Ukrainians: "You promised us liberation."
— FbF (@FistedFoucault) February 14, 2024
Uncle Sam: "Yes, GAY liberation. We never said NATIONAL liberation. Anyway, hope you enjoy the Pride Parade. Sorry about losing 1/5th of your country. Freedom ain't free." https://t.co/90rPRnIH08
Why Are We in Ukraine?
409,328 Views |
6245 Replies |
Last: 20 min ago by ATL Bear
BREAKING: Russia has lost 90% of its prewar standing army in Ukraine and Putler is on his deathbed.
ALSO BREAKING: They're deploying space nukes!!!
ALSO BREAKING: They're deploying space nukes!!!
You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
A parachute has a chance of strangling you. How do you go outside with that attitude?Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Doc Holliday said:
BREAKING: Russia has lost 90% of its prewar standing army in Ukraine and Putler is on his deathbed.
ALSO BREAKING: They're deploying space nukes!!!
They would have us believe that Russia is having to buy ammo from North Korea and drones from Iran.
While at the same time their mighty armies are posed to sack Western Europe and they can also develop Space Lasers
These people will throw anything at the wall to see if it sticks…and especially if it will get the American people to commit to a regime change war in Russia
Pretty funny from the crowd that crawls twitter all day for any conspiracy theory that Russia is actually our friendRedbrickbear said:Doc Holliday said:
BREAKING: Russia has lost 90% of its prewar standing army in Ukraine and Putler is on his deathbed.
ALSO BREAKING: They're deploying space nukes!!!
They would have us believe that Russia is having to buy ammo from North Korea and drones from Iran.
While at the same time their mighty armies are posed to sack Western Europe and they can also develop Space Lasers
These people will throw anything at the wall to see if it sticks…and especially if it will get the American people to commit to a regime change war in Russia
18+
— WarTranslated (Dmitri) (@wartranslated) February 15, 2024
"Out of 4,000 people, a brigade, 30% remain".
Russian soldiers film the battlefield just east of Krasnohorivka, to the northeast of Avdiivka.
"Corpses everywhere. They're all ours."
"There's war, but this... it was a meatgrinder here."
Show this video to anyone who thinks… pic.twitter.com/yJQQ2q1Cqc
The worst thing that could go wrong is to cut funding for Ukraine and let Russia have it.Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
What other risks do you see? Russia is not terribly likely to launch an immediate invasion of anyone. How on earth would that improve their position? They've got all they can say grace over in Ukraine. How are they going to improve their situation by invading Finland or Sweden, or using their Pacific or Atlantic fleets to attack us? Do you really think they are going to launch a nuclear strike over us supplying arty rounds and and F-16s to Kiev? No. We are maintaining pressure, ever so slowly adding more capable non-nuclear weapons systems to Ukraine, hoping that Russia will crack under the strain. They will if we keep it up. Russia's position, that they must subsume Ukraine into the Russian state, is wildly more radical than our position that Russia must return to pre-2014 borders.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia. Unilaterally ending it and letting Russia have all or part of Ukraine does not improve our position. It only emboldens and empowers Russia. Now is not the time to go wobbly. Wars of attrition are not fun, but someone usually wins them. I propose it be us. And it will be if we stay the course.
I think if Russia cracks like you think they will with their current measures that they'll resort to small nuclear weapons and this thing gets real ugly.whiterock said:The worst thing that could go wrong is to cut funding for Ukraine and let Russia have it.Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
What other risks do you see? Russia is not terribly likely to launch an immediate invasion of anyone. How on earth would that improve their position? They've got all they can say grace over in Ukraine. How are they going to improve their situation by invading Finland or Sweden, or using their Pacific or Atlantic fleets to attack us? Do you really think they are going to launch a nuclear strike over us supplying arty rounds and and F-16s to Kiev? No. We are maintaining pressure, ever so slowly adding more capable non-nuclear weapons systems to Ukraine, hoping that Russia will crack under the strain. They will if we keep it up. Russia's position, that they must subsume Ukraine into the Russian state, is wildly more radical than our position that Russia must return to pre-2014 borders.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia. Unilaterally ending it and letting Russia have all or part of Ukraine does not improve our position. It only emboldens and empowers Russia. Now is not the time to go wobbly. Wars of attrition are not fun, but someone usually wins them. I propose it be us. And it will be if we stay the course.
whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Today we learn the incompetent, broke Russians - feared as former Soviets demeaned as not quite Europeans - are at an unknown stage of development of a space-based nuclear weapon that can take out US military satellites.
— ib (@Indian_Bronson) February 15, 2024
How did we get here?https://t.co/oqUjfH94Ae https://t.co/88WqdIMacd pic.twitter.com/vo7YHPP2zC
They didn't do that in 1991. What makes you think they would do that again? How would that lift their wagon out of the ditch? Their army in Ukraine has surrendered, so they nuke it?Doc Holliday said:I think if Russia cracks like you think they will with their current measures that they'll resort to small nuclear weapons and this thing gets real ugly.whiterock said:The worst thing that could go wrong is to cut funding for Ukraine and let Russia have it.Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
What other risks do you see? Russia is not terribly likely to launch an immediate invasion of anyone. How on earth would that improve their position? They've got all they can say grace over in Ukraine. How are they going to improve their situation by invading Finland or Sweden, or using their Pacific or Atlantic fleets to attack us? Do you really think they are going to launch a nuclear strike over us supplying arty rounds and and F-16s to Kiev? No. We are maintaining pressure, ever so slowly adding more capable non-nuclear weapons systems to Ukraine, hoping that Russia will crack under the strain. They will if we keep it up. Russia's position, that they must subsume Ukraine into the Russian state, is wildly more radical than our position that Russia must return to pre-2014 borders.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia. Unilaterally ending it and letting Russia have all or part of Ukraine does not improve our position. It only emboldens and empowers Russia. Now is not the time to go wobbly. Wars of attrition are not fun, but someone usually wins them. I propose it be us. And it will be if we stay the course.
Is there a historical precedent for a nation in economic collapse launching massive military attacks against neighbors who are NOT invading the mother country?
again, you infantilize Russia. Never does your argument premise, run, or conclude with Russia making any mistakes or having any responsibility whatsoever for the messes they get bogged down in.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power, bent on subsuming or dominating states which do not want to be subsumed or dominated by Russia.
We are fighting Russia because it perceives the liberal order itself as a mortal threat to the Russian totalitarian political model.
I mean, do you think before you post? The West has a socio-political order that people and countries all over the world wish to emulate. Poland did not join EU/Nato because it feared EU/Nato. It joined to seek protection against Russia. That is true for all the former WP nations. Nobody in Sweden or Finland flipped on a dime to join Nato because they feared Nato. Where is the evidence of arm-twisting to get Georgia to seek NATO membership?
Why is it that everybody in the Russian neighborhood is lining up against Russia? Is Nato really so good at expansionist diplomacy that it can array the whole of Europe (except for Belarus) against poor little Russia?
Good grief, man...at what point will you arguments have no clothes?
boognish_bear said:BREAKING:
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 14, 2024
Ukrainian naval drones just sank the 112 meter long Russian Ropucha-class landing ship Caesar Kunikov (bottom left on this graphic) off the coast of Crimea.
The Russian Black Sea Fleet has been decimated by Ukraine. Very few large ships left, making logistics hard. pic.twitter.com/wIMVT1DQQl
#NAFO
— Aleksandr X (@AleksandrX13) February 14, 2024
Okay, so which of you fellas was responsible for this?
It was just sent to me by a Ukrainian friend as a stand-alone video. He didn't tell me where he got it. pic.twitter.com/LP6iQnbjgL
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
p.s.
