FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Yet....

---

Really? We are going to curtail support because some fear the US may get into a war? Might as well have no foreign policy.

---

Might instead just have a reasonable foreign policy with reasonable limits….one that does not relish the opportunity to fight proxy wars in 2nd & 3rd world crap holes…wars that enrich the political class at the expensive of the working class and the middle class.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Yet....

---

Really? We are going to curtail support because some fear the US may get into a war? Might as well have no foreign policy.

---

Might instead just have a reasonable foreign policy with reasonable limits….one that does not relish the opportunity to fight proxy wars in 2nd & 3rd world crap holes…wars that enrich the political class at the expensive of the working class and the middle class.

---

By the way, really good documentary/miniseries on Netflix. "5 came back". You and Sam would like it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Yet....

---

Really? We are going to curtail support because some fear the US may get into a war? Might as well have no foreign policy.

---

Might instead just have a reasonable foreign policy with reasonable limits….one that does not relish the opportunity to fight proxy wars in 2nd & 3rd world crap holes…wars that enrich the political class at the expensive of the working class and the middle class.

---

By the way, really good documentary/miniseries on Netflix. "5 came back". You and Sam would like it.

---

I'll check it out..thanks

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Yet....

---

Really? We are going to curtail support because some fear the US may get into a war? Might as well have no foreign policy.

---

Might instead just have a reasonable foreign policy with reasonable limits….one that does not relish the opportunity to fight proxy wars in 2nd & 3rd world crap holes…wars that enrich the political class at the expensive of the working class and the middle class.

---

By the way, really good documentary/miniseries on Netflix. "5 came back". You and Sam would like it.

---

I'll check it out..thanks

---

Very good, rough but worth watching. It is about the filming of WW2. Really thought provoking.

Redbrickbear said:

---

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??

---

Yea ATL because D.C. never interferes in the elections of other nations…or it's own.














[One of the most famous examples of US foreign electoral interference came at the dawn of the Cold War in 1948, when the CIA (in its first covert action) secretly subsidized public efforts to ensure that communist candidates were defeated in elections in Italy. It also spent millions of dollars on propaganda efforts and supporting favored Italian politicians. These and similar practices, covert and overt, continued throughout the Cold War. CIA historian David Robarge told David Shimer, author of the book Rigged, that during this period, the Agency "'hardly ever' altered votes directly," which implies that it sometimes did.]

---

And neither does Russia…right?

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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.

---

Yet....

---

Really? We are going to curtail support because some fear the US may get into a war? Might as well have no foreign policy.

---

Might instead just have a reasonable foreign policy with reasonable limits….one that does not relish the opportunity to fight proxy wars in 2nd & 3rd world crap holes…wars that enrich the political class at the expensive of the working class and the middle class.

---

This has been said several times by a handful of posters.

But the Rambo crowd enjoys playing armchair general too much.

That hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been killed or crippled is unimportant.
That thousands more innocent people will be killed or crippled in the coming months is unimportant.

As long. of course, that their 'game' doesn't put their own ass at risk.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

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??

---

Yea ATL because D.C. never interferes in the elections of other nations…or it's own.














[One of the most famous examples of US foreign electoral interference came at the dawn of the Cold War in 1948, when the CIA (in its first covert action) secretly subsidized public efforts to ensure that communist candidates were defeated in elections in Italy. It also spent millions of dollars on propaganda efforts and supporting favored Italian politicians. These and similar practices, covert and overt, continued throughout the Cold War. CIA historian David Robarge told David Shimer, author of the book Rigged, that during this period, the Agency "'hardly ever' altered votes directly," which implies that it sometimes did.]

---

And neither does Russia…right?

---

Of course they do.

They are just far far less successful and far more boorish and ham-fisted.

KaiBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Not analogous, for multiple reasons:
1) American troops did not invade Cuba. (like Russia did to Ukraine).
2) Soviet weapons were not supplied to stop a US-sponsored insurgency. (like "little green men" in Donbas.)
3) Soviet weapons in question had a 1600 mile range. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
4) Soviet weapons were NUCLEAR WEAPONS. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
5) I could go on a while longer, but you get the drift.

