ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred.

---

This is a completely meaningless statement, which is why it's such a favorite of war propagandists. You can say it about anything, anywhere, any time.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

---

What goons have I "shilled" for?

And DC has supported plenty of goons, dictators, autocrats, and strong men in its time.

Hell D.C. is still in bed with Saudi Freaking Arabia

---

Redbrickbear: Israel is illegally occupying and encroaching on the Palestinians. Breaking international law. They are equally guilty as Hamas. [insert wiki on Uganda proposal, Madagascar, Palestinian history]
.

---

Did I ever say Israel is equally as guilty as Hamas?

Do you always need to lie to try and shore up your weak arguments?

Hamas can be an evil terrorist organization and Israel can be a military occupation force all at the same time

God you are stupid…

---

. I could draw the same parallels with the Ukraine War except there you go to great lengths to draw to the "evils" of the U.S. as excuse for Putin's actions.

---

Again your reading comprehension is terrible.

I have never said the U.S. was "evil"' or that its reason for regime change wars were "evill

I have constantly said that U.S. reasons were far better than Russian reasons for intervention.

The point that keeps going over your head is that both good and bad reasons for military intervention are still outside the bounds of international law…and excuses for geo-strategic goals

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---

but at least your shilling is becoming more obvious.

---

Who am I shilling for you goof?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred.

---

This is a completely meaningless statement, which is why it's such a favorite of war propagandists. You can say it about anything, anywhere, any time.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

---

What goons have I "shilled" for?

And DC has supported plenty of goons, dictators, autocrats, and strong men in its time.

Hell D.C. is still in bed with Saudi Freaking Arabia

---

Redbrickbear: Israel is illegally occupying and encroaching on the Palestinians. Breaking international law. They are equally guilty as Hamas. [insert wiki on Uganda proposal, Madagascar, Palestinian history]
.

---

Did I ever say Israel is equally as guilty as Hamas?

Do you always need to lie to try and shore up your weak arguments?

Hamas can be an evil terrorist organization and Israel can be a military occupation force all at the same time

God you are stupid…

---

. I could draw the same parallels with the Ukraine War except there you go to great lengths to draw to the "evils" of the U.S. as excuse for Putin's actions.

---

Again your reading comprehension is terrible.

I have never said the U.S. was "evil"' or that its reason for regime change wars were "evill

I have constantly said that U.S. reasons were far better than Russian reasons for intervention.

The point that keeps going over your head is that both good and bad reasons for military intervention are still outside the bounds of international law…and excuses for geo-strategic goals

---

Then you're not reading your own arguments, which is a lack of self awareness and impossible to debate. And the term "evils" is a descriptor for the multitude of whataboutism arguments you try to play in these discussions. Good grief, you were digging so deep you drew out the Mexican American War some posts back.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---

but at least your shilling is becoming more obvious.

---

Who am I shilling for you goof?

---

Hmmm.. I don't know, maybe some nationalist-orthodox leader of a country invading neighbors.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---

but at least your shilling is becoming more obvious.

---

Who am I shilling for you goof?

---

Hmmm.. I don't know, maybe some nationalist-orthodox leader of a country invading neighbors.

---

Putin sucks…

Whats your excuse for your secularist-liberal leaders invading other nations?

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred.

---

This is a completely meaningless statement, which is why it's such a favorite of war propagandists. You can say it about anything, anywhere, any time.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

---

What goons have I "shilled" for?

And DC has supported plenty of goons, dictators, autocrats, and strong men in its time.

Hell D.C. is still in bed with Saudi Freaking Arabia

---

Redbrickbear: Israel is illegally occupying and encroaching on the Palestinians. Breaking international law. They are equally guilty as Hamas. [insert wiki on Uganda proposal, Madagascar, Palestinian history]
.

---

Did I ever say Israel is equally as guilty as Hamas?

Do you always need to lie to try and shore up your weak arguments?

Hamas can be an evil terrorist organization and Israel can be a military occupation force all at the same time

God you are stupid…

---

. I could draw the same parallels with the Ukraine War except there you go to great lengths to draw to the "evils" of the U.S. as excuse for Putin's actions.

---

Again your reading comprehension is terrible.

I have never said the U.S. was "evil"' or that its reason for regime change wars were "evill

I have constantly said that U.S. reasons were far better than Russian reasons for intervention.

