whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering, it is pretty much anything goes. Don't invade CA or VA and we are good... Right???

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

Zelensky's disregard for Ukrainian lives is a war crime in its own right. Of course he's under enormous pressure. The top Nazi militia leader during Maidan -- the same one Nuland worked closely with -- later threatened to hang Zelensky from the highest tree in Kiev if he made a deal with Russia. Not one but two of Ukraine's negotiators were murdered in 2022 after being smeared as Russian collaborators. A few weeks later the US and UK scuttled another peace deal. So when we talk about noble, generous America helping its defenseless ally, it reeks of hypocrisy. That's what I call ringing hollow.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

Zelensky's disregard for Ukrainian lives is a war crime in its own right. Of course he's under enormous pressure. The top Nazi militia leader during Maidan -- the same one Nuland worked closely with -- threatened to hang from the highest tree in Kyiv he made a deal with Russia. Not one but two of Ukraine's negotiators were murdered in 2022 after being smeared as Russian collaborators. A few weeks later the US and UK scuttled another peace deal. So when we talk about noble, generous America helping its defenseless ally, it reeks of hypocrisy. That's what I call ringing hollow.

---

More propaganda from the pro-rape and pro-genocide Russian.

The only thing that rings hollow are your posts, cuck.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

See recent remarks by Gen. Cavoli. 500K is an unlikely number if you're talking about total casualties, an absurd one if you're talking about deaths. What we should do about Russia's greatly increased military power is up for debate. Whatever we do should be done in light of facts, not fantasy. Which brings us to your comments on NATO. Far from renewed commitment and mobilization of industry, we're seeing the opposite. NATO countries have demonstrated their lack of commitment. The alliance is more divided and less credible than ever.

---

and British MOD estimates are 550K.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/grim-forecast-uk-general-predicts-nearly-2-million-russian-casualties-as-ukraine-war-intensifies/ar-BB1qGFHo

and US intel documents declassed in Oct-Nov of 2023 estimated, at that time, 315k casualties.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/

Since then, multiple sources indicate continuous Russian offensives have elevated casualty rates to 1000-1200 per day. Numerous links available, but I posted this one as a shameless plug - my son took the 2nd photo down while on USMC exercise in Hawaii.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-losses-in-ukraine-could-hit-700000-soldiers-total-by-this-year/ar-BB1qTeOS

Interpolation and extrapolation......500k is a solid mid-range estimate. Even if you accept the low end and add in elevated casualty rates the last 8 months, you end up close to 500K.


Put down the Pravda and step away from the borscht

---

A thousand Russian casualties a day is unfiltered Uke propaganda on ice -- a fit complement to the ridiculous tales of human wave assaults. Anyone following events on the battlefield can see the Russians aren't engaging in that kind of tactics. They consistently surround, cut off, and wear down their targets, and the Ukrainian command consistently walks into the trap by sending more forces to defend the indefensible. Over and over again, in Bakhmut, Avdiivka, Volchansk, and so on. Zaluzhny finally protested and was replaced by Syrsky, the man known as "The Butcher" for recklessly sacrificing his own troops. Besides, just look at the use of artillery ordnance by each side. You really think Ukraine is inflicting higher casualties while firing one-tenth the ammo? It doesn't work that way.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

See recent remarks by Gen. Cavoli. 500K is an unlikely number if you're talking about total casualties, an absurd one if you're talking about deaths. What we should do about Russia's greatly increased military power is up for debate. Whatever we do should be done in light of facts, not fantasy. Which brings us to your comments on NATO. Far from renewed commitment and mobilization of industry, we're seeing the opposite. NATO countries have demonstrated their lack of commitment. The alliance is more divided and less credible than ever.