Despite all the talk from DC and the media about how Trump was in bed with Russia...it was actually Obama who then cancelled the Polish missile defense shield and pulled them out.
And then Trump who got them placed there again.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-scraps-bush-missile-defense-plan/story?id=8604357
[Obama's decision Wednesday to scuttle a costly and technically challenged long-range missile-defense system in Europe marks his most significant reversal of a Bush foreign policy priority. It could change the dynamic of what has been an increasingly tense relationship between the U.S. and Russia, which viewed the Bush plans for missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic as a threat.]
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Yea...might be even worse that the US invaded Iraq....got about 1 million Iraqis killed....then just left for Iran to semi-rule the country.
Well done on the part of DC.
At least Moscow is just absorbing in some eastern lands that are filled with ethnic Russians.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/
[LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.]
Oh and I won't be visiting Libya anytime soon.
Since the US backed war there has been a endless civil war raging in the country and now there are brutal slaves markets operating right out in the open.
Another DC back regime change war success story!
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/libyas-festering-crisis-risks-slide-back-war-2022-11-17/
[Libya.... 2020 ceasefire that ended Haftar's last assault on Tripoli, the culmination of years of division between factions who emerged during a 2011 NATO-backed uprising and split between east and west in 2014.]
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
[The Libyan Slave Trade Has Shocked the World. Here's What You Should Know]
Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Yea...might be even worse that the US invaded Iraq....got about 1 million Iraqis killed....then just left for Iran to semi-rule the country.
Well done on the part of DC.
At least Moscow is just absorbing in some eastern lands that are filled with ethnic Russians.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/
[LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.]
Oh and I won't be visiting Libya anytime soon.
Since the US backed war there has been a endless civil war raging in the country and now their are slaves markets operating right out in the open.
Another DC back regime change war success story.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/libyas-festering-crisis-risks-slide-back-war-2022-11-17/
[Libya.... 2020 ceasefire that ended Haftar's last assault on Tripoli, the culmination of years of division between factions who emerged during a 2011 NATO-backed uprising and split between east and west in 2014.]
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
[The Libyan Slave Trade Has Shocked the World. Here's What You Should Know]
So no. Got it. Nice RU shill in there too.
Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Yea...might be even worse that the US invaded Iraq....got about 1 million Iraqis killed....then just left for Iran to semi-rule the country.
Well done on the part of DC.
At least Moscow is just absorbing in some eastern lands that are filled with ethnic Russians.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/
[LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.]
Oh and I won't be visiting Libya anytime soon.
Since the US backed war there has been a endless civil war raging in the country and now their are slaves markets operating right out in the open.
Another DC back regime change war success story.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/libyas-festering-crisis-risks-slide-back-war-2022-11-17/
[Libya.... 2020 ceasefire that ended Haftar's last assault on Tripoli, the culmination of years of division between factions who emerged during a 2011 NATO-backed uprising and split between east and west in 2014.]
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
[The Libyan Slave Trade Has Shocked the World. Here's What You Should Know]
So no. Got it. Nice RU shill in there too.
Yea we did not annex any ethnic American land in Iraq...because there were no Americans there to protect in the first place.
DC just got a lot of people killed, spent trillions, then pulled out with Iran left in de-facto control of the country's political system.
Really....another great and glorious chapter in DC political leadership.
So, we are now down to tit-for-tat?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We both invaded Afghanistan, so that cancels.
As for the others, weren't we part of multi-national coalitions. Are you counting them as the same as Putin's actions?
Which means we should all be rooting for Putin! Cut all aid and let Putin roll because Bush went into Iraq. Will them make everything even and all right?Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Yea...might be even worse that the US invaded Iraq....got about 1 million Iraqis killed....then just left for Iran to semi-rule the country.
Well done on the part of DC.
At least Moscow is just absorbing in some eastern lands that are filled with ethnic Russians.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/
[LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.]
Oh and I won't be visiting Libya anytime soon.