The point that keeps going over your head is that both good and bad reasons for military intervention are still outside the bounds of international law…and excuses for geo-strategic goals

---

Then you're not reading your own arguments, which is a lack of self awareness and impossible to debate. .

---

I'm easy to debate with if you will be consistent and not engage in lies about what I have said.

What is the point for proxy wars abroad if the U.S. does not intend to follow through with ground troops? And what is the point of pretending that other nations don't have equal spheres of influence?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---

but at least your shilling is becoming more obvious.

---

Who am I shilling for you goof?

---

Hmmm.. I don't know, maybe some nationalist-orthodox leader of a country invading neighbors.

---

Putin sucks…

Whats your excuse for your secularist-liberal leaders invading other nations?

---

Sure you do…

And was that an insult or a whataboutism?

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---

but at least your shilling is becoming more obvious.

---

Who am I shilling for you goof?

---

Hmmm.. I don't know, maybe some nationalist-orthodox leader of a country invading neighbors.

---

Putin sucks…

Whats your excuse for your secularist-liberal leaders invading other nations?

---

And was that an insult or a whataboutism?

---

It's just a question you can't seem to answer

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sorry but a good chunk of this is hogwash. No, neighbors do not have to get along. There are all kinds of neighbors in the world. Friends, enemies, and everything in between…

---

Then they will have to get used to being invaded

Canada, Mexico, and Cuba had to learn that the hard way.

---

Not sure which Canada invasion you're referencing..

---

Probably because you have a very myopic and very pro-DC view of history

And we have invaded all 3 on multiple occasions

[The United States invaded Canada in two wars:
Invasion of Canada (1775), American Revolutionary War
Invasion of Canada (1812), War of 1812
American rebels from the Hunters' Lodges invaded Canada in the Patriot War (1837-1838) and the Battle of the Windmill in 1838
Fenian raids (1866 and 1871)
War Plan Red (mid-1920s), a U.S. invasion plan created as a contingency for the unlikely event of war with the United Kingdom]

[In total, including the 1846-1848 war that resulted in the U.S. government seizing nearly half of Mexico, the U.S. military has invaded Mexico at least ten times.]

https://coha.org/175-years-of-border-invasions-the-anniversary-of-the-u-s-war-on-mexico-and-the-roots-of-northward-migration/#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20including%20the%201846,and%20in%20some%20cases%20decades.

[In 1820 Thomas Jefferson thought Cuba is "the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of States" and told Secretary of War John C. Calhoun that the United States "ought, at the first possible opportunity, to take Cuba." In a letter to the U.S. Minister to Spain Hugh Nelson, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams described the likelihood of U.S. "annexation of Cuba" within half a century despite obstacles: "But there are laws of political as well as of physical gravitation; and if an apple severed by the tempest from its native tree cannot choose but fall to the ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural connection with Spain, and incapable of self support, can gravitate only towards the North American Union, which by the same law of nature cannot cast her off from its bosom.]

---

It was a different time, 200 years ago.

Apples to bowling balls.

---

If Canada and Mexico started to join a Chinese lead military alliance you would see the USA reaction very quickly

And the U.S. attempted to overthrow the government in Cuba in the 1960s (not 200 years ago) because their government was in a military alliance with the USSR.

And America had every right to view that as a serious threat

---

We would do what pretty much every major nation (except Russia) would do: Bribe, cajole, spy, influence, and work with opposition. We would not conduct a mass invasion...

---

We just did a regime change war in Iraq

A country that is 6,942 miles from our border.

Russia is doing a regime change war on a country right on their door step.

---

That the US has constantly conducted invasions like Russia is doing in Ukraine is beyond reasonable dispute.

What these internet Rambos are really attempting to claim is that somehow when the US does it.......we have 'noble reasons' and only 'accidentially' kill thousands of civilians.

---

I would submit that most of the time - especially in modern history (last 100 years) - we do. Doesn't mean we aren't sometimes misguided in our approach or endeavors (see Vietnam, Iraq), but the reasons for doing what we did were the result of good intentions (i.e. preserving or protecting democracy, preventing terrorist attacks, etc.).

---

But don't you see how subjective that is? "Good Intentions"

DC said they were liberating Iraq from fascist Baathists

Moscow says they are liberating Ukraine from neo-Nazis.

