recover anyway. People simply do not realize the crisis Russia has been in since the 1990s.
Continuing to bleed Russia and expand NATO is a very different question.
That is pushing for war....war with a nuclear armed nation state that feels aggrieved. A big Bear pushed into a corner, etc.
The idea is as stupid as it is unnecessary.
Keeping Russia out of the USA-EU backyard is one thing...we are talking about entering their backyard and funding proxy wars for little reason. They have not attacked an enrolled ally of the United States.
When Russia starts funding proxy wars in Poland or East Germany we can start talking about needing to "bleed the Russian menace"....right now we look like the great power that can not draw a line in the sand and stay on our side of the geo-political neighborhood.
I don't think Russia is doing that badly, but in any case, why stop with Russia? Why not smash anyone who dares to compete economically? That's what free markets are all about, right?FLBear5630 said:Using your data, so why let them recover? You just made an argument for continuing to bleed Russia until they are a regional power.Redbrickbear said:That is the whole point.whiterock said: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......Redbrickbear said:Quote:LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.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.
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.
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.
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)
Circling back, again. Russia invaded. For all the talk and all the supposition, neither Ukraine nor NATO invaded Russia. If Russia is being bled, it is their call. They can end it today.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Using your data, so why let them recover? You just made an argument for continuing to bleed Russia until they are a regional power.Redbrickbear said:That is the whole point.whiterock said: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......Redbrickbear said:Quote:LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.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.
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.
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.
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)
Who said we are?
Dissolving NATO might (big might) let them recover European power status....but I sincerely doubt it would even help them.
Even if NATO were to dissolve tomorrow the EU is the big player on the continent and would probably just truly integrate is military forces together and fill the vacuum. Franco-German-Polish led EU military alliance would crush any Russian asperations on the continent.
Plus, with the demographic, political, and economic problems Russia has they probably will never recover anyway. People simply do not realize the crisis Russia has been in since the 1990s.
Continuing to bleed Russia and expand NATO is a very different question.
That is pushing for war....war with a nuclear armed nation state that feels aggrieved. A big Bear pushed into a corner, etc.
The idea is as stupid as it is unnecessary.
Keeping Russia out of the USA-EU backyard is one thing...we are talking about entering their backyard and funding proxy wars for little reason. They have not attacked an enrolled ally of the United States.
When Russia starts funding proxy wars in Poland or East Germany we can start talking about needing to "bleed the Russian menace"....right now we look like the great power that can not draw a line in the sand and stay on our side of the geo-political neighborhood.
FLBear5630 said:Circling back, again. Russia invaded. For all the talk and all the supposition, neither Ukraine nor NATO invaded Russia. If Russia is being bled, it is their call. They can end it today.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Using your data, so why let them recover? You just made an argument for continuing to bleed Russia until they are a regional power.Redbrickbear said:That is the whole point.whiterock said: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......Redbrickbear said:Quote:LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.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.
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.
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.
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)
Who said we are?
Dissolving NATO might (big might) let them recover European power status....but I sincerely doubt it would even help them.
Even if NATO were to dissolve tomorrow the EU is the big player on the continent and would probably just truly integrate is military forces together and fill the vacuum. Franco-German-Polish led EU military alliance would crush any Russian asperations on the continent.
Plus, with the demographic, political, and economic problems Russia has they probably will never recover anyway. People simply do not realize the crisis Russia has been in since the 1990s.
Continuing to bleed Russia and expand NATO is a very different question.
That is pushing for war....war with a nuclear armed nation state that feels aggrieved. A big Bear pushed into a corner, etc.
The idea is as stupid as it is unnecessary.
Keeping Russia out of the USA-EU backyard is one thing...we are talking about entering their backyard and funding proxy wars for little reason. They have not attacked an enrolled ally of the United States.
When Russia starts funding proxy wars in Poland or East Germany we can start talking about needing to "bleed the Russian menace"....right now we look like the great power that can not draw a line in the sand and stay on our side of the geo-political neighborhood.
And Ukriane is not an enrolled ally of the United States or a member of NATO.
So why are we fighting a proxy war there?
One that is working out very well….
The first several weeks of Ukraine’s counteroffensive have not been kind to its Western-trained troops. Now, the Ukrainian brigades have set aside U.S. fighting methods and reverted to tactics they know best. https://t.co/uV25EXUrUs
— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 2, 2023
LOL sending weapons to help a nation defend itself against invasion is victimization....Sam Lowry said:Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.FLBear5630 said: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.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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...