Note that Obama admin refused to send ANY offensive weapons to Ukraine. Trump was first to do it. (and didn't do enough). Biden did, but too late for deterrent effect and too slow to create full offensive capabilities.

If we invade anyone, the Axis of Evil (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela) will ALL send military aid, openly and clandestinely, to the country we are fighting. And if we win, they will support insurgencies against us. They always have. They always will. it's the great game. As long as humans stride the earth, they will play the game. If we don't play it well, every day, we will end up in a war. It really is that simple.

---

You are splitting hairs. The CIA with the approval of Kennedy most certainly invaded Cuba. Bay of Pigs. In addition the US has invaded several countries throughout Central America. Has actively conducted regime change in still others. The US has bombed several other countries without even UN approval.


None of this is a game. Hundreds of thousands have died. Maybe when someone you care about is killed as collateral damage you will finally quit referring to these slaughters as a game.

---

No, you are conflating everything together in one big ball of fatuous assertions, like:

--there is no difference between sponsoring an insurgency by Cuban dissidents (which failed abysmally) and actually invading Cuba with US troops . (Completely unserious argument.)
--there is no difference between sponsoring regime change (which rarely happens) and sponsoring a changed regime (which is usually the case). Everyone does both things, neither of which is an act of war against a third party).
--the US needs UN approval to launch retaliatory strikes against anyone. (Nations do not need UN approval to do anything, most particularly the mightiest nation on earth; they sometimes act under UN authorization in order to avoid foreign policy consequences.)

What we are discussing is most definitely a game. The oldest of all. One principality invading another to rob it of riches, to add peoples and territory and resources to its own economic system..... One nation after another....Mongols, Huns, Turks, Alans, Khazars, Bulgars, etc......pouring out of, or across the Eurasian steppe to raid and pillage and ultimately settle the lands of others, great heaving, mounted archer diasporas that reached down into the cradle or human civilization, the gates of Constantinople, the tip of the Italian boot, over the Pyranees, thru the plains of the Iberian Peninsula, across the straits of Gibraltar, up the Atlas mountains, and down into the ancient lands of the Carthaginans, Umayyids, and Abbasids (each of whom made much of the same trip in reverse). And I didn't even mention Alexander, or Agricola, or Clive, or Bonaparte, or Hitler, or, Ivan the Terrible, or, well...what the hell can we call history other than a recounting of never-ending Great Game.

Everybody plays this game, because no one has any other choice BUT to play it. It is deadly serious, existential business. Wise powers must engage in it at their periphery and play it better than their adversaries, using diplomacy, bribes (foreign aide), sponsored proxies (covert action), etc.....and they must to do this with energetic wisdom, for if they do not, they will be forced to commit the treasure of their own sons and daughters into open conflict, which is never without existential risk. Somebody always wants your stuff, and from time to time, you have to draw back and spear some hapless war lord dead in the chest and hang his head from the ramparts of his own stockade to send the message that your stuff is not for the taking.

Russia must be punished to the existential level for its invasion of Ukraine. If we do not, they will be right back at it in a decade or less against our treaty allies, and it will be our sons & daughters who will be doing the fighting. So yes, if need be, we support the Ukrainian war effort right down to the last Ukrainian. Tough business, that. But they will appreciate it for a generation or three and be loyal allies. More to the point: better Ukrainian sons & daughters than mine, one of whom will in 9 months be the commander of the forward logistics base constructed for exactly such a mobilization into Eastern Europe.

The great game will go on until climate change ends our ecosystem. It won't, of course, because climate change is a hoax. But the great game is not. The great game is what humanity does for a living.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Not analogous, for multiple reasons:

1) American troops did not invade Cuba. (like Russia did to Ukraine).
2) Soviet weapons were not supplied to stop a US-sponsored insurgency. (like "little green men" in Donbas.)
3) Soviet weapons in question had a 1600 mile range. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
4) Soviet weapons were NUCLEAR WEAPONS. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
5) I could go on a while longer, but you get the drift.