One might be more based in reality but both are just poor excuses to invade another country and impose the will of a larger nation on a weaker one.

Bottom line DC did not like the government in Iraq and invaded to change it....Moscow does not like the government in Ukraine and has invaded to change it

---

Again, one would think such straight line comparisons would be easy to accept as reasonable.





Gotta luv the internet.

---

Speaking of comparables, I'm still waiting on y'all to tell us what country in our "sphere of influence" (as you say) we've full blown invaded, tried to take over, and taken away their sovereignty.

Edit: And, please, no links to articles that don't reference actual invasions of this kind.

---

We already given you a laundry list of countries the USA has invaded in the Western hemisphere.

DC made sure they were left with much more manageable governments in place (Panama) or took huge chunks of land from them (Mexico)

You just don't want to admit that the situation is similar to what Russia is doing in their neck of the woods

---

The world is a completely different place than when those conflicts occurred.

---

This is a completely meaningless statement, which is why it's such a favorite of war propagandists. You can say it about anything, anywhere, any time.

---

Some of you America sucks crowd have no perspective of history.

---

DC sucks is NOT "America sucks"

And I would say you down playing the aggressive nature of DC foreign policy have no perspective on history.

It's like nothing has happened in the past unless MSNBC brings your attention to it (and calls it racist)

---

Aggressive to who? The despotic goons you consistently shill for?

---

What goons have I "shilled" for?

And DC has supported plenty of goons, dictators, autocrats, and strong men in its time.

Hell D.C. is still in bed with Saudi Freaking Arabia

---

Redbrickbear: Israel is illegally occupying and encroaching on the Palestinians. Breaking international law. They are equally guilty as Hamas. [insert wiki on Uganda proposal, Madagascar, Palestinian history]
.

---

Did I ever say Israel is equally as guilty as Hamas?

Do you always need to lie to try and shore up your weak arguments?

Hamas can be an evil terrorist organization and Israel can be a military occupation force all at the same time

God you are stupid…

---

. I could draw the same parallels with the Ukraine War except there you go to great lengths to draw to the "evils" of the U.S. as excuse for Putin's actions.

---

Again your reading comprehension is terrible.

I have never said the U.S. was "evil"' or that its reason for regime change wars were "evill

I have constantly said that U.S. reasons were far better than Russian reasons for intervention.

The point that keeps going over your head is that both good and bad reasons for military intervention are still outside the bounds of international law…and excuses for geo-strategic goals

---

Then you're not reading your own arguments, which is a lack of self awareness and impossible to debate. .

---

I'm easy to debate with if you will be consistent and not engage in lies about what I have said.

What is the point for proxy wars abroad if the U.S. does not intend to follow through with ground troops? And what is the point of pretending that other nations don't have equal spheres of influence?

---

Usually the point of proxy war is to not have to use your ground troops. Thus the term proxy.

We have no equals, so I'm not sure how to answer that.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---

but at least your shilling is becoming more obvious.

---

Who am I shilling for you goof?

---

Hmmm.. I don't know, maybe some nationalist-orthodox leader of a country invading neighbors.

---

Putin sucks…

Whats your excuse for your secularist-liberal leaders invading other nations?

---

And was that an insult or a whataboutism?

---

It's just a question you can't seem to answer

---

Which invasion, and which liberal-secularist leader are you referencing? I can't really respond to a misguided quip.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

And you're saying I have bad reading comprehension?

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Russia is making so many gains all across the front that it's hard to keep track any more. Lately it's been pretty much another day, another village taken.

Meanwhile in "democratic" Ukraine...

"A defiant Zelensky has rejected questions on his legitimacy from his critics in Ukraine, and from Kiev's Western 'partners'. 'My five-year term is not over yet. It is continuing due to martial law,' Zelensky told Reuters on Tuesday."Kiev will consider anyone who doubts Zelensky's legitimacy 'enemies of Ukraine'."

Well fine. Kim Jong Zelensky can put me down as an enemy of the urine and blue flag then.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

So Ukraine is the sovereign territory of Russia? That's certainly news.

---

It's not news that Belgorod is...and Blinken is now talking about lifting restrictions on American-made weapons.

---

Amazing, Reagan never gave weapons to people fighting Russians…

---

Reagan hated Soviets, Communists , and Marxists

Not ethnic Russians.

