whiterock said:

---

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.

---

You mistake provocation for deterrence. Sheer madness on your part.

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Actually you've been quite inconsistent, going back and forth between saying WWIII is inevitable and saying it will be the fault of Ukraine skeptics if it happens. Kind of like you used to say attrition of Russian forces would be a victory in itself, but now you say Ukraine has to win.

So we can rest assured that NATO need not commit troops…until it turns out we underestimated our opponent and NATO's credibility is on the line. This was all predictable and predicted.

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

There is no danger in "isolationism" taking hold.

We are the largest economy on earth. The USA is in multiple military alliance networks spanning the globe.

We have military bases in dozens of countries around the word.

We have trade relations "with more than 200 countries, territories, and regional associations around the globe"

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20trade%20relations,regional%20associations%20around%20the%20globe.

People said this same nonsense when we decided to pull out of Afghanistan...that we were "engaging in isolationism"

Reasonable foreign policy looks like isolationism to a certain type of person in DC

BREAKING:

Belgium announces it will donate 30 F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.

It will bring the total number of F-16s that Ukraine will get from 55 to 85.

The other countries sending F-16s are Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands.

🇧🇪🇺🇦 pic.twitter.com/DcuZWJfRBe

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 28, 2024

Georgia has almost 25,000 NGOs, or roughly 1 per 148 citizens! 90% are believed to be foreign funded, but they do not have a formal method for tracking them. No country can function like this.https://t.co/tah0eqZ9Lw

— Andrew Smith (@AndrewSmithClub) May 28, 2024

whiterock 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"

---

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.

---

SIX STRAIGHT posts in a row.

You are the only person I have ever seen pull such a stunt on this message board and you do so regularly..

You are a lunatic.

Despise such ' keyboard warriors'.

Bored beyond measure with their unproductive lives and only get off playing 'general' .

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Ukraine has no chance of defeating Russia. Zelensky's term is over and he is currently the dictator of a non-democratic state under martial law. The Ukrainians are getting their asses handed to them to a greater degree with every passing day.

It's time you accept that fact, the rest of the world already has. If you want to defeat Russia, get a declaration of war, institute a draft across ALL NATO nations, and a provide a full commitment of NATO military resources (both men and equipment) in a conventional fight that probably has a coin flips chance of going nuclear. You can send both your kids to the eastern front to fight it, and it's going to be an uglier eastern front than the one Colonel Klink and Schultz used to joke about. Personally, I think such a path is foolish.

My tolerance for you government-americans who want to keep shaking the global snow globe for fun and profit is getting pretty thin.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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"

---

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.

---

SIX STRAIGHT posts in a row.

You are the only person I have ever seen pull such a stunt on this message board and you do so regularly..

You are a lunatic.

Despise such ' keyboard warriors'.

Bored beyond measure with their unproductive lives and only get off playing 'general' .

---

If you despise it so much, go to your Aggy board, Canada. Your **** is so stale it's petrified.

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Ukraine has no chance of defeating Russia. Zelensky's term is over and he is currently the dictator of a non-democratic state under martial law. The Ukrainians are getting their asses handed to them to a greater degree with every passing day.

It's time you accept that fact, the rest of the world already has. If you want to defeat Russia, get a declaration of war, institute a draft across ALL NATO nations, and a provide a full commitment of NATO military resources (both men and equipment) in a conventional fight that probably has a coin flips chance of going nuclear. You can send both your kids to the eastern front to fight it, and it's going to be an uglier eastern front than the one Colonel Klink and Schultz used to joke about. Personally, I think such a path is foolish.

My tolerance for you government-americans who want to keep shaking the global snow globe for fun and profit is getting pretty thin.

---

Shill gonna shill.

Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin

A long and extremely thorough interview.

Realitybites said:

---

Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin

A long and extremely thorough interview.

---

Another one dragging out Jeffrey Sachs. Wow…

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:

---

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

---

The thing I don't remember is GWB as a liberal secularist.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

You mistake provocation for deterrence. Sheer madness on your part.

---

Russia is not going to risk Article 5 response because Ukraine attacked 150mi deep into Russian soil with American-made rather than Ukrainian-made ordnance. Russia is going to squeal and take it, maybe bomb another Ukrainian grocery store or something.

