Why Are We in Ukraine?

414,085 Views | 6272 Replies | Last: 43 min ago by boognish_bear
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 6:57a, 10/3/23
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
You keep saying 500k dead Ukrainians, and there is literally no place on earth other than Russia Today, or Colonel SlapFace who is constantly on Russia today, saying that.
NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/us/politics/ukraine-russia-war-casualties.html

Troop Deaths and Injuries in Ukraine War Near 500,000, U.S. Officials Say

Stop buying into the bs propaganda you've been fed since 2016 about Russian misinformation. HRC cooked that up and tried to coup DJT. They used it to downplay the Hunter Biden Laptop and know they're using it to make people not question this proxy war with Ukraine.
Reading comprehension problem: "Troop Deaths AND INJURIES in the Ukraine War....."

BBC story at link has deaths well below 70K.
"Dying by the dozens" does not fit the anti-policy narrative that Ukraine cannot sustain battle losses. "Dozens per day" is less than 3k per MONTH, 36k per year. (which fits the 70k number....) Ukraine has several multiples of that number rising to military age every year. Can sustain those losses indefinitely.

Neither Ukraine nor Russia will run out of manpower, due to demographic shortages. Russia does, however, have serious logistical and political challenges which will make it far more difficult for them to keep up.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66581217
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:00a, 10/3/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
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.
Let's define a proxy war, Ukraine, Afghanistan- 80's, Iran/Iraq War, Israeli wars, Suez all are proxy wars as we used or supported others that we agreed with but the US did not fight (hence Proxy).

Korea, Iraq, Viet Nam, Grenada, Kuwait, Haiti, were not proxy wars. They were out right military actions/wars that the US took part in whole heartedly. There was no proxy. US troops were deployed fought and died.

I put Ukraine into Proxy, sure. But there is no proxy if Russia doesn't invade or Ukraine does not ask for help.

I think that is fair
The real conversation is the War Powers Act and how it has morphed from the original intent to blank check. Another example of Congress not doing their job. They punted it to the Executive Branch so they didn't have to vote to go to war. Like immigration and abortion, punting to the Executive or SCOUS to do their job. That is what I want to fix.
Be careful not to conflate military aid to a foreign country with deployment of US troops into combat......
There is a huge difference. I have no problem with aid.

Now, the War Powers Act I believe has been *******ized. The original was given to FDR AFTER Congress had declared war. It was meant to allow FDR to effectively manage the war.

Later renditions, simply gave the Executive Branch the ability to wage war without a declaration. Too much is happening WITHOUT Congress taking action. The Executive has too much power in my opinion. Congress needs to do its job.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:06a, 10/3/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
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.
Let's define a proxy war, Ukraine, Afghanistan- 80's, Iran/Iraq War, Israeli wars, Suez all are proxy wars as we used or supported others that we agreed with but the US did not fight (hence Proxy).

Korea, Iraq, Viet Nam, Grenada, Kuwait, Haiti, were not proxy wars. They were out right military actions/wars that the US took part in whole heartedly. There was no proxy. US troops were deployed fought and died.

I put Ukraine into Proxy, sure. But there is no proxy if Russia doesn't invade or Ukraine does not ask for help.

I think that is fair
The real conversation is the War Powers Act and how it has morphed from the original intent to blank check. Another example of Congress not doing their job. They punted it to the Executive Branch so they didn't have to vote to go to war. Like immigration and abortion, punting to the Executive or SCOUS to do their job. That is what I want to fix.
Be careful not to conflate military aid to a foreign country with deployment of US troops into combat......
There is a huge difference. I have no problem with aid.

Now, the War Powers Act I believe has been *******ized. The original was given to FDR AFTER Congress had declared war. It was meant to allow FDR to effectively manage the war.

Later renditions, simply gave the Executive Branch the ability to wage war without a declaration. Too much is happening WITHOUT Congress taking action. The Executive has too much power in my opinion. Congress needs to do its job.
One could argue they are. They are considering pulling funding of support for Ukraine......
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:29a, 10/3/23
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
....proof of inexperience and misunderstanding.

Read Nixon's "Real War" and "Real Peace." (two books. very short.) To over-summarize, the absence of battle is a very poor indicator of Peace, and War starts long before battle commences.

