The Ukranians are almost cut off.

Zelensky, that great democratic icon of europe has cancelled the 2024 election.

He has fired the general in charge of the Ukrainian special forces and grenaded Zalhuny's deputy.

His primary political rival is warning him that if he touches Zalhuny that it will be his last mistake.

Say it with me, "From the river to the sea the Azov Nazis will be free!"

Clowns.

Realitybites said:

---

The Ukranians are almost cut off.

Zelensky, that great democratic icon of europe has cancelled the 2024 election.

He has fired the general in charge of the Ukrainian special forces and grenaded Zalhuny's deputy.

His primary political rival is warning him that if he touches Zalhuny that it will be his last mistake.

Say it with me, "From the river to the sea the Azov Nazis will be free!"

Clowns.

---

This is the kind of comedy I like to see on here.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

Anyone else seen the reports that Ukraine has penetrated 4km east of the Dnieper at Kherson, prompting unspecified imminent Russian withdrawals? Ukr now controlling as much as 9km of bank, 2-4km deep

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

Not until a mutual defense obligation is triggered. Is that what you'd like to see?

I would not.

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

I would change that to "as long as a treaty enrolled ally of the United States is not attacked we have NO obligation to go to war"

And not only no obligation…no moral right.

It's one thing to tell other world powers that we will fight them over our enrolled Allies..it's another to say we might fight them over anyone at anytime depending on how we feel.

Talk about brining unpredictability to world politics

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

I would change that to "as long as a treaty enrolled ally of the United States is not attacked we have NO obligation to go to war"

And not only no obligation…no moral right.

It's one thing to tell other world powers that we will fight them over our enrolled Allies..it's another to say we might fight them over anyone at anytime depending on how we feel.

Talk about brining unpredictability to world politics

---

Cuba, Venezula, Mexico for that matter are all on the table to Xi and Vlad with you Foreign Policy. Are the Japanese, Korean and Aussie treaties still binding? After all WW2 was a long time ago. We can knock down income tax 300 bucks for each American if we cut out Ukraine and Israel... Wow! You can get a hotel for a night or make 1 car insurance payment. We don't need Israel or Ukranie.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

I would change that to "as long as a treaty enrolled ally of the United States is not attacked we have NO obligation to go to war"

And not only no obligation…no moral right.

It's one thing to tell other world powers that we will fight them over our enrolled Allies..it's another to say we might fight them over anyone at anytime depending on how we feel.

Talk about brining unpredictability to world politics

---

We don't need Israel or Ukranie.

---

Finally we agree on something

Let these parasite states fend for themselves

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

---

I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics

The USA would and did resist letting Cuba become a base for the Soviets (rightfully so)

And Russia would and will resist letting Ukraine become a base for NATO.

Forget my taxes for a moment and ask yourself why you want Ukraine to become a USA proxy state? What does it gain us but a potential war with Russia?

The USA has somehow been able to survive since 1776 without Ukraine as an ally.

Now we are told it's a vital ally…since when?

---

No I don't misunderstand geopolitics. I know enough that isolationism is a ticket to being in a weakened state. The US will be dragged into any global dispute. Better to be proactive and stay in front of it then to stay out and react. Sucking hind tit is never a good position. Isolationism is a losing proposition.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

---

I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics

The USA would and did resist letting Cuba become a base for the Soviets (rightfully so)

And Russia would and will resist letting Ukraine become a base for NATO.

Forget my taxes for a moment and ask yourself why you want Ukraine to become a USA proxy state? What does it gain us but a potential war with Russia?

The USA has somehow been able to survive since 1776 without Ukraine as an ally.

Now we are told it's a vital ally…since when?

---

No I don't misunderstand geopolitics. I know enough that isolationism is a ticket to being in a weakened state...

---

Isolationist? lol

The USA is not isolationist and has not been for 75 years…and is in no danger of being so

This is about if the USA should risk all it has over peripheral 3rd world states that offer us very very little.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

---

I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics

The USA would and did resist letting Cuba become a base for the Soviets (rightfully so)

And Russia would and will resist letting Ukraine become a base for NATO.

Forget my taxes for a moment and ask yourself why you want Ukraine to become a USA proxy state? What does it gain us but a potential war with Russia?

The USA has somehow been able to survive since 1776 without Ukraine as an ally.

