KaiBear said:

---

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.

---

Teenagers are capable of understanding power structure. US is on top globally and you are at the bottom socially.

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

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.

---

Teenagers are capable of understanding power structure. US is on top globally and you are at the bottom socially.

---

Spoken like a totally cluelss 16 year old.

One who refuses to go fight so the US can 'run the world as we see fit'.

Weird that the Anglo-American think tank warriors here - reliably foaming about 'aggressive war' or 'crimes against humanity' etc - are not putting Armenian flags in their handles ... for some reason ... https://t.co/UMncrOCc1M

— Gray Connolly (@GrayConnolly) September 30, 2023

I know this doesn't matter to the majority of Congressional Republicans, but polling not only shows that close to a majority if not a majority of all Americans want aid to Ukraine cut, a vast majority of Republican voters now favor the cutting of war support: https://t.co/D8h6zfAHbf pic.twitter.com/Y27UdKMWqH

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 30, 2023

The ability of the Biden WH to keep every last Dem in support of the war after 18 months and $100 billion is amazing, given how left-wing parties and leaders all over the world are at least split if not opposed.

The Dem Party is almost bereft of internal debate and dissent.

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 30, 2023

There is nothing new under the sun. The advancement of technology does not change human nature. Since international relations is an outgrowth of human nature, it doesn't change that either.

The two things that are in play today are (1) nuclear weapons giving man the ability to destroy the planet and (2) surveillance technology necessary for a beast system.

Both are arguments in favor of repudiating our current foreign and domestic polciies.

Redbrickbear said:

---

I know this doesn't matter to the majority of Congressional Republicans, but polling not only shows that close to a majority if not a majority of all Americans want aid to Ukraine cut, a vast majority of Republican voters now favor the cutting of war support: https://t.co/D8h6zfAHbf pic.twitter.com/Y27UdKMWqH

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) September 30, 2023

---

Show a poll of who wants aid to Tanzania cut. No one gives a **** what the average voter thinks about as they would change their mind if their was a Real House Wives of Lviv released.

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

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.

---

Teenagers are capable of understanding power structure. US is on top globally and you are at the bottom socially.

---

Spoken like a totally cluelss 16 year old.

One who refuses to go fight so the US can 'run the world as we see fit'.

---

I would ask if you are fighting at the border but this actually wouldn't surprise me. lmao

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.

---

The Founding Fathers were pulling out of an empire. They weren't contemplating being the empire. Invoking them in this conversation would be like invoking Marconi or Edison in a discussion of cyber attacks.

With great power comes great responsibility. Sometimes we wield it well, and in others we haven't. But make no mistake our lives and world would look and be much different if the US didn't wield that power.

ATL Bear 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.

---

The Founding Fathers were pulling out of an empire. They weren't contemplating being the empire….

---

True

Very very true

But the Founding Fathers Vision was destroyed in 1861

"If the Constitution is adopted (and it was) the Union will be in fact and in theory an association of States or a Confederacy."

~ Alexander Hamilton,THE FEDERALIST, Vol. LX

Realitybites said:

---

There is nothing new under the sun. The advancement of technology does not change human nature. Since international relations is an outgrowth of human nature, it doesn't change that either.

The two things that are in play today are (1) nuclear weapons giving man the ability to destroy the planet and (2) surveillance technology necessary for a beast system.

Both are arguments in favor of repudiating our current foreign and domestic polciies.

---

When our Founding Fathers were fighting wars, disease was killing more soldiers than weapons. The greater effectiveness of small arms and the advent of aerial warfare is the largest contributor to battlefield expansion and deaths, with a big nod to logistic capabilities (moving men and supplies). Nuclear weapons don't even move the needle and are really a geopolitical tool instead of a warfare tool.

If you don't think technology doesn't alter human nature, I'm not sure what to tell you. Societies have been evolving to changing capabilities for Millenia. And now that we have the scientific capabilities, we even see the biological changes in humans as a result of it.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear 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.

---

The Founding Fathers were pulling out of an empire. They weren't contemplating being the empire….

---

True

Very very true

But the Founding Fathers Vision was destroyed in 1861

"If the Constitution is adopted (and it was) the Union will be in fact and in theory an association of States or a Confederacy."

~ Alexander Hamilton,THE FEDERALIST, Vol. LX

---

Fortunately we didn't turn out as predicted.

Bear8084 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

The head of the Pentagon asked the Russian military not to hunt for Abrams tanks, MK correspondents report his words.

“A repetition of the situation with German Leopard tanks, when they were hunted, is unacceptable, I saw these calls on the Internet. Play by the rules,” US… pic.twitter.com/Clea1jd38y

— Sprinter (@Sprinter99800) September 27, 2023

The incompetence of this admin never ceases to amaze me. I hope Russa blows up every single one of those Abrams tanks on day 1.

---

This has to be a joke...

---

You would think so....

---

He's exaggerating. It will probably take at least a week.

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.

---

Reagan couldn't disagree more. Biden is undoing everything that he accomplished.

