Why Are We in Ukraine?

413,347 Views | 6268 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by The_barBEARian
Bear8084
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 8:46a, 10/8/23
Sam Lowry 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:
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.


Not really.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 4:39a, 10/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 7:05a, 10/9/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.
Well, he said over the weekend it will be over in a week. Once the US cuts off the money, Ukraine has one week to live.
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 10:53a, 10/9/23
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 1:29p, 10/9/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.

Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 1:41p, 10/9/23
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
Reply Quote
2
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 1:48p, 10/9/23
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 1:53p, 10/9/23
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.
Reply Quote
Doc Holliday
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 1:55p, 10/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.
By that I mean that by the western corporations/banks gain it.

Blackrock has already signed on for a $500B investment in Ukraine. Half a trillion $$! They will own the place financially.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 2:00p, 10/9/23
Doc Holliday said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.
By that I mean that by the western corporations/banks gain it.

Blackrock has already signed on for a $500B investment in Ukraine. Half a trillion $$! They will own the place financially.
You may not be wrong... Probably a better investment than Iraq or Afghanistan.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 2:04p, 10/9/23
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.

1. I have to wonder how much the EU gets by the addition of another poor rapidly depopulating eastern European country. I mean that really....I'm not sure Ukraine is going to provide much economic benefit.

2. As far as bases....as long as Estonia is in NATO that means there are ground forces within 2hrs driving time from St. Petersburg. And then just a few more hours of driving time down highway M-10/M-11 to Moscow.

That is a dagger pointed at the heart of Russia. It would be like if Russian-Chinese troops could build up in Oklahoma at bases there for a ground assault on Texas. DWF metroplex would be within 2hrs driving time from attack....then Austin a few hours south on a easily accessible highway (I-35)

NATO troops there are closer to the Russian major political cities and heartland than any troops that could be stationed in Ukraine (10-15hrs drive away)
Reply Quote
3 edits
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 2:30p, 10/9/23
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.

1. I have to wonder how much the EU gets by the addition of another poor rapidly depopulating eastern European country. I mean that really....I'm not sure Ukraine is going to provide much economic benefit.

2. As far as bases....as long as Estonia is in NATO that means there are ground forced within 2hrs driving time from St. Petersburg. And then just a few more hours of driving time down highway M-10/M-11 to Moscow.

That is a dagger pointed at the heart of Russia. It would be like if Russian-Chinese troops could build up in Oklahoma at bases there for a ground assault on Texas. DWF metroplex would be within 2hrs driving time from attack....then Austin a few hours south on a easily accessible highway (I-35)

Far closer to the Russian major political cites and heartland than any troops that could be stationed in Ukraine (10-15hrs drive away)
I don't think Ukraine would depopulate if in the EU and they do have alot of potential.

As for bases, I don't think troops there would serve same role as Estonia. Ukraine places a NATO base further South.
Reply Quote
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 2:45p, 10/9/23
Redbrickbear said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
Sam Lowry said:
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.

1. I have to wonder how much the EU gets by the addition of another poor rapidly depopulating eastern European country. I mean that really....I'm not sure Ukraine is going to provide much economic benefit.

2. As far as bases....as long as Estonia is in NATO that means there are ground forces within 2hrs driving time from St. Petersburg. And then just a few more hours of driving time down highway M-10/M-11 to Moscow.

That is a dagger pointed at the heart of Russia. It would be like if Russian-Chinese troops could build up in Oklahoma at bases there for a ground assault on Texas. DWF metroplex would be within 2hrs driving time from attack....then Austin a few hours south on a easily accessible highway (I-35)

NATO troops there are closer to the Russian major political cites and heartland than any troops that could be stationed in Ukraine (10-15hrs drive away)
On point 1, they gain another very tech savvy country (especially Western Ukraine) that also happens to sit on some of the most fertile farmland on earth. Not to mention getting Crimea back would enable European countries to buy oil and gas from a friendly nation not hellbent on trying to bend everyone over a barrel with every rise of the sun.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
2
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:24a, 10/10/23
Hmmm.....



Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to trey3216 • 11:18a, 10/10/23
trey3216 said:
Hmmm.....



Is something else coming...
Reply Quote
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:36p, 10/10/23
Everything is different now.

Iran is forcing a showdown with the United States.

We can not allow Ukraine to be overwhelmed by Russia or it will only encourage still more attacks from China and North Korea .

Of course the horribly mismanaged withdrawal from Afghanistan started this entire mess.

But that is now ancient history.

So here we are still again. Trapped into wars the American people never wanted, by the stupidity of our elected officials.

Got to now give Ukraine every bit of support we can while praying we can avoid the mushroom clouds of WW3.

Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KaiBear • 10:53p, 10/10/23
KaiBear said:
Everything is different now.

Iran is forcing a showdown with the United States.

We can not allow Ukraine to be overwhelmed by Russia or it will only encourage still more attacks from China and North Korea .

Of course the horribly mismanaged withdrawal from Afghanistan started this entire mess.

But that is now ancient history.

So here we are still again. Trapped into wars the American people never wanted, by the stupidity of our elected officials.

Got to now give Ukraine every bit of support we can while praying we can avoid the mushroom clouds of WW3.




Reply Quote
ATL Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:20a, 10/11/23
Power vacuums will always get filled.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 8:55p, 10/11/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.
Well, he said over the weekend it will be over in a week. Once the US cuts off the money, Ukraine has one week to live.
We aren't going to do that. Particularly not now that Russian proxies are making mischief on the Mediterranean front. Level heads know we are in WWIII and will make sure we step the proxy game to avoid larger investments. In response to the Hamas attacks, FORD is already on-station in Med. 2nd carrier group (IKE) headed to the Med as a signal. Haven't seen any press on what 5th Fleet is up to but you can be sure they are playing pitch & catch. that's three ACGs right up under Iranian nostrils. And that doesn't count the smaller carriers boasting USMC F-35s.

If Iran wants to throw Hizballah into the fray, fine. We'll chew them up, too. Who knows. Maybe some Syrian dissidents will mine the entrance to Tartus harbor. That'd be fine payback for the damage from the Finnish-Estonian pipeline bombing today (in NATO waters). Personally, the two Iranian Kilos need to go away. They are the only conventional threat Iran can project against us, theoretically slipping up to torpedo one of our carriers. They are an unacceptable threat. Israel (cough, cough) needs to disappear them.

Russia getting desperate......Keep up the pressure. The only way they win is if we let up.
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 9:05p, 10/11/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.
Well, he said over the weekend it will be over in a week. Once the US cuts off the money, Ukraine has one week to live.
We aren't going to do that. Particularly not now that Russian proxies are making mischief on the Mediterranean front. Level heads know we are in WWIII and will make sure we step the proxy game to avoid larger investments. In response to the Hamas attacks, FORD is already on-station in Med. 2nd carrier group (IKE) headed to the Med as a signal. Haven't seen any press on what 5th Fleet is up to but you can be sure they are playing pitch & catch. that's three ACGs right up under Iranian nostrils. And that doesn't count the smaller carriers boasting USMC F-35s.

If Iran wants to throw Hizballah into the fray, fine. We'll chew them up, too. Who knows. Maybe some Syrian dissidents will mine the entrance to Tartus harbor. That'd be fine payback for the damage from the Finnish-Estonian pipeline bombing today (in NATO waters). Personally, the two Iranian Kilos need to go away. They are the only conventional threat Iran can project against us, theoretically slipping up to torpedo one of our carriers. They are an unacceptable threat. Israel (cough, cough) needs to disappear them.

Russia getting desperate......Keep up the pressure. The only way they win is if we let up.


I agree. The Kilos will start missing check ins that is all anyone will know.

I do think N Korea acts up in the next couple weeks.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Doc Holliday • 9:07p, 10/11/23
Doc Holliday said:
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."
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Because we don't need to have direct involvement at this time. We have a proxy doing a fine job, without risk to our equities. Man, if you can defeat your enemy with a proxy, defeat him with the damned proxy. Never risk your armies or fleets if you do not have to. For an object lesson, see Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

If Russia crushes Ukraine, it will be solely because we cut off aid. Which is why we don't, and won't. The cost of collapse will be dire.