Now we are told it's a vital ally…since when?

---

No I don't misunderstand geopolitics. I know enough that isolationism is a ticket to being in a weakened state...

---

Isolationist? lol

The USA is not isolationist and has not been for 75 years…and is in no danger of being so

This is about if the USA should risk all it has over peripheral 3rd world states that offer us very very little.

---

We are not in Ukraine. There are no troops in Ukraine. We are supporting them by providing equipment and info. Now, we can discuss level of support. But, not supporting basically give Russia carte blanche. I am surprised, so many "Reagan-ites" that are against supporting a Nation trying to align west. Very un-Ronnie.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine.

---

You are. So was I. The USSR is gone. The Warsaw Pact is gone. Perhaps most importantly, the America of the cold war is gone. There are more communists in our universities and bureaucracies in 2023 than in the Kremlin. Moody's just downgraded us on Friday due to persistent government overspending. It is our persistent interventionism, not isolationism, that has helped weaken our nation. NATO has become an expensive calcified relic without a purpose, and its second largest military is at odds with its first. It needs to go away.

---

I would agree it needs to be revised. It needs to be less Europe-centic and incorporate Asia and Pacific into it. Germany and France need to have less control and the cost-sharing needs to be more equal. I do see its value as a counterbalance to Russia and China.

You really believe there are few Soviets in Russia and few Communists in China, huh? Vlad and Xi have done well.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

---

I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics

The USA would and did resist letting Cuba become a base for the Soviets (rightfully so)

And Russia would and will resist letting Ukraine become a base for NATO.

Forget my taxes for a moment and ask yourself why you want Ukraine to become a USA proxy state? What does it gain us but a potential war with Russia?

The USA has somehow been able to survive since 1776 without Ukraine as an ally.

Now we are told it's a vital ally…since when?

---

No I don't misunderstand geopolitics. I know enough that isolationism is a ticket to being in a weakened state...

---

Isolationist? lol

The USA is not isolationist and has not been for 75 years…and is in no danger of being so

This is about if the USA should risk all it has over peripheral 3rd world states that offer us very very little.

---

We are not in Ukraine. There are no troops in Ukraine. We are supporting them by providing equipment and info. Now, we can discuss level of support. But, not supporting basically give Russia carte blanche. I am surprised, so many "Reagan-ites" that are against supporting a Nation trying to align west. Very un-Ronnie.

---

Because they're getting their ass kicked and it could cost us damn near a trillion $$ in the long run.

Very boomercon to provide billions to another nation while our country is in deep economic turmoil.

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

---

I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics

The USA would and did resist letting Cuba become a base for the Soviets (rightfully so)

And Russia would and will resist letting Ukraine become a base for NATO.

Forget my taxes for a moment and ask yourself why you want Ukraine to become a USA proxy state? What does it gain us but a potential war with Russia?

The USA has somehow been able to survive since 1776 without Ukraine as an ally.

Now we are told it's a vital ally…since when?

---

No I don't misunderstand geopolitics. I know enough that isolationism is a ticket to being in a weakened state...

---

Isolationist? lol

The USA is not isolationist and has not been for 75 years…and is in no danger of being so

This is about if the USA should risk all it has over peripheral 3rd world states that offer us very very little.

---

We are not in Ukraine. There are no troops in Ukraine. We are supporting them by providing equipment and info. Now, we can discuss level of support. But, not supporting basically give Russia carte blanche. I am surprised, so many "Reagan-ites" that are against supporting a Nation trying to align west. Very un-Ronnie.

---

Because they're getting their ass kicked and it could cost us damn near a trillion $$ in the long run.

Very boomercon to provide billions to another nation while our country is in deep economic turmoil.

---

" Now, we can discuss level of support."

Did you miss that part? There is a huge universe between a trillion and walking away. How millennial to simplify everything to either/or based on what you like...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

---

I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics

The USA would and did resist letting Cuba become a base for the Soviets (rightfully so)

And Russia would and will resist letting Ukraine become a base for NATO.

Forget my taxes for a moment and ask yourself why you want Ukraine to become a USA proxy state? What does it gain us but a potential war with Russia?

The USA has somehow been able to survive since 1776 without Ukraine as an ally.

Now we are told it's a vital ally…since when?

---

No I don't misunderstand geopolitics. I know enough that isolationism is a ticket to being in a weakened state...