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years, slowly escalating the diplomacy, the trade (gas) levers, the small police actions, then the destabilization efforts, then the unconventional operations (2014 Crimea/Donbas). THEN the 2022 "special military operation." The 2022 mass invasion of Ukraine was not the first, but the last straw. Nato showed incredible patience. Putin misread it as weakness. The 2022 invasion challenged the international order as we know it....the order that has kept the peace in Europe for nearly 80 years. If we do not defend it now, it's all over. And for what? What new idea replaces it? Trust Moscow (to be sated from here forward)?

Sending money and arms to Ukraine to grind up the Russian army is good policy. At worst (Uke collapses), it buys a decade of time for us to prepare for Russian armies deployed all along Nato borders. At best (Uke regains all occupied territory), it causes regime change in Moscow, resetting the clock back to 1991, adding another decade or three to Russian rebuilding. And possibly a new worldview in Moscow. Cataclysmic loss does tend to have that effect. Did in Tokyo and Berlin. Russia losing to Ukraine, and a Ukraine in Nato will by necessity force a change in Russian worldview. They will have no choice but to adapt. And our kids & grandkids will likely not have to live under the same kinds of Russian threats we here have.

Russia gotta lose somewhere before they get to Warsaw. Why not in Ukraine, now? The Ukes are definitely eager to do the job. All they need is some help.

If you really do want to give peace a chance, send more ammo to Ukraine.
Reply Quote
3
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 7:32a, 10/3/23
Realitybites said:
Cobretti said:



I'm sure they'll discover another billion dollar "accounting error" so they can keep doing what they want to do apart from civilian supervision.
the accounting is softer than normal in this particular situation. So much of the dollar value of the aid is actually gifting of older equipment, for which there is no actual money involved. But the equipment is on the books and has to be written off when donated, so it shows up as an expense.
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:34a, 10/3/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
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.
Let's define a proxy war, Ukraine, Afghanistan- 80's, Iran/Iraq War, Israeli wars, Suez all are proxy wars as we used or supported others that we agreed with but the US did not fight (hence Proxy).

Korea, Iraq, Viet Nam, Grenada, Kuwait, Haiti, were not proxy wars. They were out right military actions/wars that the US took part in whole heartedly. There was no proxy. US troops were deployed fought and died.

I put Ukraine into Proxy, sure. But there is no proxy if Russia doesn't invade or Ukraine does not ask for help.

I think that is fair
The real conversation is the War Powers Act and how it has morphed from the original intent to blank check. Another example of Congress not doing their job. They punted it to the Executive Branch so they didn't have to vote to go to war. Like immigration and abortion, punting to the Executive or SCOUS to do their job. That is what I want to fix.
Be careful not to conflate military aid to a foreign country with deployment of US troops into combat......
There is a huge difference. I have no problem with aid.

Now, the War Powers Act I believe has been *******ized. The original was given to FDR AFTER Congress had declared war. It was meant to allow FDR to effectively manage the war.

Later renditions, simply gave the Executive Branch the ability to wage war without a declaration. Too much is happening WITHOUT Congress taking action. The Executive has too much power in my opinion. Congress needs to do its job.
One could argue they are. They are considering pulling funding of support for Ukraine......
Yeah, I am talking in the broader sense.

Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:36a, 10/3/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
....proof of inexperience and misunderstanding.

Read Nixon's "Real War" and "Real Peace." (two books. very short.) To over-summarize, the absence of battle is a very poor indicator of Peace, and War starts long before battle commences.

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years, slowly escalating the diplomacy, the trade (gas) levers, the small police actions, then the destabilization efforts, then the unconventional operations (2014 Crimea/Donbas). THEN the 2022 "special military operation." The 2022 mass invasion of Ukraine was not the first, but the last straw. Nato showed incredible patience. Putin misread it as weakness. The 2022 invasion challenged the international order as we know it....the order that has kept the peace in Europe for nearly 80 years. If we do not defend it now, it's all over. And for what? What new idea replaces it? Trust Moscow (to be sated from here forward)?

Sending money and arms to Ukraine to grind up the Russian army is good policy. At worst (Uke collapses), it buys a decade of time for us to prepare for Russian armies deployed all along Nato borders. At best (Uke regains all occupied territory), it causes regime change in Moscow, resetting the clock back to 1991, adding another decade or three to Russian rebuilding. And possibly a new worldview in Moscow. Cataclysmic loss does tend to have that effect. Did in Tokyo and Berlin. Russia losing to Ukraine, and a Ukraine in Nato will by necessity force a change in Russian worldview. They will have no choice but to adapt. And our kids & grandkids will likely not have to live under the same kinds of Russian threats we here have.

