KaiBear said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

"We denied Cuba the means to adequate deterrence". -Soviet Commissar 1964, after the US Navy turned around their weapon supply ships


Why the ever-loving hell were the Soviet scumbags funding a hostile government 90 miles from our borders?

Maybe we need to be asking the same question in reverse about why we are funding some corrupt slavs right on the border with Russia?

---

Exactly

If Russia was playing the same game in Mexico as the US is doing in Ukraine; even to the point of supplying 72 billion dollars worth of military equipment including long range missiles that could target any of our citties.

Really think we would be OK with it ?

But of course our local keyboard warriors never address the obvious conclusion as they know the US would never tolerate it.

And just for chuckles, imagine if that 72 billion in military aid was actively being used by the Mexican army to kill US soldiers.

Think the American people wouldn't demand retaliation against Russia ?

---

Tell me you have no idea what's going on, without exactly saying you have no idea what's going on. Typical Canada.

---

Amusing

You consistently ignore the questions involved no matter how obvious the conclusion.

As if a snarky response somehow covers up your ignorance.

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

Adequate for what? It's not necessarily in our interest to provide adequate deterrence for every state that can't provide for itself. Reagan's top priority was to ensure our own deterrent capability. He accomplished that with flying colors, though at a cost that was ultimately fatal to his domestic agenda as well. It pains me to see the legacy of our last great president so thoroughly undone.

---

LOL you mean the Reagan that armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Who armed the Contras? Who armed the NCR in Cambodia? Who granted Israel "major non-Nato ally" status? Who launched QRHELPFUL to support Solidarity right under the Soviet nose? Who bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya? The same Ronaldus Magnus who issued the "Reagan Doctrine?" (see below.)

Dude. I led THREE (still classified) Presidential Finding covert action programs during Reagan's terms. I know of at least a dozen more that colleagues and friends were involved in. One of my CT classmates, a FI officer with no military experience, rode a Huey to work every day.....pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

To put it mildly, Reagan ran a very muscular foreign policy and would have run a Ukraine program that would have put the one we have now to shame.
To put it bluntly, you are pulling straw men out of your arse and calling them candy.

The Reagan Doctrine:
"We must not break faith with those who are risking their liveson every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaraguato defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth."
--President Ronald Reagan
SOTU address, February 6, 1985

(note the words "...every continent...")

---

I'm glad you're familiar with some of the strategies that Reagan used against the Soviets. You're certainly not the only one. What you fail to understand is the reason behind his actions. He wanted to end the Cold War in order to end it, not to cripple Russia or establish a new unipolar order.

---

"Unipolar order". Taken right from RT.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

Adequate for what? It's not necessarily in our interest to provide adequate deterrence for every state that can't provide for itself. Reagan's top priority was to ensure our own deterrent capability. He accomplished that with flying colors, though at a cost that was ultimately fatal to his domestic agenda as well. It pains me to see the legacy of our last great president so thoroughly undone.

---

LOL you mean the Reagan that armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Who armed the Contras? Who armed the NCR in Cambodia? Who granted Israel "major non-Nato ally" status? Who launched QRHELPFUL to support Solidarity right under the Soviet nose? Who bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya? The same Ronaldus Magnus who issued the "Reagan Doctrine?" (see below.)

Dude. I led THREE (still classified) Presidential Finding covert action programs during Reagan's terms. I know of at least a dozen more that colleagues and friends were involved in. One of my CT classmates, a FI officer with no military experience, rode a Huey to work every day.....pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

To put it mildly, Reagan ran a very muscular foreign policy and would have run a Ukraine program that would have put the one we have now to shame.
To put it bluntly, you are pulling straw men out of your arse and calling them candy.

The Reagan Doctrine:
"We must not break faith with those who are risking their liveson every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaraguato defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth."
--President Ronald Reagan
SOTU address, February 6, 1985

(note the words "...every continent...")

---

I'm glad you're familiar with some of the strategies that Reagan used against the Soviets. You're certainly not the only one. What you fail to understand is the reason behind his actions. He wanted to end the Cold War in order to end it, not to cripple Russia or establish a new unipolar order.