The kind of navel gazing you insist upon is dragging the war out unnecessarily, into scenarios more favorable for Russia rather than less.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Actually you've been quite inconsistent, going back and forth between saying WWIII is inevitable and saying it will be the fault of Ukraine skeptics if it happens. Kind of like you used to say attrition of Russian forces would be a victory in itself, but now you say Ukraine has to win.

So we can rest assured that NATO need not commit troops…until it turns out we underestimated our opponent and NATO's credibility is on the line. This was all predictable and predicted.

---

I'll be kind and call that a reading comprehension error. I have been pretty clear and consistent from the git-go that we are already in WWIII, the only question is whether it is fought by A) Ukrainians near the Russian border, or B) Nato troops along a Nato border.

Put me down for option A.

ATL Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin

A long and extremely thorough interview.

---

Another one dragging out Jeffrey Sachs. Wow…

---

Careful, you might get educated.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Actually you've been quite inconsistent, going back and forth between saying WWIII is inevitable and saying it will be the fault of Ukraine skeptics if it happens. Kind of like you used to say attrition of Russian forces would be a victory in itself, but now you say Ukraine has to win.

So we can rest assured that NATO need not commit troops…until it turns out we underestimated our opponent and NATO's credibility is on the line. This was all predictable and predicted.

---

I'll be kind and call that a reading comprehension error. I have been pretty clear and consistent from the git-go that we are already in WWIII, the only question is whether it is fought by A) Ukrainians near the Russian border, or B) Nato troops along a Nato border.

Put me down for option A.

---

I'll be kind and call that a memory lapse on your part. A hot war with Russia was always on your agenda, perhaps not now but ten or twenty years down the road. Put me down for none of the above.

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

There is no danger in "isolationism" taking hold.
I agree that you (and others) are already in its grip

We are the largest economy on earth. The USA is in multiple military alliance networks spanning the globe.

We have military bases in dozens of countries around the word.

We have trade relations "with more than 200 countries, territories, and regional associations around the globe"
so is all that an asset? should such be defended/promoted as a national asset? should that asset be used to defend/promote our interests?

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20trade%20relations,regional%20associations%20around%20the%20globe.

People said this same nonsense when we decided to pull out of Afghanistan...that we were "engaging in isolationism"
I didn't say that. I have stated many times we should have begun the withdrawal the day after we dumped Bin Laden into the Indian Ocean (in order to prepare for China).

Reasonable foreign policy looks like isolationism to a certain type of person in DC

---

You have no foreign policy. You are commendably consistently that we have few, if any, interests anywhere worthy of our attention beyond Mexico and Canada.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Actually you've been quite inconsistent, going back and forth between saying WWIII is inevitable and saying it will be the fault of Ukraine skeptics if it happens. Kind of like you used to say attrition of Russian forces would be a victory in itself, but now you say Ukraine has to win.

So we can rest assured that NATO need not commit troops…until it turns out we underestimated our opponent and NATO's credibility is on the line. This was all predictable and predicted.

---

I'll be kind and call that a reading comprehension error. I have been pretty clear and consistent from the git-go that we are already in WWIII, the only question is whether it is fought by A) Ukrainians near the Russian border, or B) Nato troops along a Nato border.

Put me down for option A.

---

I'll be kind and call that a memory lapse on your part. A hot war with Russia was always on your agenda, perhaps not now but ten or twenty years down the road. Put me down for none of the above.

---

LOL You are obviously getting paid by the post rather than by the word.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Actually you've been quite inconsistent, going back and forth between saying WWIII is inevitable and saying it will be the fault of Ukraine skeptics if it happens. Kind of like you used to say attrition of Russian forces would be a victory in itself, but now you say Ukraine has to win.

So we can rest assured that NATO need not commit troops…until it turns out we underestimated our opponent and NATO's credibility is on the line. This was all predictable and predicted.

---

I'll be kind and call that a reading comprehension error. I have been pretty clear and consistent from the git-go that we are already in WWIII, the only question is whether it is fought by A) Ukrainians near the Russian border, or B) Nato troops along a Nato border.

Put me down for option A.

---

I'll be kind and call that a memory lapse on your part. A hot war with Russia was always on your agenda, perhaps not now but ten or twenty years down the road. Put me down for none of the above.

---

LOL You are obviously getting paid by the post rather than by the word.