I mean you're not very smart but surely you know the difference between ideology and ethnicity right?

---

Did you mumble when you wrote that inanity? ***, does ethnicity have to do with this? Did the weapons Reagan provided magically avoid ethnic Russian ?

---

The point is you fool that Reagan provided weapons to kill Marxists ….not ethnic Russians

His enemy was Left-liberalism

Today we might have more Marxists in DC today than they did then in Moscow.

A reborn Reagan might be trying to get at the leftists in DC and not worrying about a newly nationalist-orthodox Russia

You think Marist and Russian are the same thing…ether because your not smart or your dishonest

---

but at least your shilling is becoming more obvious.

---

Who am I shilling for you goof?

---

Hmmm.. I don't know, maybe some nationalist-orthodox leader of a country invading neighbors.

---

Putin sucks…

Whats your excuse for your secularist-liberal leaders invading other nations?

---

And was that an insult or a whataboutism?

---

It's just a question you can't seem to answer

---

Which invasion, and which liberal-secularist leader are you referencing? I can't really respond to a misguided quip.

---

Our own liberal-secularist leaders invaded Iraq

Surely you remember that

Hey boys and girls, guess who doesn't have to fight if there's a draft?

"In the event of a resumption of the draft, individuals born male who have changed their gender to female can file a claim for an exemption from military service."
LINK

What if you're an only son?

"No. the "only son", "the last son to carry the family name," and " sole surviving son" must register with Selective Service. These sons can be drafted."

Realitybites said:

---

Hey boys and girls, guess who doesn't have to fight if there's a draft?

"In the event of a resumption of the draft, individuals born male who have changed their gender to female can file a claim for an exemption from military service."
LINK

What if you're an only son?

"No. the "only son", "the last son to carry the family name," and " sole surviving son" must register with Selective Service. These sons can be drafted."

---

What if you are a senator's son?

The people clamoring the loudest for bloodshed are rarely willing to send their own son or daughter into the meat grinder. I thought people would have learned over the last 20 years, no one is defending anyone's freedom in these idiotic proxy wars. I think some people have watched Red Dawn and The Patriot one too many times. Most if not all wars the US has been involved with since WWII are wars for the sake of war designed to "sell" (I.e. spend yours and my tax dollars on) military hardware. Warehouses full of unused missiles are not good for business, and no war means no customers. And I tell you, most of these senators are businessmen first and foremost and politicians second.

I encourage everyone to watch "all quiet on the western front" (the old version). I swear that I see so many parallels between the character giving this rah rah patriotic speech and many of the ideals I've seen in this thread

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

and yet, there is no outrage, because the Japanese and the Koreans know they need benign US power to forestall Chinese imperial ambitions

---

Bull****

Ask ANY sailor who was stationed in Japan with his family what the attitude was from the Japanese.

Ask almost any marine on Okinawa how the average local feels about their island being under the thumb of the US for approaching a CENTURY.


Some of you guys are so clueless it hurts.



Again, really think we would be ok with tens of thousands of military servicemen dominated various locations in the US for decades at a time ?


You know the anwer.

---

You are correct that I know the answer. You would be well advised to open your mind a little bit, because you do not. First, you have to put the facts you cited in proper perspective, which is this - Japanese governments of all stripes for decades have continued to support the presence of US bases/troops on Japanese soil, because the Japanese public at large understands that the US is a positive and benign factor in Japanese politics, largely restricted to working on an area of mutual interest = countering hostile powers in East Asia which pose a direct threat to the Japanese homeland.

Most Asian cultures are quite a bit more xenophobic than Western societies. But nearly every power in history has been able to rise above such things to form improbable alliances, as the mightiest capitalist nation in history did with the two largest communist nations in history during the 20th century to defeat (in succession) Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. So, in context, the US-Japan alliance is not terribly odd at all. Numerous levels of synergy going on. Makes total sense that alliance will continue as long as China continues to be a cohesive state intent on projecting power beyond the South China Sea. The Okinawans can ***** about it all they want, but their valid opinions are not going to make the needle quiver very much, because larger issues are at stake.

---

Good grief, but you are verbose.

Was on Okinawa. The vast majority of the locals wanted the US........OUT.

Had dozens of associates in Japan. The vast majority of the locals wanted the US.....OUT.