Since the US backed war there has been a endless civil war raging in the country and now their are slaves markets operating right out in the open.
Another DC back regime change war success story.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/libyas-festering-crisis-risks-slide-back-war-2022-11-17/
[Libya.... 2020 ceasefire that ended Haftar's last assault on Tripoli, the culmination of years of division between factions who emerged during a 2011 NATO-backed uprising and split between east and west in 2014.]
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
[The Libyan Slave Trade Has Shocked the World. Here's What You Should Know]
So no. Got it. Nice RU shill in there too.
Yea we did not annex any ethnic American land in Iraq...because there were no Americans there to protect in the first place.
DC just got a lot of people killed, spent trillions, then pulled out with Iran left in de-facto control of the country's political system.
Really....another great and glorious chapter in DC political leadership.
You have some f-ed up logic.
FLBear5630 said:Which means we should all be rooting for Putin! Cut all aid and let Putin roll because Bush went into Iraq. Will them make everything even and all right?Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Yea...might be even worse that the US invaded Iraq....got about 1 million Iraqis killed....then just left for Iran to semi-rule the country.
Well done on the part of DC.
At least Moscow is just absorbing in some eastern lands that are filled with ethnic Russians.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/
[LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.]
Oh and I won't be visiting Libya anytime soon.
Since the US backed war there has been a endless civil war raging in the country and now their are slaves markets operating right out in the open.
Another DC back regime change war success story.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/libyas-festering-crisis-risks-slide-back-war-2022-11-17/
[Libya.... 2020 ceasefire that ended Haftar's last assault on Tripoli, the culmination of years of division between factions who emerged during a 2011 NATO-backed uprising and split between east and west in 2014.]
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
[The Libyan Slave Trade Has Shocked the World. Here's What You Should Know]
So no. Got it. Nice RU shill in there too.
Yea we did not annex any ethnic American land in Iraq...because there were no Americans there to protect in the first place.
DC just got a lot of people killed, spent trillions, then pulled out with Iran left in de-facto control of the country's political system.
Really....another great and glorious chapter in DC political leadership.
Its not a tit for tat situation.
It simply is pointing out that DC invades countries and ignores international law when it thinks its geo-strategic interests are on the line.
Even if it turns out to be very stupid like invading Iraq.
Moscow acts the same way.
And for what its worth I think the invasion of Ukraine is as dumb/wrong as the invasion of Iraq.
FLBear5630 said:So, we are now down to tit-for-tat?Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We both invaded Afghanistan, so that cancels.
As for the others, weren't we part of multi-national coalitions. Are you counting them as the same as Putin's actions?
Certainly is interesting that both the Communists in Moscow in the 70s and the Liberals in DC now are both stupid enough to invade Afghanistan and waste money and lives on such an Islamic crap hole
And yes the USA always has a larger alliance network that Russia.
Does not really have much to do with violating international law.
Russia violated international law when it invaded Ukraine...and it does not matter if Belarus and N. Korea agreed with the invasion.
The USA violated international law when it invaded Iraq...and it does not matter if Latvia and Angola agreed with the invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)
And Russia does everything they can to persuade and help who they want to not become democracies, see South America and Asia. US is just having more success with Ukraine and Russia is throwing a tantrum. Using Russia's playbook we WOULD have invaded Cuba.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Which means we should all be rooting for Putin! Cut all aid and let Putin roll because Bush went into Iraq. Will them make everything even and all right?Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Yea...might be even worse that the US invaded Iraq....got about 1 million Iraqis killed....then just left for Iran to semi-rule the country.
Well done on the part of DC.
At least Moscow is just absorbing in some eastern lands that are filled with ethnic Russians.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/
[LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.]
Oh and I won't be visiting Libya anytime soon.
Since the US backed war there has been a endless civil war raging in the country and now their are slaves markets operating right out in the open.