---

Isolationist? lol

The USA is not isolationist and has not been for 75 years…and is in no danger of being so

This is about if the USA should risk all it has over peripheral 3rd world states that offer us very very little.

---

We are not in Ukraine. There are no troops in Ukraine. We are supporting them by providing equipment and info. Now, we can discuss level of support. But, not supporting basically give Russia carte blanche. I am surprised, so many "Reagan-ites" that are against supporting a Nation trying to align west. Very un-Ronnie.

---

1. According to my buddy who is an Army Major we 100% do have special forces inside Ukraine helping to fight…so we do have US service members there..even if in small numbers now

And as we saw with Vietnam…things that start small can get big

2. Reagan was 40 years ago and an entire different America ago…at some point zombie Reaganism needs to die

His presidency is as much relevant to us as Teddy Roosevelt's

DC should be very careful about getting us into any new wars…the younger generation does not want to fight in them.

🔴 The military is struggling to recruit, amid an apparent disconnect with the younger generation. But it is a complex picture.

EXCLUSIVE: Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore https://t.co/Z2ejgUwLsp

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) November 10, 2023

Redbrickbear said:

---

DC should be very careful about getting us into any new wars…the younger generation does not want to fight in them.

🔴 The military is struggling to recruit, amid an apparent disconnect with the younger generation. But it is a complex picture.

EXCLUSIVE: Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore https://t.co/Z2ejgUwLsp

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) November 10, 2023

---

Because they are being educated to hate our country

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

DC should be very careful about getting us into any new wars…the younger generation does not want to fight in them.

🔴 The military is struggling to recruit, amid an apparent disconnect with the younger generation. But it is a complex picture.

EXCLUSIVE: Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore https://t.co/Z2ejgUwLsp

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) November 10, 2023

---

Because they are being educated to hate our country

---

Well then that is also a failing of the elite in America.

They have control of all the culture shaping institutions in the USA

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

DC should be very careful about getting us into any new wars…the younger generation does not want to fight in them.

🔴 The military is struggling to recruit, amid an apparent disconnect with the younger generation. But it is a complex picture.

EXCLUSIVE: Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore https://t.co/Z2ejgUwLsp

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) November 10, 2023

---

Because they are being educated to hate our country

---

Well then that is also a failing of the elite in America.

They have control of all the culture shaping institutions in the USA

---

You and I agree on occasion!

Exclusive: A senior Ukrainian military officer with deep ties to the country’s intelligence services played a central role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline last year, according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe. https://t.co/hHTsjRBlhi

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 11, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

You really believe there are few Soviets in Russia and few Communists in China, huh? Vlad and Xi have done well.

---

I didn't say anything about China, did I. So why did you add that in there?

Speaking specifically about Russia, make yourself familiar with the things that are happening there.

http://www.russian-faith.com

Such things do not happen in a communist country.

For that matter, such things no longer happen in the United States.

As far as China goes, you could debate whether the prevailing political system of state-capitalism there is closer to Lenin's vision of Communism or Hitler's Fascism (there's a strong strain of oriental-supremacism in Chinese society) but there's no getting around it being a Godless dictatorship. Nixon was a fool to open economic relations with that country.

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You really believe there are few Soviets in Russia and few Communists in China, huh? Vlad and Xi have done well.

---

I didn't say anything about China, did I. So why did you add that in there?

Speaking specifically about Russia, make yourself familiar with the things that are happening there.

http://www.russian-faith.com

Such things do not happen in a communist country.

For that matter, such things no longer happen in the United States.

As far as China goes, you could debate whether the prevailing political system of state-capitalism there is closer to Lenin's vision of Communism or Hitler's Fascism (there's a strong strain of oriental-supremacism in Chinese society) but there's no getting around it being a Godless dictatorship. Nixon was a fool to open economic relations with that country.

---

"Let me show you a straight-up RU propaganda site to show you what's not really happening there."

Cobretti said:

---

Exclusive: A senior Ukrainian military officer with deep ties to the country’s intelligence services played a central role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline last year, according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe. https://t.co/hHTsjRBlhi

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 11, 2023

---

The Post reports the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage was a simpler op than many assumed:

"a six-person [Ukraine] team that rented a sailboat under false identities and used deep-sea diving equipment to place explosive charges on the gas pipelines."https://t.co/qi9hSkcSs8

— Steve Sailer (@Steve_Sailer) November 11, 2023

This is an open post for the “Russia is losing and is finished in two weeks” crowd.