---

and British MOD estimates are 550K.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/grim-forecast-uk-general-predicts-nearly-2-million-russian-casualties-as-ukraine-war-intensifies/ar-BB1qGFHo

and US intel documents declassed in Oct-Nov of 2023 estimated, at that time, 315k casualties.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-assesses-ukraine-war-has-cost-russia-315000-casualties-source-2023-12-12/

Since then, multiple sources indicate continuous Russian offensives have elevated casualty rates to 1000-1200 per day. Numerous links available, but I posted this one as a shameless plug - my son took the 2nd photo down while on USMC exercise in Hawaii.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-losses-in-ukraine-could-hit-700000-soldiers-total-by-this-year/ar-BB1qTeOS

Interpolation and extrapolation......500k is a solid mid-range estimate. Even if you accept the low end and add in elevated casualty rates the last 8 months, you end up close to 500K.


Put down the Pravda and step away from the borscht

---

A thousand Russian casualties a day is unfiltered Uke propaganda on ice -- a fit complement to the ridiculous tales of human wave assaults. Anyone following events on the battlefield can see the Russians aren't engaging in those kinds of tactics.

---

ROFL wow....Even the Russian milibloggers think you're an idiot.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich. Listening to this place is like a cross between the X-Files and 60 Minutes. You guys must constantly walk in circles to check you back...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich. Listening to this place is like a cross between the X-Files and 60 Minutes. You guys must constantly walk in circles to check you back...

---

It's equally wrong to be overly skeptical or overly credulous. I will give you due credit for one thing: you're not overly skeptical.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich. Listening to this place is like a cross between the X-Files and 60 Minutes. You guys must constantly walk in circles to check you back...

---

It's equally wrong to be overly skeptical or overly credulous. I will give you due credit for one thing: you're not overly skeptical.

---

I have worked around the military, government and finance a lot of years. In my opinion, you guys give these people too much credit, they are not that organized, collaborative and disciplined to accomplish what these hindsight conspiracies say they did. The egos are too big. Guys like Musk, Bezon, Allen and Gates (today's cabal) can't get along to order lunch without getting in a pissing match, never mind orchestrate Ukraine.

It has been my experience, conspiracies are fun. But, for the most part people get more done alone. The latest example is Electric Vehicles over Hydrogen, no conspiracy. Musk lobbied and got the tech declared the winner. I would expect that WW1 is similar with a guy like Chase pressuring, but that is all they can do. The fact that Congress actually declared War tells me it was above Board. The Executive Order stuff, you got a point...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich. Listening to this place is like a cross between the X-Files and 60 Minutes. You guys must constantly walk in circles to check you back...

---

Their miserable lives need something or someone to blame besides themselves. I used to mock liberals for the blame America, evil rich, woe is me value set, but the new era of the whiny populist, chicken**** American is cut of the same cloth just minus abortion, trannies, and non-whites.

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich. Listening to this place is like a cross between the X-Files and 60 Minutes. You guys must constantly walk in circles to check you back...

---

Their miserable lives need something or someone to blame besides themselves. I used to mock liberals for the blame America, evil rich, woe is me value set, but the new era of the whiny populist, chicken**** American is cut of the same cloth just minus abortion, trannies, and non-whites.

---

It's not like conservatism is new. But I guess in the neocon revisionist history all the Americans who opposed world war were just whiny, entitled TikTok babies.

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

No argument.

But going forward does anyone really believe a totally discredited vice president is the solution ?

Dear Putin and Xi,

Y’all feel free to fire them nukes whenever you’re ready.

I’m starting to think humanity might be better off without us. pic.twitter.com/HpLgUYl52d

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) July 30, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Given the fact that your Russian comrades are raping their way across Ukraine, I suspect if you ask a Ukrainian woman, she might feel she's better off working at a brothel in Europe.

---

Few Westerners bother to talk to Ukrainians under Russian rule...

---

What's the scoop?

Let me guess: they recommend to just sit back and enjoy it.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

No argument.

But going forward does anyone really believe a totally discredited vice president is the solution ?

---

Her supporters don't even see the problem. Losing power is the only bad thing they can imagine happening.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

---

If you want to confront a nuclear power without factoring in that risk, you're being naive. Neocons are often referred to as liberals who got mugged by "reality." In other words, you're witnessing what happens when the flower power generation gets actual power and figures out that their utopian ideas can't be realized without violence. Of course utopian ideas are never realized, but no one in post-modern America wants to hear that.