If Ukraine does for some reason fall to Russia, then we move to supporting Ukrainian insurgency to further bleed Russia. if they're gonna take it....make. them. pay. Delay Delay Delay. Try to forestall as long as possible the prospect of a rebuilt Russian military encamped on the borders of Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland. We've already bought at least a decade, maybe more. If we hold firm, we can put it off indefinitely.

We....NATO....have/has just as much interest in denying Ukrainian basing rights to Russia as Russia does in denying Ukrainian basing rights to Nato. It's a helluva lot closer from the Ukrainian border to Warsaw (and a bunch of other Nato capitals) than it is from the Ukrainian border to Moscow.

The baseline flaw in the opponents of our policy supporting Ukraine is that Ukraine does not matter to us. Could not be more wrong about that. It matters a great deal.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 9:10p, 10/11/23
Redbrickbear said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.

That was a great show.....depicting a reasonable facsimile of the Soviet system.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 9:29p, 10/11/23
Redbrickbear said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.

1. I have to wonder how much the EU gets by the addition of another poor rapidly depopulating eastern European country. I mean that really....I'm not sure Ukraine is going to provide much economic benefit.

2. As far as bases....as long as Estonia is in NATO that means there are ground forces within 2hrs driving time from St. Petersburg. And then just a few more hours of driving time down highway M-10/M-11 to Moscow.

That is a dagger pointed at the heart of Russia. It would be like if Russian-Chinese troops could build up in Oklahoma at bases there for a ground assault on Texas. DWF metroplex would be within 2hrs driving time from attack....then Austin a few hours south on a easily accessible highway (I-35)

NATO troops there are closer to the Russian major political cities and heartland than any troops that could be stationed in Ukraine (10-15hrs drive away)
go to Google Earth. Use the Ruler Tool. You'll see just how wrong you are measurements. Five NATO capitals are closer to the Ukrainian border than than Moscow (four of them by half). Another is slightly closer. a couple are in the 100-150mi further range (i.e. comparable.)

Ukraine is a critical get for EITHER Russia or Nato. Hence the war. Russia would go from frontage on 4 Nato countries to frontage on 8, and would gain close proximity to an additional 4-6. Also would gain proximity to Russia-friendly states in the Balkans, which would allow them more wiggle room to destabilize neighbors (Russia close enough to come to the rescue).

Policy opponents really are truly geography blind. To some degree that is willful, but that really can't explain the weakness of understanding of geo-spatial realities nations find themselves in.
Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to trey3216 • 9:32p, 10/11/23
trey32 said:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As usual, you have it assbackwards. Russia is doing it to Ukraine. It was Russia who invaded. It is Russia who is engaging in genocide. It is Russia who is shipping Ukrainians and their children off to Siberia. It is Russia who is methodically turning cities to rubble block by block by block.

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. It's a win/win for us.

As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?
Russia is a bully, so why don't you support direct US involvement? Why not pursue a hot war?

If Russia happens to crush Ukraine despite our assistance, do you then support total war against them? The rhetoric about Russia on here totally warrants it.
Prepare for a very lengthy and convoluted "no."

What you're saying would make sense if there were any actual principles involved with our support for Ukraine. In reality it's just sick opportunism. Once we've extracted as much blood as we can while keeping our hands ostensibly clean, we'll throw them under the bus like any other puppet that's outlived its usefulness.
A "no" doesn't jive with their warnings and criticism of russia. They can't say russia is evil, a threat to the entire world, genocidal and insane while simultaneously not supporting the end of their existence by any means necessary.

I know how this is going to end. Russia and the US divvy up the spoils. A peace deal is made: Russia acquires territory and we essentially obtain Ukraine financially.

I agree with everything up to the US obtaining Ukraine financially. I think EU gains an economy, NATO gains a member and we gain a base in Ukraine and/or Poland.

