Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US

---

Newsflash: the USSR fell. There are more communists in American universities and Washington DC in 2023 than in Moscow. Modern Russia is a state with a 13% flat tax, a resurgence of Christianity, and strong pro-family policies. I would much rather live in Moscow than LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Philadelphia, or New York.

What democrats and neocons - though I believe for different reasons - are arguing for is expanding a proxy war against a nuclear armed peer. That will be a first in world history and something to be avoided. Let's hope the evil and stupid shortsightedness of those two groups don't make it the last.

---

Sorry, we disagree. Supporting Ukraine to fight Putin after he invaded Ukraine and said his goal was to re-establish the USSR/Soviet sphere of influence is enough for me to support providing Ukraine with the tools to resist. Appeasement and isolationism would be the worst thing we could do with people like Xi and Putin.

I will not vote for Biden, but just because I do not like him or his policies doesn't mean EVERYTHING is wrong. In my opinion, he got several things right and Ukraine is one of them.

Now, that said. If you want to have a accounting of how the money is being used. No problem, have at it. Want NATO to pay more, no problem. I agree. Putin and Xi are the biggest threats to the US and our allies. They have to be met head-on, right now in Ukraine and Taiwan.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

But its ok to sacrifice multi hundreds of 1000s of Ukrainians to maybe weaken Russia? The American regime constant war policy is the problem here.

Quote:

---

I respect that you at least admit you are against Ukraine because you prefer Russia over your own country

---

I didn't say that, did I. It's simply an acknowledgement that those places aren't in any real sense America.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Huh, looking at those numbers. We are getting better at it... How many for Ukraine?

If we had a draft, I would agree. We have a voluntary military. People choose their MOS. I never understood the choosing Armor and then complaining when asked to be in a potential tank battle. That is the job. If you are Infantry, you will be on the front lines. Just like in the support roles, Transportation or ADA, you are going first and probably deploying longer. Hell, even non-combat will typically deploy longer than the combat arms. It goes with the job. Not trying to be harsh.

Now, if abused we won't get a volunteer force. We are seeing that now. If they propose a Draft, I am not for that. Increase pay, increase benefits, but it should be someone's choice to serve.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

I respect that you at least admit you are against Ukraine because you prefer Russia over your own country

---

I didn't say that, did I. It's simply an acknowledgement that those places aren't in any real sense America.

---

ive been to Philly hundreds of times and I'd rather walk down a street in Philly barefoot in my boxers than ever set foot in Moscow.

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

A. Please remind the Ukranians how much we appreciate their thousands of dead, millions displaced and devasted cities. All to 'weaken Putin'.
B. Attempt to activate your millennial brain and read how each of our previous wars began with 'only providing supplies and fiancial aid'.
C. When are you enlisting in the Ukranian army internet 'soldier' ? Isn't it time for you to get away from your video games and see the real gore first hand ?

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Huh, looking at those numbers. We are getting better at it...

---

Easily the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

If it was presidents and senators doing the dying we would be involved in zero conflicts.

Bear8084 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

A. Please remind the Ukranians how much we appreciate their thousands of dead, millions displaced and devasted cities. All to 'weaken Putin'.
B. Attempt to activate your millennial brain and read how each of our previous wars began with 'only providing supplies and fiancial aid'.
C. When are you enlisting in the Ukranian army internet 'soldier' ? Isn't it time for you to get away from your video games and see the real gore first hand ?

---

Canada gonna Canada.

---

?

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

A. Please remind the Ukranians how much we appreciate their thousands of dead, millions displaced and devasted cities. All to 'weaken Putin'.
B. Attempt to activate your millennial brain and read how each of our previous wars began with 'only providing supplies and fiancial aid'.
C. When are you enlisting in the Ukranian army internet 'soldier' ? Isn't it time for you to get away from your video games and see the real gore first hand ?

---

I'm not sure you understand that slavery has been abolished in the US. Ukrainians are not our slaves. They are a free society and choose their own path.

