Turkey now threatening to invade Israel.

We might soon find out if Israel really does possess nukes .

The_barBEARian said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

historian said:

---

Do you realize how absurd such comparisons are?

The U.S. is the most powerful and wealthiest nation in history. Israel is smaller than Massachusetts and with a population about the size of NYC. Israel is prosperous, mainly because they have a mostly free economy, but they rank 28th among major world economies.

Your arguments are idiotic because they have little connection to reality.

---

Israel also has a budget surplus last year while the US has year after year of burgeoning debt.

Yet you still support them receiving $30 billion from the US tax payer to defend their borders when our own borders are completely broken.

---

your facts are wildly off base. please educate yourself.
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts

Most of the "aid" we give to Israel are credits toward purchase of armament from American defense contractors. Israel has access to all our best stuff - F35s, F15s, F-16s, etc..... Of even more value, they actually USE our best stuff in battle. We learn LOTS from Israel. And we get lots from Israel, intel wise.

---

And that is the issue, it isn't "credit" bcs Israel is the biggest deadbeat nation to have ever existed. They have never paid back a single penny to our government except for the time they killed 34 American servicemen and wounded another 100 when they attacked the USS Liberty in a failed false flag operation.

When cannot afford to keep giving free handouts like a they guy giving cheese samplers at Costco. We are under unprecedented levels of debt. We need to work on building nuclear and producing more energy at home and reducing our costly global footprint.

---

I can understand your problem with spending overseas when we are in debt... but why are you so singularly focused on Israel? We have given billions to nations around the planet, and NONE of them have paid it back... so why do you make it sound like it's only a Jewish problem?

If you want to eliminate aid to Israel, you will gain a ton of support if you talk about ending ALL foreign aid. But continually pushing to end aid to Israel while we give far more money to the Arab nations... it's just an obvious anti-semitic point of view.

"Hey... let's eliminate support for the Jews but continue to give billions to their enemies! What? How dare you say that I hate the Jews?!?"

---

Dude, I've been saying end all foreign aid for years!

Of course I want to end aid to the Arabs also.

The Arabs steal as much from us as the Israelis.

I don't want to give free handouts to any country.

But Israel is the one that people always pushback on so that is the one I have to fight the hardest over.

Virtually all conservatives isolationists agree we should end aid to Ukraine and Taiwan... and we definitely all agree we should end aid to the Arab states.

But when you talk about ending aid to Israel even conservatives start freaking out and calling you a racist or a NAZI or some other BS.

I am about putting America and the American tax payer first above all others.

And for the people saying foreign aid is only 1% of spending... ok, obviously ONLY cutting foreign aid wont solve our debt crisis but it is the best place to start as it provides the least/if any benefit to Joe Smith tax payer from Waco, Texas. Also, every dollar wasted generates an extra 3 or 4 dollars in interest because our government is so far behind on paying its bills. So if AIPAC directs congress to give Israel $30 billion, by the time we pay it all off it will be closer to $100 billion from the American tax payer.

---

FIFY

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

---

George Kennan predicted this false narrative back in 1998: "I think it is the beginning of new cold war. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say we always told you that is how the Russians are--but this is just wrong."

---

If that's what he thought, then Kennan was foolish for thinking Russia would be content to remain in what it clearly believed to be a diminished state. They have never been content with the footprint they have now, at any point in their history you care to examiine.

---

It's an opinion based on history and experience. Great powers tend to decline messily and with much bloodshed. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev was the exception.

---

no, it's a fact. Russian history is a repetitive cycle of expansion and collapse and expansion and collapse. The USSR and Warsaw Pact was a high water mark for them = not sustainable. Also not exceptional - they've campaigned armies many times before in each of the WP countries in pursuit of imperial expansionism. Also in Nato countries (Turkey). And in non-Nato countries (Iran, China) . But now they want it all back. They always want it all. Ukraine is just in the way.

You have a very incomplete knowledge of history, compounded by a problem with understanding what you do know.

---

You've already acknowledged that Western Europe has a similar history of war and conquest, which cuts the legs out from under your historical argument. Calling Russia an autocracy doesn't change that. Autocracy is not synonymous with expansion, nor is democracy any guarantee of peaceful behavior. We do business with autocracies and overthrow democracies any time we think it suits our interests.