---

I hope you're getting paid per pretext, because you've floated just about every conceivable one in support of this war.

Realitybites said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

Ukraine has no chance of defeating Russia.
of course they do, but if you just want to win the argument, sure.....cut off the aid to Ukraine and you will have the benefit of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Zelensky's term is over and he is currently the dictator of a non-democratic state under martial law. The Ukrainians are getting their asses handed to them to a greater degree with every passing day.
Nothing particularly unusual about that. Britain did not have elections during WWII. Did that make them a non-democratic state?

It's time you accept that fact, the rest of the world already has. If you want to defeat Russia, get a declaration of war, institute a draft across ALL NATO nations, and a provide a full commitment of NATO military resources (both men and equipment) in a conventional fight that probably has a coin flips chance of going nuclear. You can send both your kids to the eastern front to fight it, and it's going to be an uglier eastern front than the one Colonel Klink and Schultz used to joke about. Personally, I think such a path is foolish.
If you want to defeat Russia in the kinds of all-hands, death-to-death struggle you describe, the FIRST thing you do is fund to the hilt people already engaged in a death-to-death struggle with Russia. It's a win-win strategy: if your proxy wins, you win. If your proxy loses, at least you bought time to rearm, reaffirmed your willingness to resist, and weakened Russia before the conflict. Or you can just do nothing and trust Russia to be nice when they move their army up to your border after adding the resources of largest nation in Europe and about 40m people to its asset column. While you ponder on that, Russia will be rebuilding to test you again in 3-5yrs.

My tolerance for you government-americans who want to keep shaking the global snow globe for fun and profit is getting pretty thin.

---

every nation shakes the snow globe to the degree they can, because it is in their national interest to pursue their national interest. And along the way, people are going to make money on war and on peace, even on the arguments about war and peace. Still, the policymaker must ensure national interest aligns with military/economic capability and public support = the Adams Triangle.
https://newcriterion.com/2023/09/the-adams-triangle-13652/

War critics are hopelessly wrong on national interest, and capability is not in question but they are relentless and therefore are slowly winning the argument for public support. Russia knows that its only hope for success is to wait for Western public support to wane. You (and several others here) are doing your part make that happen.

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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"

---

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.

---

SIX STRAIGHT posts in a row.

You are the only person I have ever seen pull such a stunt on this message board and you do so regularly..

You are a lunatic.

Despise such ' keyboard warriors'.

Bored beyond measure with their unproductive lives and only get off playing 'general' .

---

how to say "I lost the argument" without saying "I lost the argument".....

I typically only read/post in the mornings while I'm drinking coffee. I reply to the discussions I'm engaged in, then close the laptop and get on with the day. try to keep it to an hour or less. No warpaint, just structure to avoid getting bogged down with pus-gutted old farts who get cranky when they run out of ideas.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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"

---

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.

---

SIX STRAIGHT posts in a row.

You are the only person I have ever seen pull such a stunt on this message board and you do so regularly..

You are a lunatic.

Despise such ' keyboard warriors'.

Bored beyond measure with their unproductive lives and only get off playing 'general' .

---

how to say "I lost the argument" without saying "I lost the argument".....

I typically only read/post in the mornings while I'm drinking coffee. I reply to the discussions I'm engaged in, then close the laptop and get on with the day. try to keep it to an hour or less. No warpaint, just structure to avoid getting bogged down with pus-gutted old farts who get cranky when they run out of ideas.

---

You are so weird.

All you have got left in life is the fruitless attempt to 'win an argument' on a free internet message board.

Try a few rounds of golf, do some hiking in the mountains or go white water rafting instead.

In the process you might drop 40-50 pounds of fat and extend your life.

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

But it's ok for Russia to use Iranian, Chinese, and North Korean weapons to attack Ukraine with impunity...???

DioNoZeus said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

whiterock 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"

---

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.

---

SIX STRAIGHT posts in a row.

You are the only person I have ever seen pull such a stunt on this message board and you do so regularly..

You are a lunatic.

Despise such ' keyboard warriors'.

Bored beyond measure with their unproductive lives and only get off playing 'general' .

---

Your **** is so stale it's petrified.

---

Another internet Rambo.