---

Geez, Sam. We are not on the offensive. This is not the first time Russia has done this. We know how it turns out if you don't fight back from the start. See Czech 1968. It was almost 30 years before they got their Nation back. My maternal Grandfather is from Prague, family there. All communication lost. Those connections died out and have not been re-connected since 1968. Russian takeovers are not pleasant, they break up families on purpose to weaken connections.

If Ukraine wants to fight, we should help. No troops, but I would support NATO membership. A reduced Nation, is still a free Nation. Better than under Putin boot.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

Adequate for what? It's not necessarily in our interest to provide adequate deterrence for every state that can't provide for itself. Reagan's top priority was to ensure our own deterrent capability. He accomplished that with flying colors, though at a cost that was ultimately fatal to his domestic agenda as well. It pains me to see the legacy of our last great president so thoroughly undone.

---

LOL you mean the Reagan that armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Who armed the Contras? Who armed the NCR in Cambodia? Who granted Israel "major non-Nato ally" status? Who launched QRHELPFUL to support Solidarity right under the Soviet nose? Who bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya? The same Ronaldus Magnus who issued the "Reagan Doctrine?" (see below.)

Dude. I led THREE (still classified) Presidential Finding covert action programs during Reagan's terms. I know of at least a dozen more that colleagues and friends were involved in. One of my CT classmates, a FI officer with no military experience, rode a Huey to work every day.....pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

To put it mildly, Reagan ran a very muscular foreign policy and would have run a Ukraine program that would have put the one we have now to shame.
To put it bluntly, you are pulling straw men out of your arse and calling them candy.

The Reagan Doctrine:
"We must not break faith with those who are risking their liveson every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaraguato defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth."
--President Ronald Reagan
SOTU address, February 6, 1985

(note the words "...every continent...")

---

I'm glad you're familiar with some of the strategies that Reagan used against the Soviets. You're certainly not the only one. What you fail to understand is the reason behind his actions. He wanted to end the Cold War in order to end it, not to cripple Russia or establish a new unipolar order.

---

Geez, Sam. We are not on the offensive. This is not the first time Russia has done this. We know how it turns out if you don't fight back from the start. See Czech 1968. It was almost 30 years before they got their Nation back. My maternal Grandfather is from Prague, family there. All communication lost. Those connections died out and have not been re-connected since 1968. Russian takeovers are not pleasant, they break up families on purpose to weaken connections.

If Ukraine wants to fight, we should help. No troops, but I would support NATO membership. A reduced Nation, is still a free Nation. Better than under Putin boot.

---

No one ever thinks they're on the offensive.

Did the Russians invade Czechoslovakia because they were Russians, or because they were communists? Why didn't the US try to stop them?

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

Adequate for what? It's not necessarily in our interest to provide adequate deterrence for every state that can't provide for itself. Reagan's top priority was to ensure our own deterrent capability. He accomplished that with flying colors, though at a cost that was ultimately fatal to his domestic agenda as well. It pains me to see the legacy of our last great president so thoroughly undone.

---

LOL you mean the Reagan that armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Who armed the Contras? Who armed the NCR in Cambodia? Who granted Israel "major non-Nato ally" status? Who launched QRHELPFUL to support Solidarity right under the Soviet nose? Who bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya? The same Ronaldus Magnus who issued the "Reagan Doctrine?" (see below.)

Dude. I led THREE (still classified) Presidential Finding covert action programs during Reagan's terms. I know of at least a dozen more that colleagues and friends were involved in. One of my CT classmates, a FI officer with no military experience, rode a Huey to work every day.....pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

To put it mildly, Reagan ran a very muscular foreign policy and would have run a Ukraine program that would have put the one we have now to shame.
To put it bluntly, you are pulling straw men out of your arse and calling them candy.

The Reagan Doctrine:
"We must not break faith with those who are risking their liveson every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaraguato defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth."
--President Ronald Reagan
SOTU address, February 6, 1985

(note the words "...every continent...")

---

I'm glad you're familiar with some of the strategies that Reagan used against the Soviets. You're certainly not the only one. What you fail to understand is the reason behind his actions. He wanted to end the Cold War in order to end it, not to cripple Russia or establish a new unipolar order.

---

Geez, Sam. We are not on the offensive. This is not the first time Russia has done this. We know how it turns out if you don't fight back from the start. See Czech 1968. It was almost 30 years before they got their Nation back. My maternal Grandfather is from Prague, family there. All communication lost. Those connections died out and have not been re-connected since 1968. Russian takeovers are not pleasant, they break up families on purpose to weaken connections.