LOL

Can just imagine if the US had over 30,000 Romanian army troops stationed along the West Coast for over 70 years with another 10,000 Peruvian marines station on the Big Island of Hawaii.

Oh yeah....we would just LOVE that situation.

---

yet, somehow, no Japanese political party has been able to translate all that opposition into election victory that results in tossing out the Americans.

Why is that?
-because Japanese leaders across the spectrum can read a map and understand their needs for alliances
-because most Japanese people can see/understand the same thing.
=Japan needs us to counter China, the ancient threat to the Japanese way of life.

Here's one other thing you studiously refuse to acknowledge: when asked to leave, we do.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

they are being attritted quite nicely,

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

Russia is eating thru decades of accumulated weapons systems and ordnance, and will be left to rebuild for a future fight against Nato with nothing more than what it can produce with an economy the size of Texas.

To the extent that one believes Ukraine is just a proxy for Nato, then Nato is winning the war quite handily.

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Hey boys and girls, guess who doesn't have to fight if there's a draft?

"In the event of a resumption of the draft, individuals born male who have changed their gender to female can file a claim for an exemption from military service."
LINK

What if you're an only son?

"No. the "only son", "the last son to carry the family name," and " sole surviving son" must register with Selective Service. These sons can be drafted."

---

What if you are a senator's son?

The people clamoring the loudest for bloodshed are rarely willing to send their own son or daughter into the meat grinder.
My daughter is home for a few weeks, then heads off to command a Nato mobility unit in Europe which will funnel materiel to Ukraine and in the event of hostilities will be a primary transit point to the front.

I thought people would have learned over the last 20 years, no one is defending anyone's freedom in these idiotic proxy wars.
a proxy war which destroys portions of an adversary's army is money well spent

I think some people have watched Red Dawn and The Patriot one too many times.
We are not in a Red Dawn situation. Ukraine is. Supporting Ukraine to resist is wise, as it makes it far harder for Russia to keep pushing westward.

Most if not all wars the US has been involved with since WWII are wars for the sake of war designed to "sell" (I.e. spend yours and my tax dollars on) military hardware. Warehouses full of unused missiles are not good for business, and no war means no customers. And I tell you, most of these senators are businessmen first and foremost and politicians second.
Unless you believe we do not need defense industries to be ready to go when war happens, then writing them purchase orders to produce existing weapons and develop more is wise policy. We do so to modernize our stocks....destroying old munitions and systems. Why pay that cost when Ukraine can use what we would otherwise destroy?

I encourage everyone to watch "all quiet on the western front" (the old version). I swear that I see so many parallels between the character giving this rah rah patriotic speech and many of the ideals I've seen in this thread

No one is arguing to send our sons & daughters to fight Russia. We are arguing to send arms/ammo to Ukrainians to fight Russia, so that our own sons & daughters won't have to.

---

Over and over and over, we see emotionally driving reasoning...... All you're trying to do is solve a budget deficit with a series of bad foreign policy options which will not solve the budget deficit.

88 years after the communists destroyed the first church built in Ukraine, the Zelebsky government does the same to its replacement.

Under cover of night, Ukraine destroys Tithes Church, built on site of first Kievan cathedral

https://orthochristian.com/160239.html

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Hey boys and girls, guess who doesn't have to fight if there's a draft?

"In the event of a resumption of the draft, individuals born male who have changed their gender to female can file a claim for an exemption from military service."
LINK

What if you're an only son?

"No. the "only son", "the last son to carry the family name," and " sole surviving son" must register with Selective Service. These sons can be drafted."

---

What if you are a senator's son?

The people clamoring the loudest for bloodshed are rarely willing to send their own son or daughter into the meat grinder.
My daughter is home for a few weeks, then heads off to command a Nato mobility unit in Europe which will funnel materiel to Ukraine and in the event of hostilities will be a primary transit point to the front.

I thought people would have learned over the last 20 years, no one is defending anyone's freedom in these idiotic proxy wars.
a proxy war which destroys portions of an adversary's army is money well spent

I think some people have watched Red Dawn and The Patriot one too many times.
We are not in a Red Dawn situation. Ukraine is. Supporting Ukraine to resist is wise, as it makes it far harder for Russia to keep pushing westward.