Masoud Pezeshkian was inaugurated as President of Iran in parliament today.

The MPs couldn’t resist breaking out into chants of “Death to Israel" and "Death to America”

Via @JasonMBrodsky pic.twitter.com/WBsfDeilC0

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 30, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

France urges all its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately

🇫🇷🇱🇧 pic.twitter.com/FpwlSto4gV

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 28, 2024

---

I have friends in Lebanon (Christian) and they all got the hell out a year ago. Lebanon is a wonderful country, but Hezbollah and the the rising Muslim population have really effed things up. That situation is really complicated.

KaiBear said:

---

Turkey now threatening to invade Israel.

We might soon find out if Israel really does possess nukes .

---

eff the current govt in Israel (not the citizens ). We should cut them off 100% and let them go at it alone. Let's see how that works out.

J.R. said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

France urges all its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately

🇫🇷🇱🇧 pic.twitter.com/FpwlSto4gV

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 28, 2024

---

I have friends in Lebanon (Christian) and they all got the hell out a year ago. Lebanon is a wonderful country, but Hezbollah and the the rising Muslim population have really effed things up. That situation is really complicated.

---

Well it was set aside to be a State for Arab speaking Christians.

Did diversity kill Lebanon? Is diversity not a strength?

[Originally, Lebanon was set up by the Ottomans as an autonomous Christian-majority area, known as the "Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate", set up for the local Christian population]

[Arriving in Lebanon, the French were received as liberators by the Christian community, but in the rest of Syria, they faced strong resistance.
The mandate region was subdivided into six states. They were the states of Damascus (1920), Aleppo (1920), Alawites (1920), Jabal Druze (1921), the autonomous Sanjak of Alexandretta (1921, modern-day Hatay), and the State of Greater Lebanon (1920), which became later the modern country of Lebanon.
The borders of these states were based in part on the sectarian geography in Syria. Many of the different Syrian sects were hostile to the French mandate and to the division it created, as shown by the numerous revolts that the French encountered in all of the Syrian states. The Maronite Christians of Mount Lebanon, on the other hand, were a community with a dream of independence that was being realized under the French]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Syria_and_the_Lebanon

🚨BREAKING🚨 Israel just killed: Haj Mohsen, number 2 in Hezbollah

— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) July 30, 2024

BREAKING:

Initial reports say the Israeli airstrike in Beirut moments ago liquidated Fuad Shukr, one of Hezbollah’s top commanders and one of the main suspects behind the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.

The massive bomb attack killed 241 U.S. soldiers and 58 French soldiers. pic.twitter.com/KhrSY6txgt

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 30, 2024

Oh, that's a shame

Hezbollah 🇮🇷 leaders in Beirut, Lebanon 🇱🇧 are having a very bad day. pic.twitter.com/wPja6PNqsm

— Avi Kaner ابراهيم אבי (@AviKaner) July 30, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

---

George Kennan predicted this false narrative back in 1998: "I think it is the beginning of new cold war. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say we always told you that is how the Russians are--but this is just wrong."

---

If that's what he thought, then Kennan was foolish for thinking Russia would be content to remain in what it clearly believed to be a diminished state. They have never been content with the footprint they have now, at any point in their history you care to examiine.

---

It's an opinion based on history and experience. Great powers tend to decline messily and with much bloodshed. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev was the exception.

---

no, it's a fact. Russian history is a repetitive cycle of expansion and collapse and expansion and collapse. The USSR and Warsaw Pact was a high water mark for them = not sustainable. Also not exceptional - they've campaigned armies many times before in each of the WP countries in pursuit of imperial expansionism. Also in Nato countries (Turkey). And in non-Nato countries (Iran, China) . But now they want it all back. They always want it all. Ukraine is just in the way.

You have a very incomplete knowledge of history, compounded by a problem with understanding what you do know.

---

You've already acknowledged that Western Europe has a similar history of war and conquest, which cuts the legs out from under your historical argument.
180 degrees wrong. That WE has had a similar history of war and conquest reinforces the historical argument. It demonstrates that not accepting borders as static things and seeking wealth via economic conquest tends to incentivize larger powers to start wars, to build empires, to fix internal problems by invading neighbors.