Another DC back regime change war success story.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/libyas-festering-crisis-risks-slide-back-war-2022-11-17/
[Libya.... 2020 ceasefire that ended Haftar's last assault on Tripoli, the culmination of years of division between factions who emerged during a 2011 NATO-backed uprising and split between east and west in 2014.]
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
[The Libyan Slave Trade Has Shocked the World. Here's What You Should Know]
So no. Got it. Nice RU shill in there too.
Yea we did not annex any ethnic American land in Iraq...because there were no Americans there to protect in the first place.
DC just got a lot of people killed, spent trillions, then pulled out with Iran left in de-facto control of the country's political system.
Really....another great and glorious chapter in DC political leadership.
Its not a tit for tat situation.
It simply is pointing out that DC invades countries and ignores international law when it thinks its geo-strategic interests are on the line.
Even if it turns out to be very stupid like invading Iraq.
Moscow acts the same way.
And for what its worth I think the invasion of Ukraine is as dumb/wrong as the invasion of Iraq.
FLBear5630 said:And Russia does everything they can to persuade and help who they want to not become democracies, see South America and Asia. US is just having more success with Ukraine and Russia is throwing a tantrum. Using Russia's playbook we WOULD have invaded Cuba.Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:Which means we should all be rooting for Putin! Cut all aid and let Putin roll because Bush went into Iraq. Will them make everything even and all right?Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:Bear8084 said:Redbrickbear said:FLBear5630 said:So Russia's "geo-political interest" supersedes internationally recognized borders and sovereignty?Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.Doc Holliday said:When Ukraine's population of militants, militias, battalions, tough as nails bros and civilians that would pose a threat to the incoming corporate regime are all dead and we federalize/westernize Ukraine...is the goal then to destabilize and topple Russia?whiterock said:Don't you think that's wise?Redbrickbear said:ATL Bear said:
I think we need to change the name of the CIA to SPECTRE. We're at movie fantasy level of what some of you think the Agency is capable of.
The CIA has come out and admitted it was involved in influencing some foreign elections during the Cold War.
If they have lost that ability then something strange is going on and the organization has gone soft…
[The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been involved in Italian politics since the end of World War II. The CIA helped swing the 1948 general election in favor of the centrist Christian Democrats and would continue to intervene in Italian politics until at least the early 1960s.]
Preventing a peaceful communist takeover of Italy during the Cold War was kinda important, ergo worth some risk to prevent. Quite a bit different scenario than managing a relationship with a stable ally, where the risk/reward equation is inverted. In almost any conceivable scenario, the risk of getting caught meddling is far worse than the outcome of the election itself.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
Does the same go for Washington?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya....were these not sovereign nations that our rulers disregard international law when we wanted to and invaded/bombed?
What's good for the goose I assume is good for the gander
[The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20invasion%20of%20Iraq%20was%20neither%20in%20self%2Ddefense%20against,Jurists%20(ICJ)%20in%20Geneva.
We annexed those in a genocidal land grab? I missed that part. When are you visiting the State of Libya?
Yea...might be even worse that the US invaded Iraq....got about 1 million Iraqis killed....then just left for Iran to semi-rule the country.
Well done on the part of DC.
At least Moscow is just absorbing in some eastern lands that are filled with ethnic Russians.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL30488579/
[LONDON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.]
Oh and I won't be visiting Libya anytime soon.
Since the US backed war there has been a endless civil war raging in the country and now their are slaves markets operating right out in the open.
Another DC back regime change war success story.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/libyas-festering-crisis-risks-slide-back-war-2022-11-17/
[Libya.... 2020 ceasefire that ended Haftar's last assault on Tripoli, the culmination of years of division between factions who emerged during a 2011 NATO-backed uprising and split between east and west in 2014.]
https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/
[The Libyan Slave Trade Has Shocked the World. Here's What You Should Know]
So no. Got it. Nice RU shill in there too.
Yea we did not annex any ethnic American land in Iraq...because there were no Americans there to protect in the first place.
DC just got a lot of people killed, spent trillions, then pulled out with Iran left in de-facto control of the country's political system.