Note that Obama admin refused to send ANY offensive weapons to Ukraine.

---

1) "American troops did not invade Cuba. (like Russia did to Ukraine)."

Yes we have…multiple times. Spanish-American war and the pay of pigs in the 1960s. And we had every right to do so. Who controls Cuba is of vital vital concern to the USA.
The only time US troops have invaded Cuba is when one of our warships was bombed in a Cuban harbor.

2) "Soviet weapons were not supplied to stop a US-sponsored insurgency. (like "little green men" in Donbas.)".

True, but geo-strategic realities remain. They don't want us interfering in their back yard…we don't want them in our backyard
geo-strategic realities completely undermine your position that we have no business in Ukraine.

3) "Soviet weapons in question had a 1600 mile range. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)".

Our weapons today have even longer range. And American and NATO group troops in Estonia are 2-3hrs driving time from St. Petersburg. Then a few hours driving time down highway M-10 to Moscow. We are right on their butts.
LOL what we have in our own inventory is immaterial. What we have in Estonia is immaterial.* The point is, we have not supplied long-range nuclear capable weapons to Ukraine, like Russia did in Cuba. The Russian system emplaced in Cuba was a NUCLEAR WEAPON. With a range of 1600 miles, reaching well into the American heartland.

4) "Soviet weapons were NUCLEAR WEAPONS"

Immaterial observation…overall point stands
No, it is pivotal. You cited the Cuban missile crisis as an analogue to Ukraine, despite the fact that the US did not invade Cuba, and did not supply nuclear weapons to Ukraine, and in fact has avoided even supplying weapons with ranges in triple digit miles. You are saying there is no difference between the mountain and the molehill.

5) "I could go on a while longer"

Yes. round and round we can go about this stuff
Because you repeatedly misapply geo-political principles and the clear lessons history at every level to fit an irrational position.

6.). Obama was a coward who lacked the courage of his liberal interventionist convictions…he let his State Department encourage a coup…the left the Ukrainians high and dry.

He really was a scum bag.
Agreed

---

*NATO had no offensive bases or weapons systems in Estonia until Russia invaded Ukraine. Not even HIMARS. NATO showed great deference to Russian sensibilities regarding deployments of troops and weapons into Eastern Europe. It was perceived as weakness. That's because Russia only respects strength. They believe they can out-suffer a mightier opponent. It's literally their ace in the hole.

So our job in Ukraine is to make them suffer.

You would rather live in Moscow than Seattle but think Lviv is a crap hole? I'm starting to think you've never been to these places...

What is most important is you'd let anyone do anything to you out of fear of escalating a rape into a murder.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Not analogous, for multiple reasons:
1) American troops did not invade Cuba. (like Russia did to Ukraine).
2) Soviet weapons were not supplied to stop a US-sponsored insurgency. (like "little green men" in Donbas.)
3) Soviet weapons in question had a 1600 mile range. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
4) Soviet weapons were NUCLEAR WEAPONS. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
5) I could go on a while longer, but you get the drift.

Note that Obama admin refused to send ANY offensive weapons to Ukraine. Trump was first to do it. (and didn't do enough). Biden did, but too late for deterrent effect and too slow to create full offensive capabilities.

If we invade anyone, the Axis of Evil (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela) will ALL send military aid, openly and clandestinely, to the country we are fighting. And if we win, they will support insurgencies against us. They always have. They always will. it's the great game. As long as humans stride the earth, they will play the game. If we don't play it well, every day, we will end up in a war. It really is that simple.

---

You are splitting hairs. The CIA with the approval of Kennedy most certainly invaded Cuba. Bay of Pigs. In addition the US has invaded several countries throughout Central America. Has actively conducted regime change in still others. The US has bombed several other countries without even UN approval.


None of this is a game. Hundreds of thousands have died. Maybe when someone you care about is killed as collateral damage you will finally quit referring to these slaughters as a game.

---

What we are discussing is most definitely a game. The oldest of all. One principality invading another to rob it of riches, to add peoples and territory and resources to its own economic system.