FLBear5630 said:

---

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.

---

Just another quick reminder that Putin never said that.

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.

---

LOL

ron.reagan 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.

---

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

---

You forgot to mention naval power, which was their equivalent.

ATL Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

There is nothing new under the sun. The advancement of technology does not change human nature. Since international relations is an outgrowth of human nature, it doesn't change that either.

The two things that are in play today are (1) nuclear weapons giving man the ability to destroy the planet and (2) surveillance technology necessary for a beast system.

Both are arguments in favor of repudiating our current foreign and domestic polciies.

---

If you don't think technology doesn't alter human nature, I'm not sure what to tell you. Societies have been evolving to changing capabilities for Millenia. And now that we have the scientific capabilities, we even see the biological changes in humans as a result of it.

---

They've developed new and different means to the same corrupt ends. Human nature has never fundamentally changed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

The head of the Pentagon asked the Russian military not to hunt for Abrams tanks, MK correspondents report his words.

“A repetition of the situation with German Leopard tanks, when they were hunted, is unacceptable, I saw these calls on the Internet. Play by the rules,” US… pic.twitter.com/Clea1jd38y

— Sprinter (@Sprinter99800) September 27, 2023

The incompetence of this admin never ceases to amaze me. I hope Russa blows up every single one of those Abrams tanks on day 1.

---

This has to be a joke...

---

You would think so....

---

He's exaggerating. It will probably take at least a week.

---

LOL oh vatnik....

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.

---

More garbage, misapplied & spun to mean something they did not say or do - paeans to passive neutrality.

Founding Fathers were wise to understand our place in the world, that we as a young, poor, developing nation had much to risk playing game of thrones with larger, wealthier, far more developed colonial powers. They played the game exceedingly well. See the article I posted about the Addams Triangle. When it made sense, we did go to war. And we went to war in a way that advanced national interest. Always have. It's why we are, today, the most powerful nation on earth. We are pretty good at it, from the policy to the preparation to the choice of the battlefield to the execution of the operations. Sure, we could have been better from time to time in one or more phases, but as a great power we rank quite high on any list. (the top). That you saw someone else get hurt or killed doesn't give you any special insights on any of that. Arguably clouds your judgment.

Sam Lowry 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.

---

Reagan couldn't disagree more. Biden is undoing everything that he accomplished.

---

Reagan would stand by and let Putin invade Ukraine? Grenada/Iran-Contra Ron would have said, we are out let Russia have Ukraine? After he worked to get Ukrainian independence. Yeah.

I served why Ronnie was President. You know how many times we (82nd Abn) got ready to deploy and sit at Pope Air Field so the satellites could get a good look? You think he was bluffing? I don't, the officers and AF personnel managing our aircraft didn't. Sitting in a stick on a tarmac for 8 hours is no fun. This happened that I can remember with Libya and Poland. Every EDRE was a satellite opportunity to show strength and he used it. Reagan also supplies Afghan Rebels and Solidarity in Poland. Reagan would not stand by and let Putin do this.

Schumer: “McConnell and I have agreed to continue fighting for more economic and security aid for Ukraine.”
pic.twitter.com/KPCAilI8vy

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) October 1, 2023

If Reagan was president, Victoria Nuland would be working at Walmart, not staging a coup against a democratically elected government in Kiev. Donbass and Lugansk would never have declared independence after her junta refused to seat their dually elected representatives...and Russia would never have invaded.

Technology changes human *behavior*. It doesn't change human *nature*. There's a difference.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

There is nothing new under the sun. The advancement of technology does not change human nature. Since international relations is an outgrowth of human nature, it doesn't change that either.

The two things that are in play today are (1) nuclear weapons giving man the ability to destroy the planet and (2) surveillance technology necessary for a beast system.

Both are arguments in favor of repudiating our current foreign and domestic polciies.

---

If you don't think technology doesn't alter human nature, I'm not sure what to tell you. Societies have been evolving to changing capabilities for Millenia. And now that we have the scientific capabilities, we even see the biological changes in humans as a result of it.

---

They've developed new and different means to the same corrupt ends. Human nature has never fundamentally changed.

---

Of course it has. As cultures have changed, so has human nature.

Realitybites said:

---

If Reagan was president, Victoria Nuland would be working at Walmart, not staging a coup against a democratically elected government in Kiev. Donbass and Lugansk would never have declared independence after her junta refused to seat their dually elected representatives...and Russia would never have invaded.

---

Right, on all...

This is Reagan...

"No, democracy is not a fragile flower. Still it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy. …".

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

If Reagan was president, Victoria Nuland would be working at Walmart, not staging a coup against a democratically elected government in Kiev. Donbass and Lugansk would never have declared independence after her junta refused to seat their dually elected representatives...and Russia would never have invaded.

---

Right, on all...

This is Reagan...

"No, democracy is not a fragile flower. Still it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy. …".

---

Before we go across the oceans to "fight fascism and defend democracy"…we might want to start here at home.