First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Last December, our sales team walked a few blocks from hotel to a bar on 6th street in Austin. When a young female executive in our company chose to leave the bar, I caught up with her at the door and said I would escort her back to hotel. She said, "I'm a black belt in karate. I'll can handle it." I pointed to a derelict leaning against a light pole and told her "I'm sure you can, but HE doesn't know that." Lesson: whether or not she could win the fight was really not a point she wanted to test. She could get badly hurt winning the damned fight. The better policy would be to ensure the fight did not occur.Redbrickbear said:That is the whole point.whiterock said: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......Redbrickbear said:Quote:LOL Russia is trying to reconstitute the USSR but it is the West that is relitigating the Cold War.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.
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.
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.
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)
War policy critics always cite the manifest limits of Russian power as a reason for us to do nothing. The latent fallacy is that Russia has demonstrated that they do not perceive themselves as we do. They do not care that they cannot roll over Nato like a juggernaught. They, like Imperial Japan, believe they are big and tough enough to get it done and no one else has the stomach to out-last them in a slugfest in the mud. They think they can destabilize anyone. And they never quit trying. Often they succeed. Little green men in Donbas is how this all started. Now we have Wagner Group encamped Belarus, jawing about creating a corridor to Kaliningrad. That prompts articles about a possible invasion of Poland. Poland repositions forces. Lithuania and Latvia watch with more anxiety than they'd want to admit. They are next. If we ignore all that as nothing but bluster......waive it off saying "Russia is no match for us...." eventually, we will have real tension going on.
So you can keep tossing in the strawman of "Russia will never invade Nato/no match for Nato and they know it" if you want as a bromide that we need do nothing at all except let Russia have what it wants to have. But reality is reality. While in the middle of at best a quagmire, or at worst a fiasco in Ukraine, Russia is already laying the pipe for operations against Poland/Baltics. They will not invade with armies. They will invade with little green men. They will attempt to destabilize regimes. They will attempt to create crises. All to keep testing Nato resolve and preparation. Your policy would have us ripe for picking, for a Nato state or two to fall into the Russian lap without a single artillery round fired.
Doesn't matter how weak Russia is. If they are desperate and overconfident, and both are factors in the equation, they will overplay their hand, as they have in Ukraine. And when they do that, it takes millions of rounds of ammo, hundreds of thousands of lives, and years of blood, sweat, toil, and tears to put it all back together. A weak nation with no hope of victory can do incalculable damage to millions of people and trillions of dollars of wealth.
The best way to make sure we aren't doing a Ukraine 2.0 somewhere else on the Nato frontline in the next decade is to grind up the Russian army and Russian economy in Ukraine NOW. WWIII is on like Donkey Kong. We did not start it. We can easily win it. We will lose it if we don't take it all deadly seriously.
whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
"Scheme" journalists reported that the Russians hit Ukraine with Kh-55 missiles, which Ukraine handed over to the so-called Russia in 1999.
— MAKS 23 👀🇺🇦 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) August 3, 2023
According to the agreement, Kyiv transferred to Moscow eight Tu-160 and three Tu-95MS heavy bombers, as well as 575 Kh-55 cruise missiles. pic.twitter.com/6jxhuxKl7E
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
FLBear5630 said:Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
Not only do you have to lie about the potential threat of Russia (they are coming for Berlin!) and China (they are coming for Hawaii!)....you also have to put words in my mouth. I have never said the USA was bad and Communists were good.
And I never would say something like that.
I think you have to take a long look in the mirror and ask why the United States and her people need to embrace a foreign policy based on fantasy, hyperbole, and fear....instead of sober assessment of our adversaries and their rather limited abilities.
For instance all three players on our most recent bad guys list have horrible fertility rates. These nations are going to be losing population and losing their ability to project power over the next 100 years.
China: 1.2
Russia: 1.5
Iran: 1.7
China alone is going to drop down to 700 million citizens by 2090 (that is a loss of 600 million people!)
That is just one of many many serious issues these countries have....
Ok, what since the end of WW2 has the US done well? Or not been a overstep of the Federal Govt?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
Not only do you have to lie about the potential threat of Russia (they are coming for Berlin!) and China (they are coming for Hawaii!)....you also have to put words in my mouth. I have never said the USA was bad and Communists were good.
And I never would say something like that.
I think you have to take a long look in the mirror and ask why the United States and her people need to embrace a foreign policy based on fantasy, hyperbole, and fear....instead of sober assessment of our adversaries and their rather limited abilities.
For instance all three players on our most recent bad guys list have horrible fertility rates. These nations are going to be losing population and losing their ability to project power over the next 100 years.