Really....another great and glorious chapter in DC political leadership.
Its not a tit for tat situation.
It simply is pointing out that DC invades countries and ignores international law when it thinks its geo-strategic interests are on the line.
Even if it turns out to be very stupid like invading Iraq.
Moscow acts the same way.
And for what its worth I think the invasion of Ukraine is as dumb/wrong as the invasion of Iraq.
I mean we sort of did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion
Or at least the CIA did.
And lets be honest. Invading and overthrowing the brutal communist government in Havana and replacing it with a manageable two party republican form of government aligned to the USA would have been a good thing.
The USA was well within its understanble geo-strategic & security needs to make sure a peaceful ally of the USA was on its borders.
The USSR had no right to interfere in a country right on our door step.
And it would have been far better for the people of Cuba to deal with a short US invasion.... than to suffer under the communist yoke & live in terrible poverty for 60 years.
(Moscow had no business in Cuba....and DC has none in Ukraine)
Yall warhawks would barely have any opposition had Bush and Obama not been totally stupid with war and if DC refused to let weapons manufacturers overcharge out the ass for everything.
People don't trust the system anymore. You need to point the finger at those clowns.
People don't trust the system anymore. You need to point the finger at those clowns.
Define "overcharge out the ass for everything"...Doc Holliday said:
Yall warhawks would barely have any opposition had Bush and Obama not been totally stupid with war and if DC refused to let weapons manufacturers overcharge out the ass for everything.
People don't trust the system anymore. You need to point the finger at those clowns.
Because every maker of every product on earth is going to charge a price to recoup the cost of their research and design into the product until an equivalent competitor brings to market an equivalent technology at a lower cost.
But by all means, be more confused about how capitalism works.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/trey3216 said:Define "overcharge out the ass for everything"...Doc Holliday said:
Yall warhawks would barely have any opposition had Bush and Obama not been totally stupid with war and if DC refused to let weapons manufacturers overcharge out the ass for everything.
People don't trust the system anymore. You need to point the finger at those clowns.
[Military contractors overcharge the Pentagon on almost everything the Department of Defense buys each year, experts told 60 Minutes over the course of a six-month investigation into price gouging.
In March, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks announced the largest Pentagon budget ever: $842 billion. Almost half will go to defense contractors.
Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who spent his career overseeing the purchase of some of the country's most critical weapons systems, said there's an inherent conflict between the Pentagon and defense contractors.
They need to be held accountable," he said. "No matter who they are, no matter what company it is, they need to be held accountable. And right now that accountability system is broken in the Department of Defense."
It wasn't always like this, he said. The roots of the problem can be traced to 1993, when the Pentagon, looking to reduce costs, urged defense companies to merge and 51 major contractors consolidated to five giants.
"The landscape has totally changed," Assad said. "In the '80s, there was intense competition amongst a number of companies. And so the government had choices. They had leverage. We have limited leverage now."]
This is crony capitalism.trey3216 said:Define "overcharge out the ass for everything"...Doc Holliday said:
Yall warhawks would barely have any opposition had Bush and Obama not been totally stupid with war and if DC refused to let weapons manufacturers overcharge out the ass for everything.
People don't trust the system anymore. You need to point the finger at those clowns.
Because every maker of every product on earth is going to charge a price to recoup the cost of their research and design into the product until an equivalent competitor brings to market an equivalent technology at a lower cost.
But by all means, be more confused about how capitalism works.
In 1993 the Pentagon urged defense companies to merge and 51 major contractors consolidated to five giants.
In the early 2000s the Pentagon cut 130k employees whose jobs were to negotiate and oversee defense contracts. These five giants got leeway to monitor themselves as if they were trusted in good faith to deliver reasonable prices and sell in favor of the interests of our war efforts. The price of everything began to skyrocket: they took advantage of it and started overcharging.