1. I have to wonder how much the EU gets by the addition of another poor rapidly depopulating eastern European country. I mean that really....I'm not sure Ukraine is going to provide much economic benefit.

2. As far as bases....as long as Estonia is in NATO that means there are ground forces within 2hrs driving time from St. Petersburg. And then just a few more hours of driving time down highway M-10/M-11 to Moscow.

That is a dagger pointed at the heart of Russia. It would be like if Russian-Chinese troops could build up in Oklahoma at bases there for a ground assault on Texas. DWF metroplex would be within 2hrs driving time from attack....then Austin a few hours south on a easily accessible highway (I-35)

NATO troops there are closer to the Russian major political cites and heartland than any troops that could be stationed in Ukraine (10-15hrs drive away)
On point 1, they gain another very tech savvy country (especially Western Ukraine) that also happens to sit on some of the most fertile farmland on earth. Not to mention getting Crimea back would enable European countries to buy oil and gas from a friendly nation not hellbent on trying to bend everyone over a barrel with every rise of the sun.
And also resources.
--Europe is very weak in agriculture; Ukraine is a breadbasket. Would make EU self-sufficient in food production for everything except seasonal vegetables.
--Metal ores, including iron ore.
--Fuels: coal, gas, oil
--Hard manufacturing facilities in place, with room for lots of expansion (without onerous environmental controls in developed EUR economies.

Ukraine is quite a "get."
Hence the war.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 9:34p, 10/11/23
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.
Well, he said over the weekend it will be over in a week. Once the US cuts off the money, Ukraine has one week to live.
We aren't going to do that. Particularly not now that Russian proxies are making mischief on the Mediterranean front. Level heads know we are in WWIII and will make sure we step the proxy game to avoid larger investments. In response to the Hamas attacks, FORD is already on-station in Med. 2nd carrier group (IKE) headed to the Med as a signal. Haven't seen any press on what 5th Fleet is up to but you can be sure they are playing pitch & catch. that's three ACGs right up under Iranian nostrils. And that doesn't count the smaller carriers boasting USMC F-35s.

If Iran wants to throw Hizballah into the fray, fine. We'll chew them up, too. Who knows. Maybe some Syrian dissidents will mine the entrance to Tartus harbor. That'd be fine payback for the damage from the Finnish-Estonian pipeline bombing today (in NATO waters). Personally, the two Iranian Kilos need to go away. They are the only conventional threat Iran can project against us, theoretically slipping up to torpedo one of our carriers. They are an unacceptable threat. Israel (cough, cough) needs to disappear them.

Russia getting desperate......Keep up the pressure. The only way they win is if we let up.


I agree. The Kilos will start missing check ins that is all anyone will know.

I do think N Korea acts up in the next couple weeks.
Yep. Heard the SoKo banks apparently have some of the recently released Iranian money.

And China has been awfully quiet. May be about time for another island to be created in the South China Sea.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 5:26a, 10/12/23
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Sam Lowry said:
sombear said:
Doc Holliday said:
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. thinks he can win by letting the enemy pound on him until they get tired of kicking his ass.
Russians are not just tough, they plan on out-suffering their opponents. They've never been "good" by western standards, just better at taking punishment than the other guy. It's in their DNA.
Well, he said over the weekend it will be over in a week. Once the US cuts off the money, Ukraine has one week to live.
We aren't going to do that. Particularly not now that Russian proxies are making mischief on the Mediterranean front. Level heads know we are in WWIII and will make sure we step the proxy game to avoid larger investments. In response to the Hamas attacks, FORD is already on-station in Med. 2nd carrier group (IKE) headed to the Med as a signal. Haven't seen any press on what 5th Fleet is up to but you can be sure they are playing pitch & catch. that's three ACGs right up under Iranian nostrils. And that doesn't count the smaller carriers boasting USMC F-35s.