China: 1.2
Russia: 1.5
Iran: 1.7
China alone is going to drop down to 700 million citizens by 2090 (that is a loss of 600 million people!)
That is just one of many many serious issues these countries have....
Abolutely 100% dead on.Sam Lowry said:Don't be under any illusions that we're helping Ukraine. We are victimizing them in the most monstrous way imaginable.FLBear5630 said: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.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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...
Anyone who takes the time to make an honest review how the US positioned Ukraine into this nightmare would come to a similiar conclusion.
FLBear5630 said:Ok, what since the end of WW2 has the US done well? Or not been a overstep of the Federal Govt?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
Not only do you have to lie about the potential threat of Russia (they are coming for Berlin!) and China (they are coming for Hawaii!)....you also have to put words in my mouth. I have never said the USA was bad and Communists were good.
And I never would say something like that.
I think you have to take a long look in the mirror and ask why the United States and her people need to embrace a foreign policy based on fantasy, hyperbole, and fear....instead of sober assessment of our adversaries and their rather limited abilities.
For instance all three players on our most recent bad guys list have horrible fertility rates. These nations are going to be losing population and losing their ability to project power over the next 100 years.
China: 1.2
Russia: 1.5
Iran: 1.7
China alone is going to drop down to 700 million citizens by 2090 (that is a loss of 600 million people!)
That is just one of many many serious issues these countries have....
We beat back a North Korean communist invasion of S. Korea.
We liberated Kuwait from a Baathist Iraqi.
We kept the USSR from absorbing Western Europe.
We have done plenty of good since WWII
We have also made some critically stupid decisions. Like putting ground troops in Vietnam and then not letting them win, invading Iraq, staying far too long in Afghanistan and trying to turn an Islamic medieval society into San Francisco, helping Islamists try and overthrow the government in Syria, helping to overthrow the government in Ukraine (helping led to this current mess)
I have no idea where you got the idea that USA government is the same as the American people...or that the USA Federal government is somehow all knowing and all wise and never makes mistakes.
Fair enough. I do agree that we have done some bonehead moves.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Ok, what since the end of WW2 has the US done well? Or not been a overstep of the Federal Govt?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
Not only do you have to lie about the potential threat of Russia (they are coming for Berlin!) and China (they are coming for Hawaii!)....you also have to put words in my mouth. I have never said the USA was bad and Communists were good.
And I never would say something like that.
I think you have to take a long look in the mirror and ask why the United States and her people need to embrace a foreign policy based on fantasy, hyperbole, and fear....instead of sober assessment of our adversaries and their rather limited abilities.
For instance all three players on our most recent bad guys list have horrible fertility rates. These nations are going to be losing population and losing their ability to project power over the next 100 years.
China: 1.2
Russia: 1.5
Iran: 1.7
China alone is going to drop down to 700 million citizens by 2090 (that is a loss of 600 million people!)
That is just one of many many serious issues these countries have....
We beat by a North Korea communist invasion of S. Korea.
We liberated Kuwait from a Baathist Iraqi.
We kept the USSR from absorbing Western Europe.
We have done plenty of good since WWII
We have also made some critically stupid decisions. Like putting ground troops in Vietnam and then not letting them win, invading Iraq, staying far too long in Afghanistan and trying to turn an Islamic medieval society into San Francisco, helping Islamists try and overthrow the government in Syria, helping to overthrow the government in Ukraine (helping led to this current mess)
I have no idea where you got the idea that USA government is the same as the American people...or that the USA Federal government is somehow all knowing and all wise and never makes mistakes.
It is one thing to understand the Fed can make some mistakes, I agree.
I lose it with the Deep State, conspiracy stuff. Personally, I think they give them too much credit. There is no way they can coordinate that well! My dealings with the Fed is well-meaning people that can't get out of their own way, never mind coordinate a nationwide conspiracy on anything! To me the only area I think there might be a conspiracy is the alien stuff. Why? The way they manage Area 51, the skunk works and such shows competency. The legal stuff, no way in hell!
FLBear5630 said:Fair enough. I do agree that we have done some bonehead moves.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Ok, what since the end of WW2 has the US done well? Or not been a overstep of the Federal Govt?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
Not only do you have to lie about the potential threat of Russia (they are coming for Berlin!) and China (they are coming for Hawaii!)....you also have to put words in my mouth. I have never said the USA was bad and Communists were good.
And I never would say something like that.