As an example, a shoulder-fired stinger missile cost $25,000 in 1991. Raytheon is now the sole manufacture of it and they charge $400k. That's a sevenfold increase which FARRRRR exceeds inflation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/
This is similar in nature to what happened with Obamacare: they made insane requirements that caused all the small providers to consolidate into a handful of giants. When only a handful of companies own all the marketshare they work in tandem to start increasing prices so they can make ridiculous profits. Its very similar to a monopoly.
So instead of letting the MIC charge whatever they want and we agree to it, we need to be frugal and drive the price down.
The problem is this is taxpayer money they're buying this stuff with.
You might be fine with getting ripped off...I'm not.
Have you ever developed anything from prototype to deployment? There is a lot of cost that has to be recouped.Redbrickbear said:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-budget-price-gouging-military-contractors-60-minutes-2023-05-21/trey3216 said:Define "overcharge out the ass for everything"...Doc Holliday said:
Yall warhawks would barely have any opposition had Bush and Obama not been totally stupid with war and if DC refused to let weapons manufacturers overcharge out the ass for everything.
People don't trust the system anymore. You need to point the finger at those clowns.
[Military contractors overcharge the Pentagon on almost everything the Department of Defense buys each year, experts told 60 Minutes over the course of a six-month investigation into price gouging.
In March, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks announced the largest Pentagon budget ever: $842 billion. Almost half will go to defense contractors.
Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, who spent his career overseeing the purchase of some of the country's most critical weapons systems, said there's an inherent conflict between the Pentagon and defense contractors.
They need to be held accountable," he said. "No matter who they are, no matter what company it is, they need to be held accountable. And right now that accountability system is broken in the Department of Defense."
It wasn't always like this, he said. The roots of the problem can be traced to 1993, when the Pentagon, looking to reduce costs, urged defense companies to merge and 51 major contractors consolidated to five giants.
"The landscape has totally changed," Assad said. "In the '80s, there was intense competition amongst a number of companies. And so the government had choices. They had leverage. We have limited leverage now."]
For example, we had a safety device for the road that we developed. The first one deployed, cost 150k. Now I can get them deployed for 8k soup to nuts. That was over a 4 year period. If you are developing new tech and creating the prototypes, testing and the whole product it is much more expensive than the raw materials. So, on such a project a hammer could be $500. Can't explain it well in the papers, but there is not as much waste as you believe. I am working on another one for pedestrians right now, each prototype is 3d printed, do you know how expensive that is???
I take this stuff with a grain of salt. I have gone through Fed audits, they are anal about justifying every expenditure. At least that has been my experience.
How much higher than defense spending - or any other US budget item - do you think the interests payments on borrowing to pay for spending can get, before something breaks? pic.twitter.com/ZvncVcU4E3
— ib (@Indian_Bronson) February 16, 2024
Your reasoning here is sophomoric, in no small part because of the layers of ahistorical false dilemmas upon which it's built.Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:Doc Holliday said:Have you considered how this could go wrong for the US, or do you see it as completely risk free?whiterock said:You have all the pieces on the board, you just have them out of order..Doc Holliday said:Then can we stop with the saving democracy bs in Ukraine and just admit that we want to use them so we can destroy Russia and that we're willing to spend however many trillions over countless years to achieve this goal?whiterock said:
It's damned sure not to coddle and cocoon Russia so that it can go on indefinitely as an authoritarian state so fearful of the west that it relentlessly seeks to destabilize and topple NATO and the EU.
WW3 is going to suck. The inflation from printing money is going to destroy the middle class.
Destroying Russia will save democracy in Ukraine. And save democracy in Europe. Because it will prevent WWIII.
There is no "loss" in Ukraine that does not increase the odds of WWIII; there is no "victory" in Ukraine that does not reduce the odds of WWIII.