Thankfully they have the courage to protect their family from rape -- unlike half of you guys here that would ask your daughter to see who is at the front door while you run out the back.

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

A. Please remind the Ukranians how much we appreciate their thousands of dead, millions displaced and devasted cities. All to 'weaken Putin'.
B. Attempt to activate your millennial brain and read how each of our previous wars began with 'only providing supplies and fiancial aid'.
C. When are you enlisting in the Ukranian army internet 'soldier' ? Isn't it time for you to get away from your video games and see the real gore first hand ?

---

I'm not sure you understand that slavery has been abolished in the US. Ukrainians are not our slaves. They are a free society and choose their own path.

Thankfully they have the courage to protect their family from rape -- unlike half of you guys here that would ask your daughter to see who is at the front door while you run out the back.

---

There are times I believe you possess the mental acumen of a wet dish towel.

This is one of those times.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Huh, looking at those numbers. We are getting better at it...

---

Easily the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

If it was presidents and senators doing the dying we would be involved in zero conflicts.

---

And posting Korea and Vietnam casualties for the US supplying weapons and no troops is right on point? You want to go bombastic on an issue not related. You get those responses.

---

Each and every war listed began with 'the US initially only supplying weapons and financial aid' .

Now you certainly know this so your comments are dishonest .

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

A. Please remind the Ukranians how much we appreciate their thousands of dead, millions displaced and devasted cities. All to 'weaken Putin'.
B. Attempt to activate your millennial brain and read how each of our previous wars began with 'only providing supplies and fiancial aid'.
C. When are you enlisting in the Ukranian army internet 'soldier' ? Isn't it time for you to get away from your video games and see the real gore first hand ?

---

I'm not sure you understand that slavery has been abolished in the US. Ukrainians are not our slaves. They are a free society and choose their own path.

Thankfully they have the courage to protect their family from rape -- unlike half of you guys here that would ask your daughter to see who is at the front door while you run out the back.

---

Locked and loaded, Baby!!! Try that in a small town. (Liberal head EXPLODES!!!)

By the way Ronnie. You never told us where you live! I live in small town Geronimo, Texas. Don't be skeered!!

Now that we are bringing up World War 2, a trivia question...

What do all the men who served as NATO's Commanders in Chief of Allied Forces from 1967-1983 have in common?

Hint: The answer is found in the blue ensign of the alliance, adopted in 1953.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Huh, looking at those numbers. We are getting better at it...

---

Easily the stupidest thing you have ever posted.

If it was presidents and senators doing the dying we would be involved in zero conflicts.

---

And posting Korea and Vietnam casualties for the US supplying weapons and no troops is right on point? You want to go bombastic on an issue not related. You get those responses.

---

Each and every war listed began with 'the US initially only supplying weapons and financial aid' .

Now you certainly know this so your comments are dishonest .

---

As dishonest as listing Korea, Viet Nam and other deaths in the same discussion as military aid. Not every military aid has evolved into troop commitments. Look at Israel, Suez, Falklands as actions we sat out but still supplied. We provide military aid to 157 nations and only a small number turn into troop commitments in our history.

You know there is a huge difference between committing troops and supplies.

Now, Biden moves the 82nd or 101st in Ukraine, now we have another discussion and agree that those actions are relevant. But, we are not there yet and I am not hearing anyone saying they have the stomach for that. Because as you know, then we are talking US body bags. Then the tolerance for how many casualties is acceptable is legit. Right now, it is zero.

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

I'm glad you speak for everyone.

One Grandfather served in Korea, and if he were still here, he'd tell you that he'd do it all over again as he watched S.Korea become an international player in the global business market.

Dad served in Vietnam, and he's very keen on the progress of the Vietnamese economy, and he'd do it all over again as well.

Anecdotal, but there are many, many men out there that given the opportunity, even knowing the cost, would do it all over again anyway.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

I don't disagree. theoretically. However, you can't set policy based on individuals. It is the same with public health, infrastructure, and other policy decisions that are for the Nation and the 360 million.