If Ukraine wants to fight, we should help. No troops, but I would support NATO membership. A reduced Nation, is still a free Nation. Better than under Putin boot.

---

No one ever thinks they're on the offensive.

Did the Russians invade Czechoslovakia because they were Russians, or because they were communists? Why didn't the US try to stop them?

---

The US tried your tact and it failed... Fear of nuclear weapons, don't poke the Bear. They just want a buffer because of WW2. Same arguments. Diplomacy, sanctions, all the "gentlemanly maneuvers". Russia just took more, into Afghanistan. This is their pattern. It is Soviet Socialist doctrine and Putin is KGB to the core. Patton was right, they understand one thing...

By the way, you roll tanks over a sovereign border and attack to take land, that is pretty much the textbook definition of being on the "offensive"!

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

Adequate for what? It's not necessarily in our interest to provide adequate deterrence for every state that can't provide for itself. Reagan's top priority was to ensure our own deterrent capability. He accomplished that with flying colors, though at a cost that was ultimately fatal to his domestic agenda as well. It pains me to see the legacy of our last great president so thoroughly undone.

---

LOL you mean the Reagan that armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Who armed the Contras? Who armed the NCR in Cambodia? Who granted Israel "major non-Nato ally" status? Who launched QRHELPFUL to support Solidarity right under the Soviet nose? Who bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya? The same Ronaldus Magnus who issued the "Reagan Doctrine?" (see below.)

Dude. I led THREE (still classified) Presidential Finding covert action programs during Reagan's terms. I know of at least a dozen more that colleagues and friends were involved in. One of my CT classmates, a FI officer with no military experience, rode a Huey to work every day.....pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

To put it mildly, Reagan ran a very muscular foreign policy and would have run a Ukraine program that would have put the one we have now to shame.
To put it bluntly, you are pulling straw men out of your arse and calling them candy.

The Reagan Doctrine:
"We must not break faith with those who are risking their liveson every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaraguato defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth."
--President Ronald Reagan
SOTU address, February 6, 1985

(note the words "...every continent...")

---

I'm glad you're familiar with some of the strategies that Reagan used against the Soviets. You're certainly not the only one. What you fail to understand is the reason behind his actions. He wanted to end the Cold War in order to end it, not to cripple Russia or establish a new unipolar order.

---

Geez, Sam. We are not on the offensive. This is not the first time Russia has done this. We know how it turns out if you don't fight back from the start. See Czech 1968. It was almost 30 years before they got their Nation back. My maternal Grandfather is from Prague, family there. All communication lost. Those connections died out and have not been re-connected since 1968. Russian takeovers are not pleasant, they break up families on purpose to weaken connections.

If Ukraine wants to fight, we should help. No troops, but I would support NATO membership. A reduced Nation, is still a free Nation. Better than under Putin boot.

---

No one ever thinks they're on the offensive.

Did the Russians invade Czechoslovakia because they were Russians, or because they were communists? Why didn't the US try to stop them?

---

The US tried your tact and it failed... Fear of nuclear weapons, don't poke the Bear. They just want a buffer because of WW2. Same arguments. Diplomacy, sanctions, all the "gentlemanly maneuvers". Russia just took more, into Afghanistan. This is their pattern. It is Soviet Socialist doctrine and Putin is KGB to the core. Patton was right, they understand one thing...

By the way, you roll tanks over a sovereign border and attack to take land, that is pretty much the textbook definition of being on the "offensive"!

---

So you think we'd be better off now if we'd had a war in Czechoslovakia instead of the SALT treaty?

---

It is very important not to get numb. And to remember who is the aggressor, and who the aggressed against. The peddlers of moral equivalence are all around us. Don't let them work their will. https://t.co/9eJvwFabER

— Jay Nordlinger (@jaynordlinger) October 5, 2023

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

Adequate for what? It's not necessarily in our interest to provide adequate deterrence for every state that can't provide for itself. Reagan's top priority was to ensure our own deterrent capability. He accomplished that with flying colors, though at a cost that was ultimately fatal to his domestic agenda as well. It pains me to see the legacy of our last great president so thoroughly undone.