The past 25 years in the Anglo world have been nothing but a string of defeats for free speech, real political democracy, and freedom of association…

---

I agree with you that we need to push freedom and market capitalism more in the US. Still don't think Reagan would tell Ukraine good luck but we can't help you fight Putin.

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.

---

LOL history fail. This is most assuredly NOT the first proxy war between nuclear superpowers. Good grief.

ATL Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

K said:

---

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.

---

The Founding Fathers were pulling out of an empire. They weren't contemplating being the empire. Invoking them in this conversation would be like invoking Marconi or Edison in a discussion of cyber attacks.

With great power comes great responsibility. Sometimes we wield it well, and in others we haven't. But make no mistake our lives and world would look and be much different if the US didn't wield that power.

---

Exactly. For all our mistakes, we have wielded our power more wisely by any historical comparison, certainly moreso than any other great power of our age. It that were not true, we would no longer be a great power.

Russia, on the other hand.....keeps making one blunder after another....in less than 70 years, it's gone from a global superpower to a country which cannot win a war against a neighbor 1/3 its size.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

If Reagan was president, Victoria Nuland would be working at Walmart, not staging a coup against a democratically elected government in Kiev. Donbass and Lugansk would never have declared independence after her junta refused to seat their dually elected representatives...and Russia would never have invaded.

---

Right, on all...

This is Reagan...

"No, democracy is not a fragile flower. Still it needs cultivating. If the rest of this century is to witness the gradual growth of freedom and democratic ideals, we must take actions to assist the campaign for democracy. …".

---

Before we go across the oceans to "fight fascism and defend democracy"…we might want to start here at home.

The past 25 years in the Anglo world have been nothing but a string of defeats for free speech, real political democracy, and freedom of association…

---

I agree with you that we need to push freedom and market capitalism more in the US. Still don't think Reagan would tell Ukraine good luck but we can't help you fight Putin.

---

The mark of a great power is its understanding that it has a large portfolio of assets, soft and hard, to protect and promote its interests. Such a power would understand that it is a patent false dilemma to shut down lethal aid to an aspiring democracy on the borders of our most important alliance to counter an armed invasion by an autocratic regime patently challenging the liberal order, just because the administration of another key ally is engaging in domestic policy we disagree with. The Canadians still do have processes to effectively redress the grievances being committed against them. The Ukrainians do not.

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

LOL history fail. This is most assuredly NOT the first proxy war between nuclear superpowers. Good grief.

---

Well yes...I should have said proxy war against a nuclear power on their doorstep.

Vietnam in the 1960s-70s was of course a proxy war by the USSR and Communist China against the USA.

Afghanistan in the 1980s a proxy war against against the USSR by the USA.

Probably throw the Korean War in there as well.

I will say that this one feels more serious in a way its hard to quantify. Maybe because its in a area that Moscow cares deeply about? Vs say Afghanistan or Vietnam...places that had little really importance to Moscow or D.C.

I could of course be wrong.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

Reagan couldn't disagree more. Biden is undoing everything that he accomplished.

---

Reagan would stand by and let Putin invade Ukraine? Grenada/Iran-Contra Ron would have said, we are out let Russia have Ukraine? After he worked to get Ukrainian independence. Yeah.

I served why Ronnie was President. You know how many times we (82nd Abn) got ready to deploy and sit at Pope Air Field so the satellites could get a good look? You think he was bluffing? I don't, the officers and AF personnel managing our aircraft didn't. Sitting in a stick on a tarmac for 8 hours is no fun. This happened that I can remember with Libya and Poland. Every EDRE was a satellite opportunity to show strength and he used it. Reagan also supplies Afghan Rebels and Solidarity in Poland. Reagan would not stand by and let Putin do this.

---

...and we were smuggling small satellite dish receivers into East Germany so they could catch western TV broadcasts......smuggling same plus money to Polish unions....etc.....and dogging Soviet Bloc diplomats balls to walls.....and flying/sailing warcraft provocatively to send messages, etc......

I mean, the obtusity of the peace-at-all-cost crowd here is mind boggling.

---

1. I don't think anyone on this thread has advocated "peace-at-all-costs"

I don't know one person on this website who has NOT said we should wipe Russia out if they attack a actual NATO member.

Or that we should not fight China if they attack say Japan or S. Korea

So that is not really a fair criticism.

2. Waging a decades long struggle to undermine the Soviet Union and its political/military domination of central and eastern Europe was of course justified. Communism was (and is) one of the most evil ideologies of all time. Killed at least 100-200 million people during the 20th Century.

And Soviet troops were right there...mere miles from Austria and inside East Germany. The Red army used to have 75,000 troops in Wunsdorf Germany.

That is all gone...its ideological & military empire totally collapsed.

The modern Russian state is nothing like that. Its a declining regional power with no control over central Europe or the Balkans...and now not even control over the Baltic region (right on its door step), its declining in population, has a stagnant/non-dynamic economy, and its a oligarchy without much of an ideology in general and has to rely on old Russian nationalism to give it any legitimacy at all.