I think you have to take a long look in the mirror and ask why the United States and her people need to embrace a foreign policy based on fantasy, hyperbole, and fear....instead of sober assessment of our adversaries and their rather limited abilities.
For instance all three players on our most recent bad guys list have horrible fertility rates. These nations are going to be losing population and losing their ability to project power over the next 100 years.
China: 1.2
Russia: 1.5
Iran: 1.7
China alone is going to drop down to 700 million citizens by 2090 (that is a loss of 600 million people!)
That is just one of many many serious issues these countries have....
We beat by a North Korea communist invasion of S. Korea.
We liberated Kuwait from a Baathist Iraqi.
We kept the USSR from absorbing Western Europe.
We have done plenty of good since WWII
We have also made some critically stupid decisions. Like putting ground troops in Vietnam and then not letting them win, invading Iraq, staying far too long in Afghanistan and trying to turn an Islamic medieval society into San Francisco, helping Islamists try and overthrow the government in Syria, helping to overthrow the government in Ukraine (helping led to this current mess)
I have no idea where you got the idea that USA government is the same as the American people...or that the USA Federal government is somehow all knowing and all wise and never makes mistakes.
It is one thing to understand the Fed can make some mistakes, I agree.
I lose it with the Deep State, conspiracy stuff. Personally, I think they give them too much credit. There is no way they can coordinate that well! My dealings with the Fed is well-meaning people that can't get out of their own way, never mind coordinate a nationwide conspiracy on anything! To me the only area I think there might be a conspiracy is the alien stuff. Why? The way they manage Area 51, the skunk works and such shows competency. The legal stuff, no way in hell!
Well a Deep State is not a conspiracy theory...its a fact of all long established nations with entrenched security apparatuses and invested power interests.
The very term started in Turkey...were there is 100% a Deep State...or at least there was one before Erdoan began to arrest its members after they failed to take him out in a coup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt
That is why we need a robust democratic process and a Congress that listens to the American people.
Deeply invested power players in D.C. are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else.
And they should not be able to run around Eastern Europe engaging in coups without that being debated before the American people.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e
[url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e][/url][The Deep State Is All Too Real-Congress and the courts have shirked their duty, letting bureaucrats make and interpret the laws]
Make and interpret laws or do their jobs? Elected Officials serve an oversight role, not a day to day operations role.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Fair enough. I do agree that we have done some bonehead moves.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Ok, what since the end of WW2 has the US done well? Or not been a overstep of the Federal Govt?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
Not only do you have to lie about the potential threat of Russia (they are coming for Berlin!) and China (they are coming for Hawaii!)....you also have to put words in my mouth. I have never said the USA was bad and Communists were good.
And I never would say something like that.
I think you have to take a long look in the mirror and ask why the United States and her people need to embrace a foreign policy based on fantasy, hyperbole, and fear....instead of sober assessment of our adversaries and their rather limited abilities.
For instance all three players on our most recent bad guys list have horrible fertility rates. These nations are going to be losing population and losing their ability to project power over the next 100 years.
China: 1.2
Russia: 1.5
Iran: 1.7
China alone is going to drop down to 700 million citizens by 2090 (that is a loss of 600 million people!)
That is just one of many many serious issues these countries have....
We beat by a North Korea communist invasion of S. Korea.
We liberated Kuwait from a Baathist Iraqi.
We kept the USSR from absorbing Western Europe.
We have done plenty of good since WWII
We have also made some critically stupid decisions. Like putting ground troops in Vietnam and then not letting them win, invading Iraq, staying far too long in Afghanistan and trying to turn an Islamic medieval society into San Francisco, helping Islamists try and overthrow the government in Syria, helping to overthrow the government in Ukraine (helping led to this current mess)
I have no idea where you got the idea that USA government is the same as the American people...or that the USA Federal government is somehow all knowing and all wise and never makes mistakes.
It is one thing to understand the Fed can make some mistakes, I agree.
I lose it with the Deep State, conspiracy stuff. Personally, I think they give them too much credit. There is no way they can coordinate that well! My dealings with the Fed is well-meaning people that can't get out of their own way, never mind coordinate a nationwide conspiracy on anything! To me the only area I think there might be a conspiracy is the alien stuff. Why? The way they manage Area 51, the skunk works and such shows competency. The legal stuff, no way in hell!
Well a Deep State is not a conspiracy theory...its a fact of all long established nations with entrenched security apparatuses and invested power interests.
The very term started in Turkey...were there is 100% a Deep State...or at least there was one before Erdoan began to arrest its members after they failed to take him out in a coup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt
That is why we need a robust democratic process and a Congress that listens to the American people.