---

LOL you mean the Reagan that armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Who armed the Contras? Who armed the NCR in Cambodia? Who granted Israel "major non-Nato ally" status? Who launched QRHELPFUL to support Solidarity right under the Soviet nose? Who bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya? The same Ronaldus Magnus who issued the "Reagan Doctrine?" (see below.)

Dude. I led THREE (still classified) Presidential Finding covert action programs during Reagan's terms. I know of at least a dozen more that colleagues and friends were involved in. One of my CT classmates, a FI officer with no military experience, rode a Huey to work every day.....pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

To put it mildly, Reagan ran a very muscular foreign policy and would have run a Ukraine program that would have put the one we have now to shame.
To put it bluntly, you are pulling straw men out of your arse and calling them candy.

The Reagan Doctrine:
"We must not break faith with those who are risking their liveson every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaraguato defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth."
--President Ronald Reagan
SOTU address, February 6, 1985

(note the words "...every continent...")

---

I'm glad you're familiar with some of the strategies that Reagan used against the Soviets. You're certainly not the only one. What you fail to understand is the reason behind his actions. He wanted to end the Cold War in order to end it, not to cripple Russia or establish a new unipolar order.

---

Geez, Sam. We are not on the offensive. This is not the first time Russia has done this. We know how it turns out if you don't fight back from the start. See Czech 1968. It was almost 30 years before they got their Nation back. My maternal Grandfather is from Prague, family there. All communication lost. Those connections died out and have not been re-connected since 1968. Russian takeovers are not pleasant, they break up families on purpose to weaken connections.

If Ukraine wants to fight, we should help. No troops, but I would support NATO membership. A reduced Nation, is still a free Nation. Better than under Putin boot.

---

No one ever thinks they're on the offensive.

Did the Russians invade Czechoslovakia because they were Russians, or because they were communists? Why didn't the US try to stop them?

---

The US tried your tact and it failed... Fear of nuclear weapons, don't poke the Bear. They just want a buffer because of WW2. Same arguments. Diplomacy, sanctions, all the "gentlemanly maneuvers". Russia just took more, into Afghanistan. This is their pattern. It is Soviet Socialist doctrine and Putin is KGB to the core. Patton was right, they understand one thing...

By the way, you roll tanks over a sovereign border and attack to take land, that is pretty much the textbook definition of being on the "offensive"!

---

So you think we'd be better off now if we'd had a war in Czechoslovakia instead of the SALT treaty?

---

We have a war? We don't have a war now.

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

Russian "writer" Aleksey Sukonkin describes his vision for the future of Ukraine: he predicts the repeat of the 1950s anti-Soviet underground movement, and suggests that Russia has rich experience in eliminating resistance. Just read it, it's even crazier than it sounds. He… pic.twitter.com/UBXzlA6z8J

— Dmitri (@wartranslated) October 5, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock 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.

---

Exactly. We denied Ukraine the means to adequate deterrence. Look what happened.

---

Adequate for what? It's not necessarily in our interest to provide adequate deterrence for every state that can't provide for itself. Reagan's top priority was to ensure our own deterrent capability. He accomplished that with flying colors, though at a cost that was ultimately fatal to his domestic agenda as well. It pains me to see the legacy of our last great president so thoroughly undone.

---

LOL you mean the Reagan that armed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan? Who armed the Contras? Who armed the NCR in Cambodia? Who granted Israel "major non-Nato ally" status? Who launched QRHELPFUL to support Solidarity right under the Soviet nose? Who bombed Qaddafi's tent in Libya? The same Ronaldus Magnus who issued the "Reagan Doctrine?" (see below.)

Dude. I led THREE (still classified) Presidential Finding covert action programs during Reagan's terms. I know of at least a dozen more that colleagues and friends were involved in. One of my CT classmates, a FI officer with no military experience, rode a Huey to work every day.....pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

To put it mildly, Reagan ran a very muscular foreign policy and would have run a Ukraine program that would have put the one we have now to shame.
To put it bluntly, you are pulling straw men out of your arse and calling them candy.

The Reagan Doctrine:
"We must not break faith with those who are risking their liveson every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaraguato defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth."
--President Ronald Reagan
SOTU address, February 6, 1985

(note the words "...every continent...")