Most if not all wars the US has been involved with since WWII are wars for the sake of war designed to "sell" (I.e. spend yours and my tax dollars on) military hardware. Warehouses full of unused missiles are not good for business, and no war means no customers. And I tell you, most of these senators are businessmen first and foremost and politicians second.
Unless you believe we do not need defense industries to be ready to go when war happens, then writing them purchase orders to produce existing weapons and develop more is wise policy. We do so to modernize our stocks....destroying old munitions and systems. Why pay that cost when Ukraine can use what we would otherwise destroy?

I encourage everyone to watch "all quiet on the western front" (the old version). I swear that I see so many parallels between the character giving this rah rah patriotic speech and many of the ideals I've seen in this thread

No one is arguing to send our sons & daughters to fight Russia. We are arguing to send arms/ammo to Ukrainians to fight Russia, so that our own sons & daughters won't have to.

---

Over and over and over, we see emotionally driving reasoning...... All you're trying to do is solve a budget deficit with a series of bad foreign policy options which will not solve the budget deficit.

---

My goodness your ego is extreme. Can't believe you just used some anecdote about your daughter to prove your point. I'm sure you are so used to getting compliments about your kid in the military that your ego has blinded you. Here's the truth: Your daughter isn't doing any fighting, she is hundreds of miles behind the front line in relative safety in a support role. do they have a chipotle over there in whatever base she is on? Thanks for your service, I guess. Maybe Ukraine will send her a thank you card or something

We spent 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan wasting billions of dollars shooting dudes in pajama pants and wearing SpongeBob T-shirts, and people still haven't learned. Just a few more billions, just a few more dead Slavs that no one cares about, and all of our freedoms will be defended and everyone will be able to live the American dream in safety from those brown people/Muslims/communist/Russian/Chinese/bogeyman

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

Has anyone noticed that when it comes to liberals clamoring for war, they don't give a crap about support our troops or anything like that until it involves white people killing other white people?

Black people in Somalia hijacking cargo freighters?
- "nah forget that, it's not worth the money"

Black people murdering other Black people in the Congo?
- "nah forget that, we already got everything we wanted out of Africa, it's a tribal war and killing people is just a way of life over there. Survival of the fittest!"

China committing genocide against their Muslim minorities
-"Nah forget that, who is going to make my iPhone for cheap?"

Thousands of military age men pouring across the border from Mexico
-"nah forget that. They're not causing problems in my backyard over here on white rock Lake, and I need somebody to mow my grass for cheap. They are all just here to live the American dream anyway"


White eastern Europeans getting attacked by Russia's (mostly Siberian/Asian) army

-"OHH SLAVA UKRAINE, SEND A BLANK CHECK, OH THISE WHITE FOLKS DONT DESERVE THIS, OH DEFEND MY FREEDOM SLAVA UKRAINIII PROUD TO BE A UKRAINI WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW ILL SEND YOU MONEYYYY. AND I WONT FORGET THE SLAVS WHO DIED TO MAKE MY LOCKHEED MARTIN STOCK GO UP, AND I PROUDLY STAND UP NEXT TO YOUUH AND DEFEND UKRAINE STILL TODAY ON A MESSAGE BOARD. CAUSE THERE AINT NO DOUBT I LOVE UMRAIINE. GOD BLESS THE UKRAINEEEESESS!!!

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

---

He would have a different outlook if his daughter was actually on the front lines in actual danger of dying. But since his daughter is relatively safe, he's cool with the idea of sending YOUR son or YOUR daughter over there. If Biden ever tried to draft him? "Oh I have shin splints, oh I have chronic ingrown toenails, oh I have gastritis, oh I'm nearsighted, oh I'm too old to go, oh no but you go, my job over here is too important"

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

---

He would have a different outlook if his daughter was actually on the front lines in actual danger of dying. But since his daughter is relatively safe, he's cool with the idea of sending YOUR son or YOUR daughter over there. If Biden ever tried to draft him? "Oh I have shin splints, oh I have chronic ingrown toenails, oh I have gastritis, oh I'm nearsighted, oh I'm too old to go, oh no but you go, my job over here is too important"

---

Nothing new with his type.

Those the farthest from the carnage are often the biggest 'Rambo's'.