Russia gotta lose somewhere before they get to Warsaw. Why not in Ukraine, now? The Ukes are definitely eager to do the job. All they need is some help.

If you really do want to give peace a chance, send more ammo to Ukraine.
No, if you want to give peace a chance - send ammo to Ukraine and let Ukraine into NATO (like we did with the Baltics). Set conditions, give time to Russia to pull out, even give the Crimea. But, until there is a bigger hammer threateing Russia it will be an endless battle at least until 2024.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 8:15a, 10/3/23
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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:26a, 10/3/23
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
Reagan worked for Peace when and where the Soviets/Gorbachev worked with him. Where the Soviets didn't we enabled their opponents.
Reply Quote
2
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 9:14a, 10/3/23
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
Reagan worked for Peace when and where the Soviets/Gorbachev worked with him. Where the Soviets didn't we enabled their opponents.
Exactly. That's what we've refused to do for at least the last 20 years.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:20a, 10/3/23
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
Reagan worked for Peace when and where the Soviets/Gorbachev worked with him. Where the Soviets didn't we enabled their opponents.
Exactly. That's what we've refused to do for at least the last 20 years.


Sam you do realize Putin has invaded Ukraine twice? Obama and Trump tried to work with Putin.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:29a, 10/3/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
Reply Quote
1
Bear8084
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 9:57a, 10/3/23
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
Reagan worked for Peace when and where the Soviets/Gorbachev worked with him. Where the Soviets didn't we enabled their opponents.
Exactly. That's what we've refused to do for at least the last 20 years.


Wrong, as usual.
Reply Quote
Bear8084
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 9:58a, 10/3/23
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 10:51a, 10/3/23
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
As China shows daily, there are more ways to fight a war than with troops.
Reply Quote
1
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 1:11p, 10/3/23
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
As China shows daily, there are more ways to fight a war than with troops.
True. But they're not really showing ways to win the war they're not fighting with troops either. They're bent over a barrel, and both China and the US know it, and so do most other countries.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to trey3216 • 1:19p, 10/3/23
trey3216 said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
As China shows daily, there are more ways to fight a war than with troops.
True. But they're not really showing ways to win the war they're not fighting with troops either. They're bent over a barrel, and both China and the US know it, and so do most other countries.
I am not a fan of talking heads on TV, but I do like Gen Jack Keane. Former commander of the 101st. He gives real perspectives. He pointed out that China's actions in the Pacific has actually strengthened the US presence with allies. S Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan all are closer to the US due to China's aggression. It has even pushed the Phillipines and Viet Nam into the US camp. So, I believe you are right.
Reply Quote
2
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 2:12p, 10/3/23
FLBear5630 said:
trey3216 said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
As China shows daily, there are more ways to fight a war than with troops.
True. But they're not really showing ways to win the war they're not fighting with troops either. They're bent over a barrel, and both China and the US know it, and so do most other countries.
I am not a fan of talking heads on TV, but I do like Gen Jack Keane. Former commander of the 101st. He gives real perspectives. He pointed out that China's actions in the Pacific has actually strengthened the US presence with allies. S Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan all are closer to the US due to China's aggression. It has even pushed the Phillipines and Viet Nam into the US camp. So, I believe you are right.

The Philippines has been in the U.S. camp since it was a territory in the 1890s.

But I get what you are saying.

It is shocking to see a world where the Communists of Vietnam are actually inviting the American military back in. That actually happened recently...or at least the idea was floated around.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/world/asia/access-to-bay-adds-enticement-as-us-weighs-lifting-vietnam-embargo.html

[CAM RANH BAY, Vietnam The ghosts of the Vietnam War have finally faded at the strategic port of Cam Ranh Bay. More than 40 years ago, United States forces left this massive base where Marines landed, F-4C jets loaded up for bombing raids, and wounded American soldiers were treated.
Now, some Vietnamese say they are yearning for the American military to return.
"On Facebook, there was a question recently: What do you want from President Obama's visit?" said Vo Van Tao, 63, who fought as a young North Vietnamese infantry soldier against the United States. "I said I wanted the Americans to come back to Cam Ranh Bay. A lot of people agreed with me."