No doubt you would enlist to fight if your finger nails weren't in such desperate need of your weekly manicure.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

Sam

Once we provide the weapons it's too late to demand precisely how they are used.

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

That happened to us in South Vietnam....Viet Cong would attack & launch raids from N. Vietnam, Cambodia, and Loas.

Until Nixon started carpet bombing all those places.

(just a reminder of what a scumbag and military incompetent LBJ was)

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

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.

---

There is no danger in "isolationism" taking hold.
I agree that you (and others) are already in its grip

We are the largest economy on earth. The USA is in multiple military alliance networks spanning the globe.

We have military bases in dozens of countries around the word.

We have trade relations "with more than 200 countries, territories, and regional associations around the globe"
so is all that an asset? should such be defended/promoted as a national asset? should that asset be used to defend/promote our interests?

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20has%20trade%20relations,regional%20associations%20around%20the%20globe.

People said this same nonsense when we decided to pull out of Afghanistan...that we were "engaging in isolationism"
I didn't say that. I have stated many times we should have begun the withdrawal the day after we dumped Bin Laden into the Indian Ocean (in order to prepare for China).

Reasonable foreign policy looks like isolationism to a certain type of person in DC

---

You have no foreign policy. You are commendably consistently that we have few, if any, interests anywhere worthy of our attention beyond Mexico and Canada.

---

Simply not accurate.

I have said on multiple occasions we have GLOBAL interests.

Just not VITAL interests in places like Afghanistan or Ukraine.

I simply said that our interests lessen as we get farther from our shores.

Mexico and Canada are right up there at the top because of how they border our country and could be used for foreign military bases. (and the massive resources that Canada and Mexico have)

The EU and Democratic East Asia are important for economic reasons...and for geo-strategic security

Places in Central Africa, Central Asia, and other places just become relatively unimportant for us

Americans fighting a war to keep Japan or Poland in our sphere of influence makes sense....Americans dying over the Donbas or the Hindu Kush makes far less sense

Redbrickbear said:

---

I have said on multiple occasions we have GLOBAL interests.

Just not VITAL interests in places like Afghanistan or Ukraine.

I simply said that our interests lessen as we get farther from our shores.

Mexico and Canada are right up there at the top because of how they border our country and could be used for foreign military bases. (and the massive resources that Canada and Mexico have)

The EU and Democratic East Asia are important for economic reasons...and for geo-strategic security

Places in Central Africa, Central Asia, and other places just become relatively unimportant for us

Americans fighting a war to keep Japan or Poland in our sphere of influence makes sense....Americans dying over the Donbas or the Hindu Kush makes far less sense

---

Absolutely correct; but the only argument the neocons have against this sort of reasoned foreign policy is to scream "isolationist!"

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

And Russia doesn't supply Iran, N Korea and others?

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Well, that depends on whether you want to get on the escalator to World War III and a possible strategic nuclear exchange or not. I don't. So sending the weapons was a bad idea, and allowing the dictator of Ukraine to fire them at Russian territory is a worse one.

---

So, I guess we should just ask Putin what Nations, Cities and resources he wants and give them to him.

Using your logic, no one can ever say "No" or they risk WW3 and that risk it too high to make any real attempt to stop him.

We hear a lot about the "keyboard Rambo's". Maybe we should be talking a little about the "keyboard Chicken Littles" (the literary character, not impugning anyone's personal courage). Listening to your lot the sky is always falling. Give Putin and Xi what they want or they will destroy the world. Your view is just as bad as the other.

Got news for you, if Putin is going Nuclear, he is going Nuclear no matter what he gets. . If he is going to use Nukes over the Ukraine attacks, he already has it in his mind that will be the final move. He believes his biggest ace up his sleeve is that he will do it. So, once you establish the pattern of giving him what he wants, where is the limit? When do you say no? More importantly, when will he believe you?

The only thing that works with people like that is NEVER giving in to his demands

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

So, why can Russia attack Ukraine by firing missiles at Ukrainian Cities, but Ukraine cannot fire weapons into Russia?

Sort of nice to have the people you are attacking not be able to attach you back...

---

Because they're our weapons. Other than that, they can do whatever they want.

---

But it's ok for Russia to use Iranian, Chinese, and North Korean weapons to attack Ukraine with impunity...???

---

I doubt they're worried about retaliation from Ukraine.