Calling Russia an autocracy doesn't change that. Autocracy is not synonymous with expansion, nor is democracy any guarantee of peaceful behavior. We do business with autocracies and overthrow democracies any time we think it suits our interests.

---

Autocracies do not have to answer to their people. There is no opportunity for the public to end a war by refusing to fund it in Congress. There is no opportunity to impeach a leader who starts a war. Instead, leaders of democracies have to work to maintain political capital to fund & fight & win wars. For that reason, it is quite rare for an autocracy who embarks on territorial expansion to stop until they are forced to stop, for reasons noted above, or just getting pieces of their anatomy handed to them in battle. They have no brake on their ambitions via democratic process. Only problems with finances and industries can stop them. And armies. Armies can stop them.

Russia invaded Ukraine because it wanted it. Because it thought Ukraine would not be able to stop an invasion. Because it thought Nato would stand by & let it happen. Turns out, none of that was true. Now, Russia cannot climb down, because Putin cannot just resign and retire to his dacha. He has to ride the plane all the way to the ground, whether that's an airport in Lviv or that same crater Prigozhin landed in.

Russia doesn't just want a land bridge to Crimea. It wants a land bridge to Kaliningrad. It will not stop until it attains that.....or until it is stopped. We should stop it in Kherson and Kharkiv, not Krakow.

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Hezbollah 🇮🇷 leaders in Beirut, Lebanon 🇱🇧 are having a very bad day. pic.twitter.com/wPja6PNqsm

— Avi Kaner ابراهيم אבי (@AviKaner) July 30, 2024

---

Finally got the *******. He was involved in the USMC barracks bombing.

Allies are a handy thing to have. They got Mughniyah for us too

BREAKING: Iran’s state TV says Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was assassinated in Tehran https://t.co/zoFgQzvjxm

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 31, 2024

If all true (reports pointing that way) Hamas #1 leader Ismail Haniyeh and Hezbollah #2 Fuad Shukr "Sayyid Muhsan" killed in the same day. Huge.

— John Spencer (@SpencerGuard) July 31, 2024

Do you remember how you felt when @BarackObama announced they got Bin Laden? Well that’s how Jews feel tonight. Justice has been served.

— Daniella Greenbaum Davis (@DGreenbaum) July 31, 2024

On October 7, Ismail Haniyeh watched the footage live of Hamas’s attack on Israel.

While smiling, he then prayed with other Hamas officials.

He is now dead.

Updates Here: https://t.co/saTv7xr8tZ pic.twitter.com/HdERaqBgab

— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) July 31, 2024

I see almost Zero Chance now that we are able to Avoid a Major Regional War in the Middle East, the Gulf Nations and other Countries in the Region need to Pick their Side if they haven’t already done so Covertly. https://t.co/yb6w9C0JDR

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 31, 2024

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

---

George Kennan predicted this false narrative back in 1998: "I think it is the beginning of new cold war. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say we always told you that is how the Russians are--but this is just wrong."

---

If that's what he thought, then Kennan was foolish for thinking Russia would be content to remain in what it clearly believed to be a diminished state. They have never been content with the footprint they have now, at any point in their history you care to examiine.

---

It's an opinion based on history and experience. Great powers tend to decline messily and with much bloodshed. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev was the exception.

---

no, it's a fact. Russian history is a repetitive cycle of expansion and collapse and expansion and collapse. The USSR and Warsaw Pact was a high water mark for them = not sustainable. Also not exceptional - they've campaigned armies many times before in each of the WP countries in pursuit of imperial expansionism. Also in Nato countries (Turkey). And in non-Nato countries (Iran, China) . But now they want it all back. They always want it all. Ukraine is just in the way.

You have a very incomplete knowledge of history, compounded by a problem with understanding what you do know.

---

You've already acknowledged that Western Europe has a similar history of war and conquest, which cuts the legs out from under your historical argument.
180 degrees wrong. That WE has had a similar history of war and conquest reinforces the historical argument. It demonstrates that not accepting borders as static things and seeking wealth via economic conquest tends to incentivize larger powers to start wars, to build empires, to fix internal problems by invading neighbors.