Vietnam's government, pressed by an ever more powerful China, knows it cannot stand up to Beijing alone and is cautiously moving toward increased ties with the United States.]

Crazy how things can change in just a few decades.

At least some factions in the Communist party of Vietnam actually want US forces stationed in the country again.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 2:42p, 10/3/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Realitybites said:
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.

You're not wrong.

Ukraine is existential to Russia and much closer to the Cuban missile crisis than any of those conflicts.

The irony in the democrat/neocon "Putin is Hitler!" fairytale is that he's actually relatively moderate. There are elements in Russian politics that will roll up to the Polish border to secure their border and push the button if we put boots on the ground to stop it.

But given the situation that democrat/neocons have allowed to develop on the Rio Grande, they have no understanding of the Russian desire to secure the Dniper.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Bear8084
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 2:58p, 10/3/23
Realitybites said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Realitybites said:
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.

You're not wrong.

Ukraine is existential to Russia and much closer to the Cuban missile crisis than any of those conflicts.

The irony in the democrat/neocon "Putin is Hitler!" fairytale is that he's actually relatively moderate. There are elements in Russian politics that will roll up to the Polish border to secure their border and push the button if we put boots on the ground to stop it.

But given the situation that democrat/neocons have allowed to develop on the Rio Grande, they have no understanding of the Russian desire to secure the Dniper.


Putin moderate....LOL.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 3:08p, 10/3/23
Realitybites said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Realitybites said:
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.

You're not wrong.

Ukraine is existential to Russia and much closer to the Cuban missile crisis than any of those conflicts.

The irony in the democrat/neocon "Putin is Hitler!" fairytale is that he's actually relatively moderate. There are elements in Russian politics that will roll up to the Polish border to secure their border and push the button if we put boots on the ground to stop it.

But given the situation that democrat/neocons have allowed to develop on the Rio Grande, they have no understanding of the Russian desire to secure the Dniper.

You're wasting your breath...none of the guys on this thread in the Chicken-hawk faction of American foreign policy care about geopolitical reality.

They are exactly in the "PUTLER IS BAD" category.

Not sitting down for 5 seconds to realize that as long as the Russian state exists...and it has existed for hundreds of year and will go on existing...that it will have major geopolitical interest in Ukraine.

Does not matter if its Czars, Communists, or Putin....whatever regime is in power in Moscow is going to care deeply about Ukraine. (Heck even Russian Democrats carried on the war with Germany in 1917 after the Czar was overthrow...specifically because they would not end the war by giving over Ukraine. Leading to the Oct. Revolution by the Communists that overthrew them)

And as long as the USA is around....and as long as there is some kind of regime in D.C. it is going to care who rules Canada and Mexico.

Russia is no different in that way.

Putin is going to be dead soon anyway so it does not matter that much really...he is 70 years old...and he may already be suffering serious health issues.

[According to Spanish news outlet Marca, it is believed that the Russian President is battling cancer and Parkinson's disease. This was confirmed by a security service insider in leaked Kremlin emails, "I can confirm he has been diagnosed with early-stage Parkinson's disease, but it's already progressing...]

Unless this war is settled with some sort of negotiation and agreement (one that takes Russian interests in mind) its going to be a festering wound in Eastern Europe for decades to come.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 3:08p, 10/3/23
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
trey3216 said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
As China shows daily, there are more ways to fight a war than with troops.
True. But they're not really showing ways to win the war they're not fighting with troops either. They're bent over a barrel, and both China and the US know it, and so do most other countries.
I am not a fan of talking heads on TV, but I do like Gen Jack Keane. Former commander of the 101st. He gives real perspectives. He pointed out that China's actions in the Pacific has actually strengthened the US presence with allies. S Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan all are closer to the US due to China's aggression. It has even pushed the Phillipines and Viet Nam into the US camp. So, I believe you are right.

The Philippines has been in the U.S. camp since it was a territory in the 1890s.

But I get what you are saying.