---

Indeed this is a near perfect description of what we're doing to Ukraine...which will immediately be drowned in a fresh wave of false rhetoric about democracy and "free markets."

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

"Russia's mad grasp at empire ..." https://t.co/FoiUNTMlzq pic.twitter.com/OROr9IreSU

— Jake (@s_decatur) October 6, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Russia's mad grasp at empire ..." https://t.co/FoiUNTMlzq pic.twitter.com/OROr9IreSU

— Jake (@s_decatur) October 6, 2023

---

good example of spin = "750 bases worldwide..." as if every one of them was a Fort Cavazos when in fact the overwhelming majority are simply outposts, often office buildings.

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

What a rare combination of magnificent mind and piercing pen. I truly miss him. Didn't always agree with him, but you could always expect intellectual independence, if not rigor. And he is typically spot on here.

Any day you can give Russia a bloody nose is a good day. They so richly deserve it. Bullies always do.

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Putin doesn't want to meet. He doesn't want to settle. This is what he likes. He wants this chaos on the European borders. There is no fear in the Russian actions. He is in better with China, he is moving his economy East. He doesn't give a ****, he will keep pounding until Xi tells him to stop.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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?

---

Not analogous, for multiple reasons:
1) American troops did not invade Cuba. (like Russia did to Ukraine).
2) Soviet weapons were not supplied to stop a US-sponsored insurgency. (like "little green men" in Donbas.)
3) Soviet weapons in question had a 1600 mile range. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
4) Soviet weapons were NUCLEAR WEAPONS. (unlike what we've sent to Ukraine.)
5) I could go on a while longer, but you get the drift.

Note that Obama admin refused to send ANY offensive weapons to Ukraine. Trump was first to do it. (and didn't do enough). Biden did, but too late for deterrent effect and too slow to create full offensive capabilities.

If we invade anyone, the Axis of Evil (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela) will ALL send military aid, openly and clandestinely, to the country we are fighting. And if we win, they will support insurgencies against us. They always have. They always will. it's the great game. As long as humans stride the earth, they will play the game. If we don't play it well, every day, we will end up in a war. It really is that simple.

---

You are splitting hairs. The CIA with the approval of Kennedy most certainly invaded Cuba. Bay of Pigs. In addition the US has invaded several countries throughout Central America. Has actively conducted regime change in still others. The US has bombed several other countries without even UN approval.


None of this is a game. Hundreds of thousands have died. Maybe when someone you care about is killed as collateral damage you will finally quit referring to these slaughters as a game.

---

What we are discussing is most definitely a game. The oldest of all. One principality invading another to rob it of riches, to add peoples and territory and resources to its own economic system.

---

Indeed this is a near perfect description of what we're doing to Ukraine...which will immediately be drowned in a fresh wave of false rhetoric about democracy and "free markets."

---

Helping Ukraine to survive the onslaught to survive with democratic processes and free markets is an entirely noble endeavor which happens to also be in our interests in the Great Game.

---

How incredibly convenient.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

Lol oh please vatnik.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

---

BS. China is orchestrating this whole thing. Look at BRICS, Russia Alliance, N Korea. I will be you it turns out China is behind these actions.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

---

She really is the worst

This may have been the best day of Nikki Haley’s life. https://t.co/FSLJpgTja8

— 𝐄𝐮𝐝𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚 (@EudaimoniaEsq) October 8, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

---

BS. China is orchestrating this whole thing. Look at BRICS, Russia Alliance, N Korea. I will be you it turns out China is behind these actions.

---

Yes, BRICS is growing and will continue to grow. How dare they. I guess from the US point of view that's practically a declaration of war.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

---

BS. China is orchestrating this whole thing. Look at BRICS, Russia Alliance, N Korea. I will be you it turns out China is behind these actions.

---

Yes, BRICS is growing and will continue to grow. How dare they. I guess from the US point of view that's practically a declaration of war.

---

Whose side are you on? Most normal people want their Nation to be successful or #1. The dollar as the reserve currency is good for America. Rooting for BRICS to unseat the dollar is rooting for the US to fail.