Spent most of my life building public infrastructure, there are people negatively impacted by every decision. You try your best to build in community improvements and health/safety benefits, but that does not help the people that lost their houses to Eminent Domain. Not trying to be mean or unfeeling, but the ramifications of not doing things for the minority would be worse in the long run, at least theoretically...

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

---

Solid questions.

But you are addressing them to the wrong guy.

Founding Fathers wanting nothing to do with foreign wars. And for almost 120 years such an attitude proved to be very successful.

If it was up to me the US would pull our troops out of South Korea, out of Europe and out of NATO.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

---

Solid questions.

But you are addressing them to the wrong guy.

Founding Fathers wanting nothing to do with foreign wars. And for almost 120 years such an attitude proved to be very successful.

If it was up to me the US would pull our troops out of South Korea, out of Europe and out of NATO.

---

I get that. Just don't know if it is possible in this day and age. The communications and information sharing has shrunk the world. It is not the same situation. How do we keep the lessons from that and still live in 2021?

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

---

Solid questions.

But you are addressing them to the wrong guy.

Founding Fathers wanting nothing to do with foreign wars. And for almost 120 years such an attitude proved to be very successful.

If it was up to me the US would pull our troops out of South Korea, out of Europe and out of NATO.

---

How do we keep the lessons from that and still live in 2021?

---

My friend there are many countries who do just fine without playing the world's policeman.

Get out of South Korea, get out of Europe, stop funding NATO, stop giving billions of dollars to foreign countries.

Move those troops on to our borders; stopping once and for all the entry of illegals and dangerous narcotics.

Putting the trillions saved into mental health care, free day care, housing for our millions of homeless, investing in manufacturing jobs, and agriculture.

And ( God forbid ) pay off our national debt.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

---

Solid questions.

But you are addressing them to the wrong guy.

Founding Fathers wanting nothing to do with foreign wars. And for almost 120 years such an attitude proved to be very successful.

If it was up to me the US would pull our troops out of South Korea, out of Europe and out of NATO.

---

How do we keep the lessons from that and still live in 2021?

---

My friend there are many countries who do just fine without playing the world's policeman.

Get out of South Korea, get out of Europe, stop funding NATO, stop giving billions of dollars to foreign countries.

Move those troops on to our borders; stopping once and for all the entry of illegals and dangerous narcotics.

Putting the trillions saved into mental health care, free day care, housing for our millions of homeless, investing in manufacturing jobs, and agriculture.

And ( God forbid ) pay off our national debt.

---

Well, those others are able to do that because we are the counter to China and Russia. Take us off the Board, China steamrolls the world. Hell, we may not be able to prevent it with our last three Presidents.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

---

Solid questions.

But you are addressing them to the wrong guy.

Founding Fathers wanting nothing to do with foreign wars. And for almost 120 years such an attitude proved to be very successful.

If it was up to me the US would pull our troops out of South Korea, out of Europe and out of NATO.

---

How do we keep the lessons from that and still live in 2021?

---

My friend there are many countries who do just fine without playing the world's policeman.

Get out of South Korea, get out of Europe, stop funding NATO, stop giving billions of dollars to foreign countries.

Move those troops on to our borders; stopping once and for all the entry of illegals and dangerous narcotics.

Putting the trillions saved into mental health care, free day care, housing for our millions of homeless, investing in manufacturing jobs, and agriculture.

And ( God forbid ) pay off our national debt.

---

Better idea to just send morons like you to Russia while the rest of us continue to run the world as we see fit.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

---

Solid questions.

But you are addressing them to the wrong guy.

Founding Fathers wanting nothing to do with foreign wars. And for almost 120 years such an attitude proved to be very successful.

If it was up to me the US would pull our troops out of South Korea, out of Europe and out of NATO.

---

Famous missile expert Thomas Jefferson, flight expert George Washington, and satellite expert Benjamin Franklin wanted nothing to do with foreign wars? What a surprise

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

Anything we can do to weaken North Korea is good for the US

Over 34,000 US soldiers dead.