It is shocking to see a world where the Communists of Vietnam are actually inviting the American military back in. That actually happened recently...or at least the idea was floated around.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/world/asia/access-to-bay-adds-enticement-as-us-weighs-lifting-vietnam-embargo.html

[CAM RANH BAY, Vietnam The ghosts of the Vietnam War have finally faded at the strategic port of Cam Ranh Bay. More than 40 years ago, United States forces left this massive base where Marines landed, F-4C jets loaded up for bombing raids, and wounded American soldiers were treated.
Now, some Vietnamese say they are yearning for the American military to return.
"On Facebook, there was a question recently: What do you want from President Obama's visit?" said Vo Van Tao, 63, who fought as a young North Vietnamese infantry soldier against the United States. "I said I wanted the Americans to come back to Cam Ranh Bay. A lot of people agreed with me."

Vietnam's government, pressed by an ever more powerful China, knows it cannot stand up to Beijing alone and is cautiously moving toward increased ties with the United States.]

Crazy how things can change in just a few decades.

At least some factions in the Communist party of Vietnam actually want US forces stationed in the country again.
we're also moving a bunch of manufacturing and other industry from China to Vietnam.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
2
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 3:10p, 10/3/23
Realitybites said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Realitybites said:
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.

You're not wrong.

Ukraine is existential to Russia and much closer to the Cuban missile crisis than any of those conflicts.

The irony in the democrat/neocon "Putin is Hitler!" fairytale is that he's actually relatively moderate. There are elements in Russian politics that will roll up to the Polish border to secure their border and push the button if we put boots on the ground to stop it.

But given the situation that democrat/neocons have allowed to develop on the Rio Grande, they have no understanding of the Russian desire to secure the Dniper.
the Dnieper isn't Russia's to secure. And Putin being a moderate is absolutely hilarious.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:18p, 10/3/23
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 5:17a, 10/4/23
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Reagan pushed the Soviets harder than any POTUS before him or since.


Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 5:18a, 10/4/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
....proof of inexperience and misunderstanding.

Read Nixon's "Real War" and "Real Peace." (two books. very short.) To over-summarize, the absence of battle is a very poor indicator of Peace, and War starts long before battle commences.

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years, slowly escalating the diplomacy, the trade (gas) levers, the small police actions, then the destabilization efforts, then the unconventional operations (2014 Crimea/Donbas). THEN the 2022 "special military operation." The 2022 mass invasion of Ukraine was not the first, but the last straw. Nato showed incredible patience. Putin misread it as weakness. The 2022 invasion challenged the international order as we know it....the order that has kept the peace in Europe for nearly 80 years. If we do not defend it now, it's all over. And for what? What new idea replaces it? Trust Moscow (to be sated from here forward)?

Sending money and arms to Ukraine to grind up the Russian army is good policy. At worst (Uke collapses), it buys a decade of time for us to prepare for Russian armies deployed all along Nato borders. At best (Uke regains all occupied territory), it causes regime change in Moscow, resetting the clock back to 1991, adding another decade or three to Russian rebuilding. And possibly a new worldview in Moscow. Cataclysmic loss does tend to have that effect. Did in Tokyo and Berlin. Russia losing to Ukraine, and a Ukraine in Nato will by necessity force a change in Russian worldview. They will have no choice but to adapt. And our kids & grandkids will likely not have to live under the same kinds of Russian threats we here have.

Russia gotta lose somewhere before they get to Warsaw. Why not in Ukraine, now? The Ukes are definitely eager to do the job. All they need is some help.

If you really do want to give peace a chance, send more ammo to Ukraine.
No, if you want to give peace a chance - send ammo to Ukraine and let Ukraine into NATO (like we did with the Baltics). Set conditions, give time to Russia to pull out, even give the Crimea. But, until there is a bigger hammer threateing Russia it will be an endless battle at least until 2024.
I see that. I just worry about political stability in Ukraine. Worst case scenario is to let them in, then have a coup that brings a pro-Soviet regime to power. Nightmare, that.....
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 5:20a, 10/4/23
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
Reagan worked for Peace when and where the Soviets/Gorbachev worked with him. Where the Soviets didn't we enabled their opponents.
Exactly. That's what we've refused to do for at least the last 20 years.
LOL according to you, we forced Putin to invade by enabling Ukraine to be Ukraine.
Reply Quote
3
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 5:25a, 10/4/23
Realitybites said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Realitybites said:
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.

You're not wrong.

Ukraine is existential to Russia and much closer to the Cuban missile crisis than any of those conflicts.