Rooting for the US to be reduced to EU level is rooting for the US to regress.

You guys seem to take pleasure in the US negatives, even though you live here and make money here.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

---

BS. China is orchestrating this whole thing. Look at BRICS, Russia Alliance, N Korea. I will be you it turns out China is behind these actions.

---

Yes, BRICS is growing and will continue to grow. How dare they. I guess from the US point of view that's practically a declaration of war.

---

Whose side are you on? Most normal people want their Nation to be successful or #1. The dollar as the reserve currency is good for America. Rooting for BRICS to unseat the dollar is rooting for the US to fail.

---

The BRICS are not going to bring down the USA or replace the dollars.

South Africa ruled by the ANC is a basket case country. Kleptocratic and ultra-violent.

Brazil has a terribly low fertility rate and will soon be in population decline (it's also a USA ally)

Russia is a demographically declining country also ruled by a kleptocratic oligarchy.

China is in demographic free fall (losing 800,000 people a year)…most of its working age population will be headed into old age within the next 15-20 years…and is ruled by communist party yes men.

India has no reason to help anyone but itself…and is suspicious of China.

These counties can't work effectively together and are not going to replace the economic might of the USA-EU-Japan alliance

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

---

BS. China is orchestrating this whole thing. Look at BRICS, Russia Alliance, N Korea. I will be you it turns out China is behind these actions.

---

Yes, BRICS is growing and will continue to grow. How dare they. I guess from the US point of view that's practically a declaration of war.

---

Whose side are you on? Most normal people want their Nation to be successful or #1. The dollar as the reserve currency is good for America. Rooting for BRICS to unseat the dollar is rooting for the US to fail.

---

The BRICS are not going to bring down the USA or replace the dollars.

South Africa ruled by the ANC is a basket case country. Kleptocratic and ultra-violent.

Brazil has a terribly low fertility rate and will soon be in population decline (it's also a USA ally)

Russia is a demographically declining country also ruled by a kleptocratic oligarchy.

China is in demographic free fall (losing 800,000 people a year)…most of its working age population will be headed into old age within the next 15-20 years…and is ruled by communist party yes men.

India has no reason to help anyone but itself…and is suspicious of China.

These counties can't work effectively together and are not going to replace the economic might of the USA-EU-Japan alliance

---

Might want to take a look around.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

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.

---

Source?

---

Ukrainska Pravda, among others.

---

That says nothing of the sort. That article concerned early April '22 talks. Russia rejected deals well before then that included their existing annexed territories and no-NATO. And the two countries had peace talks throughout 2022.

But, perhaps most importantly, this article says nothing about specific terms Ukraine rejected. At most, the article reports on a canceled direct meeting between Zelensky and Putin, which happened to occur after the Bucha and other massacres.

---

Those were the terms of the deal mentioned in the article. Feel free to read up on it further if you're interested.

What is your source that says Russia rejected a similar deal?

---

Israel changes everything. This is coordinated. Better get out of the bad US mode, there is bad **** coming.

---

If so it's no surprise to see Russia casting aside restraints. Some of us tried to warn you.

---

That China would coordinate attacks from Russia, Iran, and N Korea? Where? Show me the post. Your comments were all about Ukraine

---

China's not the devil. You've been listening to too much Nikki Haley.

---

BS. China is orchestrating this whole thing. Look at BRICS, Russia Alliance, N Korea. I will be you it turns out China is behind these actions.

---

Yes, BRICS is growing and will continue to grow. How dare they. I guess from the US point of view that's practically a declaration of war.

---

Whose side are you on? Most normal people want their Nation to be successful or #1. The dollar as the reserve currency is good for America. Rooting for BRICS to unseat the dollar is rooting for the US to fail.

Rooting for the US to be reduced to EU level is rooting for the US to regress.

You guys seem to take pleasure in the US negatives, even though you live here and make money here.

---

No pleasure at all. We are isolating ourselves and hastening the demise of the dollar. It didn't have to be that way.