Anything we can do to weaken North Vietnam is good for the US.

Over 52,000 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken Saddam Hussein is good for the US

Over 4400 US soldiers dead

Anything we can do to weaken the Tailban in Afghanistan is good for the US

Over 2400 US solders and 1822 civilian contractors dead.



Hundreds of thousasnds crippled, trillions of dollars wasted for absolutely nothing.

Yet here we are still again playing the same stupid role of world's policeman.

Only this time it involves Russia who possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile.



Insanity

---

Thanks for writing out how ridiculously good of deal we are getting for 0 US deaths and a weakened Putin.

---

To say we got nothing for any of our foreign policy expenditures over the last 70 years, that circumstances would have somehow improved had we done nothing, is breathtakingly obtuse.

---

Tell that to the families of our dead.

Preach how much was accomplished in Korea, Vietnam, Irag and a host of other foreign policy blunders to those still dealing with crippling, life long injuries.

The protected rich get the 'benefits'; and its the poor and middle class who always deal with the bloody consequences.

---

it's called the bell curve. the standard deviation always pays the blood treasure, because that's where the bodies are.

the tropes about the rich are also non-instructive. The rich are not a cancer. They, like the poor, always exist. And they, like the poor, tend to perpetuate themselves. More to the point, no society in history has ever afforded more mobility, up & down, between classes than the United States of America.

Wars do indeed tend to make the rich richer. They also create jobs. And. Sometimes.....(more often than not)....wars do need fighting. At the end of the day, waging war is one of the reasons we engage in social contract - to leave the state of nature to form an alliance to defend hearth and home. That's what NATO is. It's a community of like-minded nations (liberal democracies) who have crafted a common defense agreement, against larger authoritarian societies to the east who have a tendency to not keep their armies within their own borders. And when the aforementioned authoritarians do mount up & ride west for a war of conquest, only a *******ed fool would advocate doing nothing because someone might make nickel selling swords & shields.

---

Garbage.

Sell this bull**** to the clueless video game crowd who haven't seen a leg blown off in a split second without the slightest warning.

---

I am curious. I know what you mean about the individual cost of war. I saw the Kuwait City and the Highway of Death in 1991, it changed my direction. I got out and spent life building things, rather than training to destroy them. I was not in the battle, dealt with the aftermath. So, I get it.

What I don't get it that if we turtle up and go isolationist, China, Russia and India will not. How do you deal with that if you don't support allies and potential allies in setting boundaries? I actually am glad we moved back to coalitions, as opposed toe "W"'s go it alone if we have to approach of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we could isolationist up and only worry about our borders and only have a military to repulse an invasion? If so, do we:

Protect shipping lanes?
Do anti-piracy?
Do we have a presence in space, artic and Antartica?
WMD, how do we handle from just our territory?
Allies? Do we have any?

---

Solid questions.

But you are addressing them to the wrong guy.

Founding Fathers wanting nothing to do with foreign wars. And for almost 120 years such an attitude proved to be very successful.

If it was up to me the US would pull our troops out of South Korea, out of Europe and out of NATO.

---

How do we keep the lessons from that and still live in 2021?

---

My friend there are many countries who do just fine without playing the world's policeman.

Get out of South Korea, get out of Europe, stop funding NATO, stop giving billions of dollars to foreign countries.

Move those troops on to our borders; stopping once and for all the entry of illegals and dangerous narcotics.

Putting the trillions saved into mental health care, free day care, housing for our millions of homeless, investing in manufacturing jobs, and agriculture.

And ( God forbid ) pay off our national debt.

---

while the rest of us continue to run the world as we see fit.

---

You constantly exhibit the cluelessness and immaturity of a 16 year old.

That you feel entiltled to 'run the world as we see fit ' is bizarre and most likely the result of being pampered by your parents.

Get out into the real world Rambo. Ukraine will gladly accept your enlistment.