FLBear5630 said:

---

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

The only good outcome from WW1 was the destruction of the Ottoman Empire...and even back then we had lost enough cultural confidence that we betrayed the Greeks and refused to expel the Turks from Constantinople.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Given the fact that your Russian comrades are raping their way across Ukraine, I suspect if you ask a Ukrainian woman, she might feel she's better off working at a brothel in Europe.

---

Few Westerners bother to talk to Ukrainians under Russian rule...

---

What's the scoop?

Let me guess: they recommend to just sit back and enjoy it.

---

They're not just sitting back by any means. They've been fighting the Kiev regime for ten years and counting. Anti-Russian resistance is virtually non-existent in the Donbas. It's minimal in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, where most of your horror stories come from. Many of the separatists are former Ukrainian military. The civilian population has suffered wanton attacks from Western proxies for years. The Russians are widely considered liberators, and with good reason.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

---

If you want to confront a nuclear power without factoring in that risk, you're being naive. Neocons are often referred to as liberals who got mugged by "reality." In other words, you're witnessing what happens when the flower power generation gets actual power and figures out that their utopian ideas can't be realized without violence. Of course utopian ideas are never realized, but no one in post-modern America wants to hear that.

---

Nary an ideal throughout history has been realized without violence whether it is actual or the threat therof. That's the Utopian naivete you and many others can't fathom. This isn't about neocon, neo liberal, isolationism or populism. The nuclear equation is already cast when rogue despotism armed as such is in existence. When it actively asserts itself it played the card of requiring an address.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

---

If you want to confront a nuclear power without factoring in that risk, you're being naive. Neocons are often referred to as liberals who got mugged by "reality." In other words, you're witnessing what happens when the flower power generation gets actual power and figures out that their utopian ideas can't be realized without violence. Of course utopian ideas are never realized, but no one in post-modern America wants to hear that.

---

Nary an ideal throughout history has been realized without violence whether it is actual or the threat therof. That's the Utopian navet you and many others can't fathom. This isn't about neocon, neo liberal, isolationism or populism. The nuclear equation is already cast when rogue despotism armed as such is in existence. When it actively asserts itself it played the card of requiring an address.

---

Except that the only rogue actor here is NATO. We're the ones who flagrantly violate national sovereignty at our every whim, while Russia takes decades to try to negotiate a solution.

We had a rules-based international order. Too bad we weren't satisfied with it.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich.

---

Buddy there are entire books written about World War I and the politics involved in our decision to enter that war.

As some point you have to stop labeling facts and opinions you don't like as "conspiracy" theories.

Unless of course you think the U.S. fights all wars without input from the American business and financial community.

PS

The text I quoted was right from the National World War I museum and memorial

A bunch of "conspiracy" theorists right?

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/us-enters-war

"Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war."

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

---

If you want to confront a nuclear power without factoring in that risk, you're being naive. Neocons are often referred to as liberals who got mugged by "reality." In other words, you're witnessing what happens when the flower power generation gets actual power and figures out that their utopian ideas can't be realized without violence. Of course utopian ideas are never realized, but no one in post-modern America wants to hear that.

---

Nary an ideal throughout history has been realized without violence whether it is actual or the threat therof. That's the Utopian navet you and many others can't fathom. This isn't about neocon, neo liberal, isolationism or populism. The nuclear equation is already cast when rogue despotism armed as such is in existence. When it actively asserts itself it played the card of requiring an address.

---

Except that the only rogue actor here is NATO. We're the ones who flagrantly violate national sovereignty at our every whim, while Russia takes decades to try to negotiate a solution.

We had a rules-based international order. Too bad we weren't satisfied with it.

---

Lol

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

---

If you want to confront a nuclear power without factoring in that risk, you're being naive. Neocons are often referred to as liberals who got mugged by "reality." In other words, you're witnessing what happens when the flower power generation gets actual power and figures out that their utopian ideas can't be realized without violence. Of course utopian ideas are never realized, but no one in post-modern America wants to hear that.