Calling Russia an autocracy doesn't change that. Autocracy is not synonymous with expansion, nor is democracy any guarantee of peaceful behavior. We do business with autocracies and overthrow democracies any time we think it suits our interests.

---

Autocracies do not have to answer to their people. There is no opportunity for the public to end a war by refusing to fund it in Congress. There is no opportunity to impeach a leader who starts a war. Instead, leaders of democracies have to work to maintain political capital to fund & fight & win wars. For that reason, it is quite rare for an autocracy who embarks on territorial expansion to stop until they are forced to stop, for reasons noted above, or just getting pieces of their anatomy handed to them in battle. They have no brake on their ambitions via democratic process. Only problems with finances and industries can stop them. And armies. Armies can stop them.

Russia invaded Ukraine because it wanted it. Because it thought Ukraine would not be able to stop an invasion. Because it thought Nato would stand by & let it happen. Turns out, none of that was true. Now, Russia cannot climb down, because Putin cannot just resign and retire to his dacha. He has to ride the plane all the way to the ground, whether that's an airport in Lviv or that same crater Prigozhin landed in.

Russia doesn't just want a land bridge to Crimea. It wants a land bridge to Kaliningrad. It will not stop until it attains that.....or until it is stopped. We should stop it in Kherson and Kharkiv, not Krakow.

---

Western democracies are very good at manufacturing consent. There's a reason we fight our wars covertly, and it's not that we're fooling the Russians.

But I get it. You're going to stick with the anti-Russian mythology no matter what. I'm just saying the people who were there and actually dealt with Russian leaders during and after the Cold War know better. Even ex-CIA men suffer occasional bouts of honesty, and you said it as well as anyone: we rammed NATO down Russia's throat because we could. The only problem is that you were wrong. Russia, and increasingly the rest of the world, knows a true expansionist power when it sees one. They drew the line at Ukraine.

#****AroundAndFindOut

The primary goal (only?) of Western European foreign policy since WWII has been avoiding war. They are terrified of it and today few have any idea of what war really looks like. There are only rare exceptions (the UK in the Falklands War, European token forces in the Gulf War, limited & ineffective responses to the chaos in Yugoslavia in the 1990s).

historian said:

---

The primary goal (only?) of Western European foreign policy since WWII has been avoiding war. They are terrified of it and today few have any idea of what war really looks like. There are only rare exceptions (the UK in the Falklands War, European token forces in the Gulf War, limited & ineffective responses to the chaos in Yugoslavia in the 1990s).

---

It's pretty easy to posit that the west doesn't have what it takes to win a real ground war any longer.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

---

George Kennan predicted this false narrative back in 1998: "I think it is the beginning of new cold war. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say we always told you that is how the Russians are--but this is just wrong."

---

If that's what he thought, then Kennan was foolish for thinking Russia would be content to remain in what it clearly believed to be a diminished state. They have never been content with the footprint they have now, at any point in their history you care to examiine.

---

It's an opinion based on history and experience. Great powers tend to decline messily and with much bloodshed. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev was the exception.

---

no, it's a fact. Russian history is a repetitive cycle of expansion and collapse and expansion and collapse. The USSR and Warsaw Pact was a high water mark for them = not sustainable. Also not exceptional - they've campaigned armies many times before in each of the WP countries in pursuit of imperial expansionism. Also in Nato countries (Turkey). And in non-Nato countries (Iran, China) . But now they want it all back. They always want it all. Ukraine is just in the way.

You have a very incomplete knowledge of history, compounded by a problem with understanding what you do know.

---

You've already acknowledged that Western Europe has a similar history of war and conquest, which cuts the legs out from under your historical argument.
180 degrees wrong. That WE has had a similar history of war and conquest reinforces the historical argument. It demonstrates that not accepting borders as static things and seeking wealth via economic conquest tends to incentivize larger powers to start wars, to build empires, to fix internal problems by invading neighbors.

Calling Russia an autocracy doesn't change that. Autocracy is not synonymous with expansion, nor is democracy any guarantee of peaceful behavior. We do business with autocracies and overthrow democracies any time we think it suits our interests.