---

I'm glad you're familiar with some of the strategies that Reagan used against the Soviets. You're certainly not the only one. What you fail to understand is the reason behind his actions. He wanted to end the Cold War in order to end it, not to cripple Russia or establish a new unipolar order.

---

Geez, Sam. We are not on the offensive. This is not the first time Russia has done this. We know how it turns out if you don't fight back from the start. See Czech 1968. It was almost 30 years before they got their Nation back. My maternal Grandfather is from Prague, family there. All communication lost. Those connections died out and have not been re-connected since 1968. Russian takeovers are not pleasant, they break up families on purpose to weaken connections.

If Ukraine wants to fight, we should help. No troops, but I would support NATO membership. A reduced Nation, is still a free Nation. Better than under Putin boot.

---

No one ever thinks they're on the offensive.

Did the Russians invade Czechoslovakia because they were Russians, or because they were communists? Why didn't the US try to stop them?

---

The US tried your tact and it failed... Fear of nuclear weapons, don't poke the Bear. They just want a buffer because of WW2. Same arguments. Diplomacy, sanctions, all the "gentlemanly maneuvers". Russia just took more, into Afghanistan. This is their pattern. It is Soviet Socialist doctrine and Putin is KGB to the core. Patton was right, they understand one thing...

By the way, you roll tanks over a sovereign border and attack to take land, that is pretty much the textbook definition of being on the "offensive"!

---

So you think we'd be better off now if we'd had a war in Czechoslovakia instead of the SALT treaty?

---

We have a war? We don't have a war now. We are supplying ammunition and weapons that were asked for by the Nation being invaded.

I don't remember the President of Czech coming before Congress and asking for help...

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

Jt was Ukraine that rejected that deal at the insistence of the US and UK.

Never ceases to amaze me, what Americans will believe when it comes to war.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

It was Ukraine that rejected that deal at the insistence of the US and UK.

Never ceases to amaze me, what Americans will believe when it comes to war.

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

It was Ukraine that rejected that deal at the insistence of the US and UK.

Never ceases to amaze me, what Americans will believe when it comes to war.

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

I would like you to flesh that out a bit.

Is it Russian propaganda or "blaming the US" to notice that NATO is expanding toward Russia.....and not Russian expanding toward NATO.

Is it wrong to point out that yes Victoria Nuland and the State Department were in fact involved in the Maidan Coup in 2014 that overthrew the relatively pro-russian government in Kyiv for a more pro-USA and Pro-EU one?

---

You do understand how that pro-Russian government was there in the first place, right?

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

I would like you to flesh that out a bit.

Is it Russian propaganda or "blaming the US" to notice that NATO is expanding toward Russia.....and not Russian expanding toward NATO.

Is it wrong to point out that yes Victoria Nuland and the State Department were in fact involved in the Maidan Coup in 2014 that overthrew the relatively pro-russian government in Kyiv for a more pro-USA and Pro-EU one?

---

You do understand how that pro-Russian government was there in the first place, right?

---

Yea..it's called having elections.

Something Ukraine no longer has under Zelensky.

---

LOL

---

trey3216 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

I would like you to flesh that out a bit.

Is it Russian propaganda or "blaming the US" to notice that NATO is expanding toward Russia.....and not Russian expanding toward NATO.

Is it wrong to point out that yes Victoria Nuland and the State Department were in fact involved in the Maidan Coup in 2014 that overthrew the relatively pro-russian government in Kyiv for a more pro-USA and Pro-EU one?

---

You do understand how that pro-Russian government was there in the first place, right?

---

…left Russia in a spot where it could have done far more "ambitious expanding" projects in the region.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

I would like you to flesh that out a bit.

Is it Russian propaganda or "blaming the US" to notice that NATO is expanding toward Russia.....and not Russian expanding toward NATO.

Is it wrong to point out that yes Victoria Nuland and the State Department were in fact involved in the Maidan Coup in 2014 that overthrew the relatively pro-russian government in Kyiv for a more pro-USA and Pro-EU one?

---

You do understand how that pro-Russian government was there in the first place, right?

---

…left Russia in a spot where it could have done far more "ambitious expanding" projects in the region.

---

Where exactly was Russia going to do this "ambitious expanding" in 2014?