Deeply invested power players in D.C. are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else.
And they should not be able to run around Eastern Europe engaging in coups without that being debated before the American people.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e
[url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e][/url][The Deep State Is All Too Real-Congress and the courts have shirked their duty, letting bureaucrats make and interpret the laws]
One area where I 100% disagree with you and agree with RedbrickFLBear5630 said:Make and interpret laws or do their jobs? Elected Officials serve an oversight role, not a day to day operations role.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Fair enough. I do agree that we have done some bonehead moves.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Ok, what since the end of WW2 has the US done well? Or not been a overstep of the Federal Govt?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Actually, China does support the Hawaiian Separatists and has threatened to arm them in 2015. But, you keep on believing what you will... "US bad. Communists, good..."Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said: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......FLBear5630 said:Well, we have hadron.reagan said: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.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.
You defend your country. If you don't defend your country you don't deserve to keep it. Ukraine is deserving it.
- 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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
Not only do you have to lie about the potential threat of Russia (they are coming for Berlin!) and China (they are coming for Hawaii!)....you also have to put words in my mouth. I have never said the USA was bad and Communists were good.
And I never would say something like that.
I think you have to take a long look in the mirror and ask why the United States and her people need to embrace a foreign policy based on fantasy, hyperbole, and fear....instead of sober assessment of our adversaries and their rather limited abilities.
For instance all three players on our most recent bad guys list have horrible fertility rates. These nations are going to be losing population and losing their ability to project power over the next 100 years.
China: 1.2
Russia: 1.5
Iran: 1.7
China alone is going to drop down to 700 million citizens by 2090 (that is a loss of 600 million people!)
That is just one of many many serious issues these countries have....
We beat by a North Korea communist invasion of S. Korea.
We liberated Kuwait from a Baathist Iraqi.
We kept the USSR from absorbing Western Europe.
We have done plenty of good since WWII
We have also made some critically stupid decisions. Like putting ground troops in Vietnam and then not letting them win, invading Iraq, staying far too long in Afghanistan and trying to turn an Islamic medieval society into San Francisco, helping Islamists try and overthrow the government in Syria, helping to overthrow the government in Ukraine (helping led to this current mess)
I have no idea where you got the idea that USA government is the same as the American people...or that the USA Federal government is somehow all knowing and all wise and never makes mistakes.
It is one thing to understand the Fed can make some mistakes, I agree.
I lose it with the Deep State, conspiracy stuff. Personally, I think they give them too much credit. There is no way they can coordinate that well! My dealings with the Fed is well-meaning people that can't get out of their own way, never mind coordinate a nationwide conspiracy on anything! To me the only area I think there might be a conspiracy is the alien stuff. Why? The way they manage Area 51, the skunk works and such shows competency. The legal stuff, no way in hell!
Well a Deep State is not a conspiracy theory...its a fact of all long established nations with entrenched security apparatuses and invested power interests.
The very term started in Turkey...were there is 100% a Deep State...or at least there was one before Erdoan began to arrest its members after they failed to take him out in a coup.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Turkish_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt
That is why we need a robust democratic process and a Congress that listens to the American people.
Deeply invested power players in D.C. are just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else.
And they should not be able to run around Eastern Europe engaging in coups without that being debated before the American people.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e
[url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e][/url][The Deep State Is All Too Real-Congress and the courts have shirked their duty, letting bureaucrats make and interpret the laws]
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
CNN POLL CONDUCTED BY SSRS
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) August 4, 2023
July 1-31
Should Congress Authorize More
Funding To Support Ukraine?
Yes No
Democrats 62% 38%
Independents 44% 55%
Republicans 28% 71%https://t.co/GaZZL8o3GV
LOL. Fist let's get the facts correct. Donbas is unambiguously analogous to Hawaii or Florida or Maine or Texas - an internationally recognized state (oblast) within the federal system of an internationally recognized country with a functioning federal system.Redbrickbear said:Quote:First, you say that Ukrainian sovereignty must, due to historical and geopolitical realities, be subordinate to Russian sensibilities and desires.Quote:Quote:At what point does pissing off a nuclear power, that will use them, become worth the risk. My territories were very specific on purpose.Quote:Quote: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......Quote:
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.
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
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.
Then, you give the argument above that statehood is inviolate.
Which is it? Is Ukraine entitled to exist? Why would its internationally recognized territorial sovereignty not be as inviolate as Hawaii's?
Lets break that down.
Ukraine is of course entitled to its existence. But if they want to wage a foolish war on Donbas separatists...a war that has led the Russian army to invade....then they will have to fight that war without the milking US taxpayers.