The irony in the democrat/neocon "Putin is Hitler!" fairytale is that he's actually relatively moderate. There are elements in Russian politics that will roll up to the Polish border to secure their border and push the button if we put boots on the ground to stop it.

But given the situation that democrat/neocons have allowed to develop on the Rio Grande, they have no understanding of the Russian desire to secure the Dniper.
agreed. Putin is not the problem. The problem is an autocratic Russia pushing back on the liberal order, seeing the existence of the liberal order itself as a threat.

Just because Russia has understandable desires for a defensible land bridge to Crimea, does not mean that we have a duty to overturn many decades of international order & start redrawing borders at the barrel of T-72

The invasion is unacceptable. Full stop. It cannot be tolerated. A peace involving pre-2014 borders are non-negotiable.
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 5:26a, 10/4/23
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
trey3216 said:
FLBear5630 said:
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
...

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years,

Then why has NATO not invoked article 5 and invaded?

If Russia really has been a war with the entire NATO alliance for 20 whole years (lol) and NATO has not gone to war to protect itself...then it sounds like a useless military alliance.
As China shows daily, there are more ways to fight a war than with troops.
True. But they're not really showing ways to win the war they're not fighting with troops either. They're bent over a barrel, and both China and the US know it, and so do most other countries.
I am not a fan of talking heads on TV, but I do like Gen Jack Keane. Former commander of the 101st. He gives real perspectives. He pointed out that China's actions in the Pacific has actually strengthened the US presence with allies. S Korea, Japan, Australia, Singapore and Taiwan all are closer to the US due to China's aggression. It has even pushed the Phillipines and Viet Nam into the US camp. So, I believe you are right.

The Philippines has been in the U.S. camp since it was a territory in the 1890s.

But I get what you are saying.

It is shocking to see a world where the Communists of Vietnam are actually inviting the American military back in. That actually happened recently...or at least the idea was floated around.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/world/asia/access-to-bay-adds-enticement-as-us-weighs-lifting-vietnam-embargo.html

[CAM RANH BAY, Vietnam The ghosts of the Vietnam War have finally faded at the strategic port of Cam Ranh Bay. More than 40 years ago, United States forces left this massive base where Marines landed, F-4C jets loaded up for bombing raids, and wounded American soldiers were treated.
Now, some Vietnamese say they are yearning for the American military to return.
"On Facebook, there was a question recently: What do you want from President Obama's visit?" said Vo Van Tao, 63, who fought as a young North Vietnamese infantry soldier against the United States. "I said I wanted the Americans to come back to Cam Ranh Bay. A lot of people agreed with me."

Vietnam's government, pressed by an ever more powerful China, knows it cannot stand up to Beijing alone and is cautiously moving toward increased ties with the United States.]

Crazy how things can change in just a few decades.

At least some factions in the Communist party of Vietnam actually want US forces stationed in the country again.


They understand for capitalism to work, you need trade. Security brings trade. China has missed that nuance to capitalism, they are too much old school Soviet control of economy. They grew because of US/Euro investment due to cheap labor and no regulation. They still miss that aggression is counterproductive to trade.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:43a, 10/4/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Reagan pushed the Soviets harder than any POTUS before him or since.


He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:55a, 10/4/23
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Reagan pushed the Soviets harder than any POTUS before him or since.


He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.
The side you don't get is that only works if there is a viable threat to use that strength. Soviets knew Reagan would if needed. To get that credibility, you need to show that you will. It just doesn't happen.
Reply Quote
1
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 8:27a, 10/4/23
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Reagan pushed the Soviets harder than any POTUS before him or since.


He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.
The side you don't get is that only works if there is a viable threat to use that strength. Soviets knew Reagan would if needed. To get that credibility, you need to show that you will. It just doesn't happen.
And it only works if you're smart about it. Biden has managed to greatly escalate our use of force against Russia while bringing our credibility to a new low. He's the emperor of NATO parading around in a new suit of clothes. Outside of a few European states, no one is even pretending to be impressed.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:34a, 10/4/23
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry said:
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Reagan pushed the Soviets harder than any POTUS before him or since.