There was already a massive NATO military alliance right on the butts…with troops within 2hrs driving time from Estonia into downtown St. Petersburg

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault and Russia always wanted peace, are pro-Russia, period.

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

I would like you to flesh that out a bit.

Is it Russian propaganda or "blaming the US" to notice that NATO is expanding toward Russia.....and not Russian expanding toward NATO.

Is it wrong to point out that yes Victoria Nuland and the State Department were in fact involved in the Maidan Coup in 2014 that overthrew the relatively pro-russian government in Kyiv for a more pro-USA and Pro-EU one?

---

You do understand how that pro-Russian government was there in the first place, right?

---

…left Russia in a spot where it could have done far more "ambitious expanding" projects in the region.

---

Where exactly was Russia going to do this "ambitious expanding" in 2014?

There was already a massive NATO military alliance right on the butts…with troops within 2hrs driving time from Estonia into downtown St. Petersburg

---

With Biden as president he could have expanded to any of the blue

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

I would like you to flesh that out a bit.

Is it Russian propaganda or "blaming the US" to notice that NATO is expanding toward Russia.....and not Russian expanding toward NATO.

Is it wrong to point out that yes Victoria Nuland and the State Department were in fact involved in the Maidan Coup in 2014 that overthrew the relatively pro-russian government in Kyiv for a more pro-USA and Pro-EU one?

---

You do understand how that pro-Russian government was there in the first place, right?

---

Yea..it's called having elections.

Something Ukraine no longer has under Zelensky.

---

LOL

---

Yea I know….elections and rival parties are a real drag.

If only the entire world could just be run out of the State Department everything would be so much better for global liberalism and the managerial state.

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

sombear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ukraine could have had a peace deal but nooooooo the US had to have their proxy war. https://t.co/0ussa98vpP

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) October 5, 2023

---

Of all the silly arguments from the pro-Russie crowd - and there are countless silly arguments - perhaps the silliest is blaming the U.S. Whether you like it or not, Ukrainians have overwhelmingly supported defending their country from the start. If we stop funding, the Ukrainians will not quite. They will continue, to fight, but the Russians will win. That is the choice.

And the second silliest argument is that Ukraine wanted war and rejected a peace deal. Russia invaded and tried to take over Ukraine, and Russia has never offered a peace deal. I certainly don't believe everything I read, but there is considerable evidence (including recordings from a close Putin advisor) that, in fact, Russia rejected (without countering no less) a peace deal that included pre-invasion boundaries and a no-NATO pledge.

---

She's not pro Russian. Can we stop calling everything that challenges or questions this war as pro Russia? You guys sound just like democrats.

There's multiple reasons one could be in favor of this war:

1.) You care about Ukrainians.
2.) You simply hate Russia and want them all dead.
3.) Fear of Russia taking over more than Ukraine (this one is bs)
4.) Pro Western capitalization of Ukraine or taking the spoils of war. Ex. BlackRock $400B deal to rebuild Ukraine and perpetually profit.

Risks:

1.)As intel shows, they have the capability to deploy a nuclear missile.
2.) Ukraine could still lose with our support.
3.) We decide to engage in direct war if this continues to escalate.

The pro proxy war side has told us Russia is weak. Claiming that it wasn't going to last long while it's been ongoing for too long. That it wouldn't cost too much when it now could ramp up towards a trillion $$.

It's the fog of war. Peace is what I prefer.

---

I've posted many times that there are legitimate reasons to oppose Ukraine funding. In fact, I've listed them. But, folks who spout Russian propaganda, such as the war is our fault ...

---

I would like you to flesh that out a bit.

Is it Russian propaganda or "blaming the US" to notice that NATO is expanding toward Russia.....and not Russian expanding toward NATO.

Is it wrong to point out that yes Victoria Nuland and the State Department were in fact involved in the Maidan Coup in 2014 that overthrew the relatively pro-russian government in Kyiv for a more pro-USA and Pro-EU one?

---

You do understand how that pro-Russian government was there in the first place, right?

---

Yea..it's called having elections.

Something Ukraine no longer has under Zelensky.

---

LOL

---

Yea I know….elections and rival parties are a real drag.

If only the entire world could just be run out of the State Department everything would be so much better for global liberalism and the managerial state.

---

Viktor Yanukovych and Donald Trump. Two people Democrats stole elections from. AmIrite??

---