Remember Liddle-Hart's Maxim: "Nations go to war to achieve a better peace." Stephen Kotkin spins that a different way "you can win the war and lose the peace (US/Afghan...and you can lose the war and win the peace (US/Viet). So focus on the peace." He then posits the obvious compromise based on maps today, which is not far from Redbrick's post above. But as long as Ukraine WANTS to fight (and it does), we should continue to attrit Russia, who is far worse position than its supporters here are willing to admit. If Russia collapses, fine. That's their problem. We will deal with it then. And doing so will be a lot easier and safer than dealing with a Russia full to the gills with Ukrainian territory, people, and economic resources.
Understand where we are - a proxy war with Russia..
How did we let the DC political class get us into a proxy war with Russia.
They have never attacked us.
The Russians don't have a radical and evil political ideology like communism anymore dedicated to world conquest.
So why are we fighting them?
How does the service the interests of the average American?
Nato did not invade anybody. Sovereign states applied for membership in Nato. Nato admitted them, and then promptly built no bases, stationed no divisions, deployed no armor or aircraft, out of deference to Russia. When Russia invaded, we did not send troops, or launch stand-off attacks. We just helped a sovereign nation defend territory that the entire international community, even Russia, had long recognized as that nation's sovereign territory.
We are fighting Russia because Russia is an expansionist power
1. No one said NATO invaded anyone...but of course it did bomb Serbia when no NATO ally was under attack.
No sure why you brought that up.
You guys reflexively portray NATO expansionism as the proximate cause for the war, as justifying the Russian invasion, when in fact, Nato has invaded nobody while Russia has invaded quite a few of its neighbors over the last 70+ years. If you are not aware of that, then perhaps you should rethink the entirety of your position.
2. NATO did of course station missiles in Poland and the Baltic States....and for what's its worth I have no problem with NATO offering membership to Poland or placing missiles there.
[In February 2007, the United States started formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. In April 2007 the Washington Post reported that 57% of Poles opposed the plan]
[On August 14, 2008 the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system on Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland
Beyond the materiality of a single tactical system not being a terribly escalatory step, there is a reading comprehension problem in your argument here: "missile SHIELD".... = not an offensive system but a defensive system. So your defense of Russian interest is so complete that you now presume we are obligated to avoid even deploying defensive systems....that we must bear the onus of vulnerability, while Russia is not?
3. Where has Russia been expanding? So far its been involved in countries that it has already had long standing geo-political interest in...Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan.
In the last century, Russia has invaded, sent its own troops across the borders of, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Georgia, etc......to expand or protect its borders or influence. During that same time frame, which sovereign nation has Nato (or the US) invaded in Europe, other than to liberate Nazi occupied territory? I anxiously await your response.
There is a reason why everyone wants to join Nato and nobody wants to ally with Russia, friend...
We all know why Moscow is involved in those countries that are right on its border....why is DC involved there?
p.s. Despite all the talk from DC and the media about how Trump was in bed with Russia...it was actually Obama who then cancelled the Polish missile defense shield and pulled them out.
And then Trump who got them placed there again.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-scraps-bush-missile-defense-plan/story?id=8604357
[Obama's decision Wednesday to scuttle a costly and technically challenged long-range missile-defense system in Europe marks his most significant reversal of a Bush foreign policy priority. It could change the dynamic of what has been an increasingly tense relationship between the U.S. and Russia, which viewed the Bush plans for missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic as a threat.]
https://www.dw.com/en/us-and-poland-strike-105-billion-missile-defense-deal/a-41433719
[US (Trump) approved the $10.5 billion sale of a Patriot anti-missile system to NATO ally Poland]
https://www.dw.com/en/trump-to-send-more-troops-to-poland/a-49166992
[06/12/2019June 12, 2019
The US and Polish presidents (Trump) agreed that the US would deploy 1,000 additional US troops. Military hardware and LNG sales were agreed ]
Again, stand back and look at your reasoning here. A Patriot missile system deployed to a Nato member is an escalatory step that justifiably provokes Russia, forces Russia to engage in expansionist policies and actions?