This is not even a war about Ukrainian sovereignty...Russia is not trying to annex all of Ukraine...they invaded to try and install a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv. Just like how in 2014 we helped overthrow the last government and install a pro-Washington one.
I have my own views about the sovereignty of American States and their right to leave the Union.
But what matters is it is very obvious is that the United States Federal Government would never allow that to happen....there is no movement to do so right now....and no nation on earth is trying to steal Hawaii.
This kind of "China will try and steal Hawaii" or "if we don't stop Russia now they will roll their tanks into Poland" is just ridiculous fantastic talk.
So on one hand, you (correctly) note that its inconceivable that anyone would contest the USA's right to go to war to prevent any of its states to secede, of its own accord or by contrivance of a foreign power. yet, when that exact scenario unfolds in Ukraine.....well.....that's different. Because....well...you know.....Russia has NUKES! Ego we must appease Russian sensibilities.
Providing assistance to a foreign country for the purpose of helping them maintain territorial sovereignty is very mainstream foreign policy. If we accede to Russian demands to carve off whatever pieces of Ukraine it desires, upon what basis could we plausibly prevent Maine from joining Canada? or prevent Southern California from joining Mexico? or deny Texas or Hawaii the right to independence? (or any of the foregoing with foreign assistance.)
And there you go again tossing in the straw man about Russian invasion of Poland. That is not likely to happen right out of the box. What is likely to happen, is destabilization of Poland or Lithuania, which could create chaotic scenarios to include regime change that could cause alliances to flip. No question Russians would do that. It's how they started the Ukraine war...nibble, nibble, poke, bite, poke, nibble......and here we are at war. It's already starting with Poland and Baltics.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/poland-lithuania-brace-for-provocations-from-russia-and-belarus-at-border
Literally, Russia sent Wagner to Belarus to rattle sabres against Poland and Baltics.....to raise tensions to see if it can weaken knees, distract, and possibly, over time, even destabilize domestic politics. Poland and Lituania have literally, within the last few days, deployed their own forces to their borders as a sign of strength. That is, no matter how you slice it, an escalation of tensions directly caused by Russian ambitions.
Don't be so hidebound. Current events are already discordant with the premise of your argument. And it's only going to get worse from here. You are are already mostly submerged into an alternative reality.
Latvia…..
The Latvian Army is actively preparing for a escalation with Russian Wagner PMC troops or any possible scenario on the border with Belarus… pic.twitter.com/C0FAYUSGKB
— Wolf (@Vuk02577707) August 4, 2023
whiterock said:
Latvia…..The Latvian Army is actively preparing for a escalation with Russian Wagner PMC troops or any possible scenario on the border with Belarus… pic.twitter.com/C0FAYUSGKB
— Wolf (@Vuk02577707) August 4, 2023
It is happening in Latvia...That is the next test of Biden, will he actually go to war over Latvia. I think Putin has come to realize enough of the population.will say why? Putin will take half and follow same playbook as Ukraine.
I don't think it goes that far. Neither Belarus nor Wagner have the offensive power to invade on their own and Russia is fully engaged in Ukraine, and losing. The gap in power is too great for anyone to miscalculate on that.
But IF Russia could get some conflicts & tension going elsewhere, it MIGHT rattle a few Nato governments to change policy. It MIGHT cause redeployments that would cause even more Nato nations to turn off the spigot of supply (ostensibly to preserve for use in War in the Baltics). That's worth allowing a helo or three to stray across a border & get shot down, just to cause furrowed brows.
All of this adds some color for why Russia allowed Prigo and Wagner to survive the coup in exile. They are of no use to anyone dead (other than as martyrs for the reform cause in Russia), but alive and encamped in Belarus they can be a distraction to Nato, which might (emphasis on might) generate a little breathing room for the Ukraine campaign. Notably, such a gambit shows weakness, not strength.
Nato will pass this test, as their firm, quick responses illustrate. Further down the road, however, little green men remain a worry. That is right up Wagner's alley, and them being neither Belarussian nor Russian affords both states some at least theoretical plausible deniability. if caught red-handed, they can simply expel Wagner/Prigo to Syria and say they knew nothing. Nobody with synaptic ability will believe any of that, but it'll probably be enough to avoid war over the matter.
But IF Russia could get some conflicts & tension going elsewhere, it MIGHT rattle a few Nato governments to change policy. It MIGHT cause redeployments that would cause even more Nato nations to turn off the spigot of supply (ostensibly to preserve for use in War in the Baltics). That's worth allowing a helo or three to stray across a border & get shot down, just to cause furrowed brows.