---

Nary an ideal throughout history has been realized without violence whether it is actual or the threat therof. That's the Utopian navet you and many others can't fathom. This isn't about neocon, neo liberal, isolationism or populism. The nuclear equation is already cast when rogue despotism armed as such is in existence. When it actively asserts itself it played the card of requiring an address.

---

Except that the only rogue actor here is NATO. We're the ones who flagrantly violate national sovereignty at our every whim, while Russia takes decades to try to negotiate a solution.

We had a rules-based international order. Too bad we weren't satisfied with it.

---

Lol

---

I did say "had."

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

The only good outcome from WW1 was the destruction of the Ottoman Empire...and even back then we had lost enough cultural confidence that we betrayed the Greeks and refused to expel the Turks from Constantinople.

---

Exactly

And they would not even use the collective might of the Allies to enforce the treaty of Sevres and give the Armenians a real State, and a autonomous one for the Kurds

And Smyrna and the Greek inhabited parts of Anatolia to Greece

Instead they let the Young Turk Muslims commit genocide

The one treaty the Allies should have committed large amounts of soldiers to enforce

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

---

If you want to confront a nuclear power without factoring in that risk, you're being naive. Neocons are often referred to as liberals who got mugged by "reality." In other words, you're witnessing what happens when the flower power generation gets actual power and figures out that their utopian ideas can't be realized without violence. Of course utopian ideas are never realized, but no one in post-modern America wants to hear that.

---

Nary an ideal throughout history has been realized without violence whether it is actual or the threat therof. That's the Utopian navet you and many others can't fathom. This isn't about neocon, neo liberal, isolationism or populism. The nuclear equation is already cast when rogue despotism armed as such is in existence. When it actively asserts itself it played the card of requiring an address.

---

Except that the only rogue actor here is NATO. We're the ones who flagrantly violate national sovereignty at our every whim, while Russia takes decades to try to negotiate a solution.

We had a rules-based international order. Too bad we weren't satisfied with it.

---

Come on Sam.

Even though I fundamentally agree that NATO bares its share of responsibility for the Ukrainian war …..in no way is Russia blameless.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich.

---

Buddy there are entire books written about World War I and the politics involved in our decision to enter that war.

As some point you have to stop labeling facts and opinions you don't like as "conspiracy" theories.

Unless of course you think the U.S. fights all wars without input from the American business and financial community.

PS

The text I quoted was right from the National World War I museum and memorial

A bunch of "conspiracy" theorists right?

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/us-enters-war

"Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war."

---

You pick and choose what you want to show. That is one piece of the puzzle and the financial is secondary to public sympathies. You also don't mention the U-Boat attacks or that the USS Aztec was torpedoed resulting in 28 US deaths just before the US entering the war.

That statement has the monetary concern as a bonus, a secondary aspect that complemented the public sentiment. But the WW1 museum nor the Smithsonian or any other history has the financial reasons as the primary reason we entered the war. We only entered in the last year and Wilson won on the slogan "He kept us out of the war". Not exactly the actions of trying to profit on the war.

Like any conspiracy theorist, you take one nugget and turn it into the whole story. Every conspiracy theory has a kernel of truth at its center. But it is just that one kernel.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

"All resources in Russian economy are exhausted. Inflation is rising, interest rates cannot be significantly increased. Extreme lack of the workforce. Adding money from reserves to market will just increase inflation without bringing new growth. Russia is likely facing stagnation… pic.twitter.com/rXRQULbrKt

— Jaanika Merilo (@jaanikamerilo) July 29, 2024

---

2.6% unemployment rate is full employment, which means, from this point forward, every single soldier mobilized and sent to the front has a negative effect on GDP. Sure, Russia can keep transferring resources to keep war production at current levels, but they can't do it forever. Eventually people are going to need new clothes, new cars, replacement household items, etc......

Russia will be able to sustain current war production into at least the summer of 2025, but they stay at that level indefinitely. They'll have to increasingly rob Peter (private sector) to pay Paul (war production).