Those who have seen the corpses stack up never want anyone else to die or get mutilated.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

LOL

Ukraine is not the sovereign territory of Russia.
Russia didn't "sponsor" an attack on sovereign Ukrainian territory. It INVADED sovereign Ukrainian territory.
We are not sponsoring at attack on sovereign Russian territory.
We are "sponsoring" Ukraine to defend it's own sovereign territory against Russia.

The USSR most certainly did sponsor attacks on the West.
They trained and funded terror groups by the dozens.
I worked that problem most days for 7 years.

---

We're talking about allowing guided missile attacks with our weapons against Russia proper. That's a historic red line and a huge escalation, whether you realize it or not.

It's also not something that would be on the table if NATO were "winning quite handily," by the way.

Realitybites said:

---

88 years after the communists destroyed the first church built in Ukraine, the Zelebsky government does the same to its replacement.

Under cover of night, Ukraine destroys Tithes Church, built on site of first Kievan cathedral

https://orthochristian.com/160239.html

---

Very disingenuous post. That church is part of the Moscow Patriarchy, and its removal is part of an effort to limit Russian influence in Ukraine, not a broad assault on Christianity.

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Hey boys and girls, guess who doesn't have to fight if there's a draft?

"In the event of a resumption of the draft, individuals born male who have changed their gender to female can file a claim for an exemption from military service."
LINK

What if you're an only son?

"No. the "only son", "the last son to carry the family name," and " sole surviving son" must register with Selective Service. These sons can be drafted."

---

What if you are a senator's son?

The people clamoring the loudest for bloodshed are rarely willing to send their own son or daughter into the meat grinder.
My daughter is home for a few weeks, then heads off to command a Nato mobility unit in Europe which will funnel materiel to Ukraine and in the event of hostilities will be a primary transit point to the front.

I thought people would have learned over the last 20 years, no one is defending anyone's freedom in these idiotic proxy wars.
a proxy war which destroys portions of an adversary's army is money well spent

I think some people have watched Red Dawn and The Patriot one too many times.
We are not in a Red Dawn situation. Ukraine is. Supporting Ukraine to resist is wise, as it makes it far harder for Russia to keep pushing westward.

Most if not all wars the US has been involved with since WWII are wars for the sake of war designed to "sell" (I.e. spend yours and my tax dollars on) military hardware. Warehouses full of unused missiles are not good for business, and no war means no customers. And I tell you, most of these senators are businessmen first and foremost and politicians second.
Unless you believe we do not need defense industries to be ready to go when war happens, then writing them purchase orders to produce existing weapons and develop more is wise policy. We do so to modernize our stocks....destroying old munitions and systems. Why pay that cost when Ukraine can use what we would otherwise destroy?

I encourage everyone to watch "all quiet on the western front" (the old version). I swear that I see so many parallels between the character giving this rah rah patriotic speech and many of the ideals I've seen in this thread

No one is arguing to send our sons & daughters to fight Russia. We are arguing to send arms/ammo to Ukrainians to fight Russia, so that our own sons & daughters won't have to.

---

Over and over and over, we see emotionally driving reasoning...... All you're trying to do is solve a budget deficit with a series of bad foreign policy options which will not solve the budget deficit.

---

My goodness your ego is extreme. Can't believe you just used some anecdote about your daughter to prove your point. I'm sure you are so used to getting compliments about your kid in the military that your ego has blinded you.
You made the "rarely willing to send their own" attack, so don't complain when I smash it all the way thru your alimentary canal.

Here's the truth: Your daughter isn't doing any fighting, she is hundreds of miles behind the front line in relative safety in a support role. do they have a chipotle over there in whatever base she is on? Thanks for your service, I guess. Maybe Ukraine will send her a thank you card or something.
You are the one who insists that our support for Ukraine will inevitably cause our sons & daughters to get caught in a hot war with Russia. If you are correct, she will be in command of one of the three primary logistical chokepoints for operations in East Europe, and as such part of the command & control infrastructure are key military targets in any war, things that have to be destroyed to stop armies. Where you are most wrong, though, is in assuming that your "abandon Ukraine" policy will reduce the threat of war. It will actually put my own "treasure" at greater risk of conflict than just winning the damned war we have right now in Ukraine.