All of this adds some color for why Russia allowed Prigo and Wagner to survive the coup in exile. They are of no use to anyone dead (other than as martyrs for the reform cause in Russia), but alive and encamped in Belarus they can be a distraction to Nato, which might (emphasis on might) generate a little breathing room for the Ukraine campaign. Notably, such a gambit shows weakness, not strength.
Nato will pass this test, as their firm, quick responses illustrate. Further down the road, however, little green men remain a worry. That is right up Wagner's alley, and them being neither Belarussian nor Russian affords both states some at least theoretical plausible deniability. if caught red-handed, they can simply expel Wagner/Prigo to Syria and say they knew nothing. Nobody with synaptic ability will believe any of that, but it'll probably be enough to avoid war over the matter.
63 days
— ayden (@squatsons) August 5, 2023
Tens of thousands of casualties
Hundreds of tanks and armored vehicle losses
Results… pic.twitter.com/40druZiJEB
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-coming-battle-who-lost-ukraine/
[As it becomes more and more difficult to deny what is happening on the battlefield in Ukraine, a grinding war with hundreds of thousands of casualties, establishment media continue to present a picture of the war designed to rally the public, should its enthusiasm for this latest American overseas adventure begin to flag in the face of long and hard realities.
In June, the Atlantic published a cover story by Anne Applebaum and Jeffery Goldberg which asserted that "The future of the democratic world will be determined by whether the Ukrainian military can break a stalemate with Russia and drive the country backwardsperhaps even out of Crimea for good."
On July 12, New York Times op-ed columnist Nicolas Kristof informed his reader(s) that "The Ukrainians are sacrificing for us. They're the ones doing us a favor, by degrading the Russian military and reducing the risk of a war in Europe that would cost the lives of our troops."
National Review put it even more starkly. Two days later, July 14, senior editor Jay Nordlinger wrote, "The nationalists among us, as much as anyone, ought to be inspired by what the Ukrainians are doing: fighting for their national survival, trying to fend off a behemoth neighbor that seeks to re-subjugate them."
As Gore Vidal quipped, "There is little respite for a people so routinelyso fiercelydisinformed."
Yet the above examples also appear to be part of an effort by these individual writers to decontextualize the Ukraine War, to wipe away its messy history and present it in its most simplistic form: as a battle between good and evil. It is a strategy that seeks to avoid a substantive conversation about how and why Russia and the West arrived at this, the most dangerous point since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
These sorts of pieces are an elite project designed to shrink the parameters of permissible thought with regard to the war in Ukraine. And it serves to purposely confuse and infantilize Americans' understanding of what is actually happening in Ukraineand why. But that, one might suppose, is the point: Applebaum and the rest are laying the foundation for what is to come, once it becomes undeniable that Ukraine has lost the war.
In the nearly ten years since the Maidan Revolution, a handful of us have been sounding the alarm over the possibility of war breaking out between Russia and the West. For nearly ten years, a small minority of writers and thinkers have relentlessly advocated for a peaceful solution to the Ukraine crisis, and in the process have, at various times, been smeared, mocked, marginalized, denied employment opportunities, branded "terrorist" sympathizers, and placed on a Ukrainian kill-lists for the crime of telling the truth about what has been happening in eastern Ukraine since 2014.
And as the war in Ukraine grinds on to its disastrous denouement, we can reasonably expect those who are responsible for helping set off this conflagrationalong with those who cheered this ludicrous and unnecessary war from the beginningto pay about as severe a price as that paid by the architects and cheerleaders of the Iraq fiasco: none at all. ]
[As it becomes more and more difficult to deny what is happening on the battlefield in Ukraine, a grinding war with hundreds of thousands of casualties, establishment media continue to present a picture of the war designed to rally the public, should its enthusiasm for this latest American overseas adventure begin to flag in the face of long and hard realities.
In June, the Atlantic published a cover story by Anne Applebaum and Jeffery Goldberg which asserted that "The future of the democratic world will be determined by whether the Ukrainian military can break a stalemate with Russia and drive the country backwardsperhaps even out of Crimea for good."
On July 12, New York Times op-ed columnist Nicolas Kristof informed his reader(s) that "The Ukrainians are sacrificing for us. They're the ones doing us a favor, by degrading the Russian military and reducing the risk of a war in Europe that would cost the lives of our troops."