---

More importantly than that is the loss of any solider is a devastating thing for Russia.

They don't have the birth rate to replace any losses.


[Russia's death rate has been higher than its birth rate for years, resulting in a natural population decline. In 2022, Russia's crude birth rate was 8.9 per 100,000 people, the lowest it's been since 2000, while its death rate was about 1.7 times higher than its birth rate. Russia's fertility rate is also one of the lowest in the world, with women having an average of 1.42 children in 2022, compared to the 2.1 children needed to maintain the population]

---

indeed. But Russia doesn't care about that if they subsume Ukraine into the Russia. They pick up 40m people, disproportionately young & female (given that Ukraine is fighting this war with +30 year old men).

---

I think you mean disproportionately old. The idea that Ukraine has a largely young population and is saving it for a rainy day while their aging army collapses is completely illogical.

As for the women, they'll be better off under Russian rule than fleeing west to fill the brothels of Europe. Those poor souls will be putting the "slav" in slavery for years to come, naturally without a word of complaint from the West. It's the only thing Europe really likes about them.

---

Good grief what a disgusting post. Not super surprising it's from the Russian.

---

The false sympathy and exploitation of Ukraine by the West is indeed disgusting.

---

Yet, Ukraine asks for help. Hmm, who do I believe?

The guy with a Baylor Law Degree living a great Capitalist life in America pleading to let the Russian's have Ukraine as the humanitarian thing to do or the Ukranian President whose Nation was invaded asking for military hardware so they can repel the invader???

Sorry, rings hollow. I will go with the guy that was invaded asking for help...

---

In March of 1914, 9 months before we entered WWII, the US passed the Lend-Lease Act, under which we supplied the following to the USSR (then at war with Germany):

• 400,000 jeeps & trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks
• 1.5 million blankets
• 15 million pairs of army boots
• 107,000 tons of cotton
• 2.7 million tons of petrol products
• 4.5 million tons of food

Was that exploitation?
Was that false sympathy?

Nope. It was Realpolitik. It was national interest.

---

1. I assume you mean 1941

World War I was a very foolish internal European civil war that we should have stayed out of.

2. Its probably time we even re-evaluated the WWII mythology and nostalgia as well.

Its getting dangerous considering how you pro-War Chick-Hawks use it as an endless bloody shirt to try and get American boys killed in more foreign wars....and apparently will use it as a excuse for more wars forever and ever and ever.

The USA got into that war because it was actually physically attacked by the Empire of Japan...it was probably the last legitimate large scale war we have fought.

But lets also be honest... Peter Hitchens hits the nail on the head in terms of how that war ended.

"World War II began as a war to save Poland from a ruthless totalitarian doctorship. It ended with Poland under the control of a ruthless totalitarian dictatorship...along with half of the entire European continent. And along the way 50 million people died"

---

If WW1 and WW2 were not worthy of the US entering,

---

WWI was not

I did not say the same for WW2....Japan attacked the USA....I specially said it was the last large scale legitimate war the USA has fought.

---

Fair enough, I was looking at your last paragraph.

I do believe WW1 was worth the US entering. The Freedom of Navigation alone.

---

I can assure you the powers that be in the USA did not enter that war to "defend the right of navigation"

[When WWI began in Europe in 1914, many Americans wanted the United States to stay out of the conflict, forcing President Woodrow Wilson to adopt a policy of strict neutrality...
.
Despite the U.S. position, many Americans personally sympathized with Britain, France and their allies. American institutions lent large sums to the Allied governments, giving the U.S. a financial stake in the outcome of the war. Nearly 10% of Americans identified as ethnic Germans, most of whom hoped the United States would remain neutral in the war....

While the country was at peace, American banks made huge loans to the Entente powers, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the Atlantic. Although US President Woodrow Wilson made preparations for a land war before 1917, he also authorize a shipbuilding program for the United States Navy. Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform.]