We spent 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan wasting billions of dollars shooting dudes in pajama pants and wearing SpongeBob T-shirts, and people still haven't learned. Just a few more billions, just a few more dead Slavs that no one cares about, and all of our freedoms will be defended and everyone will be able to live the American dream in safety from those brown people/Muslims/communist/Russian/Chinese/bogeyman
Hate to tell you this, but Slavs are not normally recognized as one of the brown peoples you mentioned.

---

Isolationism is a tough act to maintain. The world has a way of taking as much as you will give it.

Here's where you are: Europe is preparing for war with Russia. It will happen. It's hard to predict exactly where & when, but there is one thing you can take to the bank - when it happens, A) it will be because Russia crossed a red line and B) you will blame Nato and America rather than your own terrible foreign policy choices.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Our Ukraine policy is about as far from Reagan Republicanism as you can get. We won the Cold War without either side ever sponsoring attacks on the sovereign territory of the other. Yet after a few short years, here we are.

---

LOL

Ukraine is not the sovereign territory of Russia.
Russia didn't "sponsor" an attack on sovereign Ukrainian territory. It INVADED sovereign Ukrainian territory.
We are not sponsoring at attack on sovereign Russian territory.
We are "sponsoring" Ukraine to defend it's own sovereign territory against Russia.

The USSR most certainly did sponsor attacks on the West.
They trained and funded terror groups by the dozens.
I worked that problem most days for 7 years.

---

We're talking about allowing guided missile attacks with our weapons against Russia proper. That's a historic red line and a huge escalation, whether you realize it or not.

It's also not something that would be on the table if NATO were "winning quite handily," by the way.

---

We have waited for too long to authorize Ukrainian use of our missiles into Russia proper. Technically, we already are, given that we allow Ukraine to use them in the Russian annexed territories of Crimea, et al. I mean, Crimea is either Russia, or not, correct?

A tactical missile system like ATACMS with a 200mi range is no strategic threat to Russia, at all. Our policy of excessive caution is sending all the wrong signals to Russia, emboldening rather than deterring them.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

---

It is likely inevitable, at this point, because you will not commit to helping Ukraine defeat Russia in Ukraine.

If you want to avoid us getting into a war with Russia "at all costs" then fer crissakes give the Ukrainians more ammo!

A Russian army shattered in Ukraine is no threat to Nato.
A Russian army rebuilding in Ukraine is a serious, and importantly proximate threat to Nato.

KaiBear said:

---

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

---

He would have a different outlook if his daughter was actually on the front lines in actual danger of dying. But since his daughter is relatively safe, he's cool with the idea of sending YOUR son or YOUR daughter over there. If Biden ever tried to draft him? "Oh I have shin splints, oh I have chronic ingrown toenails, oh I have gastritis, oh I'm nearsighted, oh I'm too old to go, oh no but you go, my job over here is too important"

---

Nothing new with his type.

Those the farthest from the carnage are often the biggest 'Rambo's'.

Those who have seen the corpses stack up never want anyone else to die or get mutilated.

---

nothing new with this type, bleating about humanitarian concerns to gain better moral purchase than budgetary reservations or bad policy alternatives.

I've been quite consistent that the best way to avoid our sons & daughters from being in a hot war with Russia is to ensure that Ukraine defeats Russia in Ukraine. That is the "least risk" option on the table. All others increase the threat, and move it closer to us.

Daveisabovereproach said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

I keep checking back - has our $100B in donations to a ukrainian crime lords defeated Russia yet?

---

Every tank destroyed, arty round fired, etc....is one that cannot be used against our troops.

---

You always act like war with Russia is inevitable (and even desirable)

Instead of something to be avoided at all costs.

It would be a disaster that would make Iraq and Afghanistan look tame

---

He would have a different outlook if his daughter was actually on the front lines in actual danger of dying. But since his daughter is relatively safe, he's cool with the idea of sending YOUR son or YOUR daughter over there. If Biden ever tried to draft him? "Oh I have shin splints, oh I have chronic ingrown toenails, oh I have gastritis, oh I'm nearsighted, oh I'm too old to go, oh no but you go, my job over here is too important"

---

My son is an combat cameraman in the USMC reserves, having rolled off active duty almost a year ago as an NCO. If China invades Taiwan, he will be subject to recall. I.E. he will be proverbial cannon fodder.

The reason I keep pointing out the shallowness and foolishness of your policy recommendations is because I would prefer to keep my kids out of harm's way.