He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.
The side you don't get is that only works if there is a viable threat to use that strength. Soviets knew Reagan would if needed. To get that credibility, you need to show that you will. It just doesn't happen.
And it only works if you're smart about it. Biden has managed to greatly escalate our use of force against Russia while bringing our credibility to a new low. He's the emperor of NATO parading around in a new suit of clothes. Outside of a few European states, no one is even pretending to be impressed.
Surprisingly, I agree. We are at a point for a deal. Without NATO admission for Ukraine and maybe as far as Crimea being lost. The only way to stop this is NATO inclusion. Ukraine will not get enough to dislodge Russia from their defensive positions.
Reply Quote
1
quash
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 1:52p, 10/4/23
whiterock said:
Redbrickbear said:
Doc Holliday said:
trey3216 said:
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Look guys, this war is dragging along, 500K dead Ukrainians, they need direct US involvement or they're going to lose.

We keep dragging this out there's going to more dead Ukrainians and the end result will be the same had a peace deal been brokered to begin with, except not over half a million dead Ukrainians...

If you're pro proxy war and you don't deliver absolute defeat to Russia, then you've made a HUGE mistake. Defeating Russia is not as easy as the media has claimed, if it was this would have already been over with.
There is only so much you can do and provide. Hell, each system needs training and integration for command and control.

You want to stop it today? Allow Ukraine into NATO and give Russia a date certain to go back to the pre-invasion borders. Russia and China do not want a war with NATO. Ukraine get NATO and EU membership and Russia keeps Crimea. Done. The only way this gets brokered is the threat of NATO getting involved. China needs US and EU markets to save their economy, Xi is not going to WW3. That is not the Chinese way. (If it were Japan???)
Then why the hell aren't we doing that? Do we want to use Ukraine lives to weaken Russia? If so, that's fuc ked up.

My priority is less dead human beings. If that makes me a bad person then fine.
Tell your friends in Russia to stop invading their neighbors, stop launching missiles into apartment complexes/hospitals/schools/power substations/restaurants/theaters/etc. and start acting like a 1st world country. Would be the first time they ever acted like one, so it might be a big bite to chew.
Oh I'm a friend of Russia now because I don't want people to die? Don't be a POS.
.


Advocating for peace on this website is taken as proof positive of Puntist leanings….
....proof of inexperience and misunderstanding.

Read Nixon's "Real War" and "Real Peace." (two books. very short.) To over-summarize, the absence of battle is a very poor indicator of Peace, and War starts long before battle commences.

Russia has been at war with Nato for approx 20 years, slowly escalating the diplomacy, the trade (gas) levers, the small police actions, then the destabilization efforts, then the unconventional operations (2014 Crimea/Donbas). THEN the 2022 "special military operation." The 2022 mass invasion of Ukraine was not the first, but the last straw. Nato showed incredible patience. Putin misread it as weakness. The 2022 invasion challenged the international order as we know it....the order that has kept the peace in Europe for nearly 80 years. If we do not defend it now, it's all over. And for what? What new idea replaces it? Trust Moscow (to be sated from here forward)?

Sending money and arms to Ukraine to grind up the Russian army is good policy. At worst (Uke collapses), it buys a decade of time for us to prepare for Russian armies deployed all along Nato borders. At best (Uke regains all occupied territory), it causes regime change in Moscow, resetting the clock back to 1991, adding another decade or three to Russian rebuilding. And possibly a new worldview in Moscow. Cataclysmic loss does tend to have that effect. Did in Tokyo and Berlin. Russia losing to Ukraine, and a Ukraine in Nato will by necessity force a change in Russian worldview. They will have no choice but to adapt. And our kids & grandkids will likely not have to live under the same kinds of Russian threats we here have.

Russia gotta lose somewhere before they get to Warsaw. Why not in Ukraine, now? The Ukes are definitely eager to do the job. All they need is some help.

If you really do want to give peace a chance, send more ammo to Ukraine.


War is peace.
1984
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 3:12p, 10/4/23
whiterock said:
Sam Lowry said:
FLBear5630 said:
Sam Lowry 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.

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.
Reagan worked for Peace when and where the Soviets/Gorbachev worked with him. Where the Soviets didn't we enabled their opponents.
Exactly. That's what we've refused to do for at least the last 20 years.
LOL according to you, we forced Putin to invade by enabling Ukraine to be Ukraine.
You're the one who stated that Russia's interests don't matter unless they can defend them. So they're defending them. If you'd rather negotiate, try saying we'll consider Russia's interests and negotiate. It ain't rocket surgery.
Reply Quote
1
First Page Last Page
Page 33 of 180 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.