National Review put it even more starkly. Two days later, July 14, senior editor Jay Nordlinger wrote, "The nationalists among us, as much as anyone, ought to be inspired by what the Ukrainians are doing: fighting for their national survival, trying to fend off a behemoth neighbor that seeks to re-subjugate them."
As Gore Vidal quipped, "There is little respite for a people so routinelyso fiercelydisinformed."
Yet the above examples also appear to be part of an effort by these individual writers to decontextualize the Ukraine War, to wipe away its messy history and present it in its most simplistic form: as a battle between good and evil. It is a strategy that seeks to avoid a substantive conversation about how and why Russia and the West arrived at this, the most dangerous point since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
These sorts of pieces are an elite project designed to shrink the parameters of permissible thought with regard to the war in Ukraine. And it serves to purposely confuse and infantilize Americans' understanding of what is actually happening in Ukraineand why. But that, one might suppose, is the point: Applebaum and the rest are laying the foundation for what is to come, once it becomes undeniable that Ukraine has lost the war.
In the nearly ten years since the Maidan Revolution, a handful of us have been sounding the alarm over the possibility of war breaking out between Russia and the West. For nearly ten years, a small minority of writers and thinkers have relentlessly advocated for a peaceful solution to the Ukraine crisis, and in the process have, at various times, been smeared, mocked, marginalized, denied employment opportunities, branded "terrorist" sympathizers, and placed on a Ukrainian kill-lists for the crime of telling the truth about what has been happening in eastern Ukraine since 2014.
And as the war in Ukraine grinds on to its disastrous denouement, we can reasonably expect those who are responsible for helping set off this conflagrationalong with those who cheered this ludicrous and unnecessary war from the beginningto pay about as severe a price as that paid by the architects and cheerleaders of the Iraq fiasco: none at all. ]
Our very own Bakhmut Bob, ladies and gentlemen. He's here allwhiterock said:
Russia is fully engaged in Ukraine, and losing.
With this loss, Russia down to approx. 30 remaining (airworthy).
Today in the evening Ukrainian sources have reported that Russian Ka-52 was shot down from MANPADS near Robotine, Zaporizhzhia front, by the 47th brigade of Ukraine. https://t.co/EmPy8Vdqcj
— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) August 7, 2023
Now Russian source associated with Russian military aviation seems to confirm the loss. pic.twitter.com/AHbSHGlu8G
The US is underwriting the war in Ukraine. Full stop.
— Nathan Carson (@ndcarson) August 7, 2023
It will be the US who decides what the end will be, not Europe. Too bad the Biden Admin doesn’t have a plan beyond “keeping the world safe for democracy.” https://t.co/6UTnMf8meJ
Sam Lowry said:Our very own Bakhmut Bob, ladies and gentlemen. He's here allwhiterock said:
Russia is fully engaged in Ukraine, and losing.spring summer fall winterhowever long it takes...
Russia seems to be occupying a lot of Ukraine territory.
Or is there a new definition for 'losing' ?
KaiBear said:Sam Lowry said:Our very own Bakhmut Bob, ladies and gentlemen. He's here allwhiterock said:
Russia is fully engaged in Ukraine, and losing.spring summer fall winterhowever long it takes...
Russia seems to be occupying a lot of Ukraine territory.
Or is there a new definition for 'losing' ?
Nuh uh! Ukraine completed the largest take back of territory since 1943.
Don't doubt it! Putin is losing his ass!
Or so they say
Enjoy your $4 / gallon gas as Putin loses
Keep the people of Ukraine in your prayers as they party at a Kiev beach club 🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/wMjGPps4RY
— Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 (@jacksonhinklle) August 7, 2023
I hope this isn’t fake news https://t.co/xluBR7dk1f
— Darren J. Beattie 🌐 (@DarrenJBeattie) August 8, 2023
LOL supporting Ukraine IS supporting the territorial integrity of a democracy.Redbrickbear said:The US is underwriting the war in Ukraine. Full stop.
— Nathan Carson (@ndcarson) August 7, 2023
It will be the US who decides what the end will be, not Europe. Too bad the Biden Admin doesn’t have a plan beyond “keeping the world safe for democracy.” https://t.co/6UTnMf8meJ
Yes, indeed, we and our allies are underwriting the war in Ukraine. As we should.
Ukraine already has achieved fire superiority in artillery, with more systems inbound - Sweden, making another contribution.
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said at a press conference that the country's authorities had decided to provide Ukraine with additional military assistance. The Kingdom intends to transfer the Archer self-propelled guns to Kyiv for the first time. pic.twitter.com/1V8fOIQVR3
— Getty (@region776) August 7, 2023