---

You left out the German U-Boats sinking US shipping. You guys are so conspiracy driven,

---

1. That is well know...so is the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico.

https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/zimmermann-telegram

2. Its not conspiracy to say that the US leadership and financial elite had a preferred out come of that war in mind. And that they were not as interested in saying neutral as the majority of the population.

America's political and financial elite were looking for reasons to get into the war...the average America was looking for reasons to stay out of it.

---

How do you guys make it through the day with all the conspiracies impacting every aspect of life? Everything is some Cabal conspiracy by the rich. Listening to this place is like a cross between the X-Files and 60 Minutes. You guys must constantly walk in circles to check you back...

---

It's equally wrong to be overly skeptical or overly credulous. I will give you due credit for one thing: you're not overly skeptical.

---

I have worked around the military, government and finance a lot of years. In my opinion, you guys give these people too much credit, they are not that organized, collaborative and disciplined to accomplish what these hindsight conspiracies say they did. The egos are too big. Guys like Musk, Bezon, Allen and Gates (today's cabal) can't get along to order lunch without getting in a pissing match, never mind orchestrate Ukraine.

It has been my experience, conspiracies are fun. But, for the most part people get more done alone. The latest example is Electric Vehicles over Hydrogen, no conspiracy. Musk lobbied and got the tech declared the winner. I would expect that WW1 is similar with a guy like Chase pressuring, but that is all they can do. The fact that Congress actually declared War tells me it was above Board. The Executive Order stuff, you got a point...

---

I work in the law, and I'll say a few things about that. 1) Conspiracies exist. That's why we have laws addressing them. 2) Conspirators are not necessarily masterminds. They are highly motivated, usually by personal gain, and they're good at enlisting allies. Studies show that psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies are a common characteristic of both criminals and politicians. 3) Conspiracies don't always get caught or curtailed. A drug dealer gets prosecuted, but the drug trade continues to thrive. It's a function of how the world works, not of anyone's particular genius.

More important, though, is that "conspiracy theory" is a term you introduced. It suggests speculation without evidence, and many times that is the case. But not always. If politicians develop policies without revealing all the details to the public, is that a conspiracy? I would argue it's just what politicians do. It's not necessarily illegal. I'm not even suggesting we had a definite plan to, for example, overthrow Ukraine's government when and how we did. That's your assumption. We had a plan to dominate it; no one can deny that. We adapted to events, and we didn't always share what happened behind the scenes. I don't see that as an extraordinary claim. It's not, for example, like the claim that the Secret Service tried to assassinate Trump. It's business as usual.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

And good grief, how miserable and nihilistic does our political class have to be, risking Western civilization in an obviously failed war over a backwater country because they can't afford to lose face? They value nothing except money and power. Everything else is expendable. If you ever wanted wanted an example of cultural despair, you're looking right at it.

---

If you think Western Civilization is at risk over modest military aid to a "backwater country" trying to defend itself against a despotic invader, you are the very over dramatic weakling bent on the precise decline you claim to abhor.

---

If you want to confront a nuclear power without factoring in that risk, you're being naive. Neocons are often referred to as liberals who got mugged by "reality." In other words, you're witnessing what happens when the flower power generation gets actual power and figures out that their utopian ideas can't be realized without violence. Of course utopian ideas are never realized, but no one in post-modern America wants to hear that.

---

Nary an ideal throughout history has been realized without violence whether it is actual or the threat therof. That's the Utopian navet you and many others can't fathom. This isn't about neocon, neo liberal, isolationism or populism. The nuclear equation is already cast when rogue despotism armed as such is in existence. When it actively asserts itself it played the card of requiring an address.

---

Except that the only rogue actor here is NATO. We're the ones who flagrantly violate national sovereignty at our every whim, while Russia takes decades to try to negotiate a solution.

We had a rules-based international order. Too bad we weren't satisfied with it.

---

Come on Sam.

Even though I fundamentally agree that NATO bares its share of responsibility for the Ukrainian war …..in no way is Russia blameless.

---

To be clear, Russia violated international law by invading Ukraine. I'm not going to deny that. My argument is that we provoked them.