If Iran wants to throw Hizballah into the fray, fine. We'll chew them up, too. Who knows. Maybe some Syrian dissidents will mine the entrance to Tartus harbor. That'd be fine payback for the damage from the Finnish-Estonian pipeline bombing today (in NATO waters). Personally, the two Iranian Kilos need to go away. They are the only conventional threat Iran can project against us, theoretically slipping up to torpedo one of our carriers. They are an unacceptable threat. Israel (cough, cough) needs to disappear them.

Russia getting desperate......Keep up the pressure. The only way they win is if we let up.


I agree. The Kilos will start missing check ins that is all anyone will know.

I do think N Korea acts up in the next couple weeks.
Yep. Heard the SoKo banks apparently have some of the recently released Iranian money.

And China has been awfully quiet. May be about time for another island to be created in the South China Sea.


I am with you. This has China assymetrical strategy written all over it. A new Island near the Spradleys. N Korea moving troops south a missile test. Maybe a China/India skirmish.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:53a, 10/13/23
I of course do not entirely agree but this is still pretty funny

Reply Quote
1
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:37p, 10/17/23
ATACMS now in use. Just as Israel/Hamas War heats up.

Coincidence?

Reply Quote
1
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whiterock • 8:37a, 10/18/23
Quote:
As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?


Neither Russia nor the United States are the same countries they were in the second half of the 20th century. The Reagan doctrine is about as valid at the end of 2023 as the Maginot Line.

As an ordinary American in flyover country the biggest threats to my way of life originate in Beijing, D.C., Tehran, Mecca, Tel Aviv and Brussels...not Moscow.
Reply Quote
1
3 edits
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 8:46a, 10/18/23
Realitybites said:
Quote:
As long as Ukrainians want to resist, we should help them. Reagan Doctrine, remember?


Neither Russia nor the United States are the same countries they were in the second half of the 20th century. The Reagan doctrine is about as valid at the end of 2023 as the Maginot Line.

As an ordinary American in flyover country the biggest threats to my way of life originate in Beijing, D.C., Tehran, Mecca, Tel Aviv and Brussels...not Moscow.
Moscow is in bed with Beijing and Tehran. Moscow has unleashed incredible disinformation campaigns in the US for the sole purpose of sowing absolute and total discord amongst our electorate. Moscow, with Beijing's help, has repeatedly tried to undermine our financial system as well as our energy grids and water capabilities. Moscow is a huge threat to your way of life, and you're too stubborn to admit it if you're admitting to being threatened by Tehran and Beijing.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
3
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:53a, 10/18/23
We have forced Moscow to ally with Beijing.

An ex-communist, Christian nationalist state that is building chapels at highway rest areas is not the natural ally of a fascist oriental state with a much larger population on its eastern border.
Reply Quote
trey3216
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 8:58a, 10/18/23
Realitybites said:
We have forced Moscow to ally with Beijing.

An ex-communist, Christian nationalist state that is building chapels at highway rest areas is not the natural ally of a fascist oriental state with a much larger population on its eastern border.
A going broke, fairly fascist state being an ally of a communo-fascist far east regime with the means to help keep them afloat make decent bedfellows...even if they don't fully trust each other.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 11:03a, 10/18/23
Realitybites said:
We have forced Moscow to ally with Beijing.

An ex-communist, Christian nationalist state that is building chapels at highway rest areas is not the natural ally of a fascist oriental state with a much larger population on its eastern border.

We did no such thing. At no point has Moscow in the last 20 years treated Beijing as a greater enemy than NATO. If you know anything at all about Russian history, you would know that Moscow alliance with eastern powers as a defense against far more proximate Western powers is more the norm than the exception.
Reply Quote
2
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:04a, 10/18/23
Note the 2nd post description of the Russian "threat" = exactly as I have described here several times.
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 11:26a, 10/18/23
Realitybites said:
We have forced Moscow to ally with Beijing.

An ex-communist, Christian nationalist state that is building chapels at highway rest areas is not the natural ally of a fascist oriental state with a much larger population on its eastern border.
That is not accurate. Putin has put Russia in a position that is not compatible with the West. He is not willing to play a role in the West, he wants to conquer and rule. That is a problem.
Reply Quote
3
First Page Last Page
Page 37 of 180 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.