You may post your apologies.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) November 11, 2023

These articles are always framed as “does America have the resources to handle a three-front global war” rather than “does the concept of a three-front global war sound completely insane” pic.twitter.com/rDXRGgGdFN

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) November 12, 2023

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Just curious ... asking for a unicorn I know .. who can make the affirmative case that artificially funding Ukraine's economy serves what national interests of the U.S.?

---

Maybe I am a Reagan Cold War guy, but I agreed with Scott and Haley last night on Ukraine. Anything we do to weaken Putin is good for US.

---

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

---

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

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

---

He wouldn't have to. Reagan never would have put us in this situation to begin with. Read up on his dealings with Gorbachev and how he worked for peace despite the skepticism of his advisers.

---

....and against the advice of his advisors proceeded with SDI, walked out of a summit in Reykjavik, stood in front of the Brandenburg Gate and demanded "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

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

---

He believed in peace through strength. There are too many people who can only understand half the equation.

---

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

---

Ooo, so close.

We denied Ukraine their elected president and installed a thug instead.

But you have never, ever, even shown what direct American interest is involved in this war. Are you getting something out of this?

---

LOL there you stand, "always wrong, never in doubt...."

---

Wrong about what? "**** the EU"? The thug? The lack of a direct American interest? Try to be specific.

---

the clear national interest has been laid out many, many times. You ignore it because it guts your case.

---

You've laid out arguments for indirect interests. You haven't come close to elucidating a direct American interest.

Because you don't have one

---

NATO is a "direct interest," is it not?

---

NATO is not threatened or attacked.

It's kind of like saying I might have to shoot someone if they cross onto my property line..and then like saying actually if they cross into my neighborhood at all I get to shoot them

Russia is in the neighborhood…but they are not on our property

---

So, you have no problem with Russia just taking Ukraine? China taking Taiwan, Viet Nam? Not our issue. Russian wants Cuba, they are just in our neighborhood. We have no agreement to prevent it??? Venezula, sure.

As long as it doesn't inconvenience you, they can do whatever they want.

---

Well…We almost fought a nuclear war with the USSR over Cuba.

And we did it because we would never accept Soviet troops so close to our borders.

Of course modern Russia will never accept NATO troops in eastern Ukraine.

And of course Cuba was not a major port for the USA navy….like Crimea is for the Russian fleet.

And Soviet troops could not drive from Cuba to Miami.

American-NATO troops in Ukraine could roll right to Moscow by highway

---

But, we are not discussing what did happen. We are discussing what you want. Using your logic, US was wrong. Russia should be able to take Cuba. Russia should be able to take Ukraine. Not our problem and none of our business, no support from US taxpayer. US tax payer should help no one, that is the RedBrick way. Whatever keeps RedBrick taxes at their lowest...

---

I think you are misunderstanding geopolitics

The USA would and did resist letting Cuba become a base for the Soviets (rightfully so)

And Russia would and will resist letting Ukraine become a base for NATO.

Forget my taxes for a moment and ask yourself why you want Ukraine to become a USA proxy state? What does it gain us but a potential war with Russia?

The USA has somehow been able to survive since 1776 without Ukraine as an ally.

Now we are told it's a vital ally…since when?

---

No I don't misunderstand geopolitics. I know enough that isolationism is a ticket to being in a weakened state...

---

Isolationist? lol

The USA is not isolationist and has not been for 75 years…and is in no danger of being so

This is about if the USA should risk all it has over peripheral 3rd world states that offer us very very little.

---

We are not in Ukraine. There are no troops in Ukraine. We are supporting them by providing equipment and info. Now, we can discuss level of support. But, not supporting basically give Russia carte blanche. I am surprised, so many "Reagan-ites" that are against supporting a Nation trying to align west. Very un-Ronnie.

---

Ukraine is not a nation "trying to align west."

Ukraine elected a Russia leaning president. We helped get him kicked out. We rejected the EU's choice (Remember Victoria Nuland's "**** the EU"? **** Victoria Nuland.) We helped put a thug in power.

He is not aligning with the West, he is getting financed by the west.

Again, without any direct American interest at risk or at play.