---

Autocracies do not have to answer to their people. There is no opportunity for the public to end a war by refusing to fund it in Congress. There is no opportunity to impeach a leader who starts a war. Instead, leaders of democracies have to work to maintain political capital to fund & fight & win wars. For that reason, it is quite rare for an autocracy who embarks on territorial expansion to stop until they are forced to stop, for reasons noted above, or just getting pieces of their anatomy handed to them in battle. They have no brake on their ambitions via democratic process. Only problems with finances and industries can stop them. And armies. Armies can stop them.

Russia invaded Ukraine because it wanted it. Because it thought Ukraine would not be able to stop an invasion. Because it thought Nato would stand by & let it happen. Turns out, none of that was true. Now, Russia cannot climb down, because Putin cannot just resign and retire to his dacha. He has to ride the plane all the way to the ground, whether that's an airport in Lviv or that same crater Prigozhin landed in.

Russia doesn't just want a land bridge to Crimea. It wants a land bridge to Kaliningrad. It will not stop until it attains that.....or until it is stopped. We should stop it in Kherson and Kharkiv, not Krakow.

---

Western democracies are very good at manufacturing consent. There's a reason we fight our wars covertly, and it's not that we're fooling the Russians.

But I get it. You're going to stick with the anti-Russian mythology no matter what. I'm just saying the people who were there and actually dealt with Russian leaders during and after the Cold War know better. Even ex-CIA men suffer occasional bouts of honesty, and you said it as well as anyone: we rammed NATO down Russia's throat because we could. The only problem is that you were wrong. Russia, and increasingly the rest of the world, knows a true expansionist power when it sees one. They drew the line at Ukraine.

---

the only mythology in this thread is the idea that Nato is an expansionist power who forced Russia to invade a sovereign state which was not only non-aligned but actually ineligible for Nato membership, for which it had not even applied until AFTER the Russian invasion. Ukraine did not renounce non-aligned status until after the 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea.


Have you actually familiarized yourself with events in Ukraine and Russia over the last decade?

---

I've done more than that…I've even gone the extra mile and tried to familiarize you with them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that NATO has had real value for most of its existence, especially in the early years. However, more recently there have been reasons for doubt. For example, in the 1990s it was largely worthless dealing with the chaos in the former Yugoslavia until the U.S. provided leadership. And that was the Clinton years when we didn't have much in the way of positive leadership.

Today, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness and its dependence on the US. Europe is perfectly capable of defending themselves and Russia is not nearly as much of a threat as the Soviet Union was. In fact, it seems most of the problems Europe faces are those they created gif themselves. Ironically perhaps, those problems ard what American Leftists want for the US despite the glaring examples of failures in Europe & elsewhere.

---

I think you should read a bit on Russia's capabilities and what the UKs military believe is coming. Three years, they believe if not rearmed UK and NATO will be in a WW2 situation. But, conveniently you guys don't believe any of the assessments because they are all NEOCONs with a plot to rule the world, right. Funny, any data you guys throw out is gold, no matter how far fetched, and anything that goes contrary is the Deep State Military Industrial Complex.

I do not know how ANYONE can look around the world at China, Russia, N Korea, and Iran and say "Yeah, we don't need foreign alliances, forget NATO, USANZ, Rio, Japan, Israel and Korea. They are not worth it.". Short sighted and strategic niaivity. But you guys want to go back to 1890 foreign policy, foolish.

---

yep. British MOD? neocons. French MOD? neocons. German MOD? neocons. Swedish MOD? neocons. Finnish MOD? neocons. etc...... Anyone who wants to stop Russia from invading the largest country in Europe is a neocon. It is necessary for them to be neocons, to demonize them as neocons, in order to avoid sober discuss of the the geopolitical consequences of allowing Russia to subsume Ukraine back into Russian polity.

Swedish MinDef has made public speeches telling the Swedish people to get ready for war. That's not because Sweden is going to invade Russia. It's because Sweden knows the history and can see that Russia is doing......that Russia is back in expansion mode again.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

it's kinda rare for an authoritarian regime to self-limit when it starts march its armies thru other peoples' lands. Usually, someone (an army) or something like a typhoon (Chinese invasion of Japan), brutal winter (Napoleon's invasion of Russia), domestic political upheavals (death of Ogedai Khan), etc....) has to stop them. EX: Mongol forces won the battle of Legnica, near the Polish/German border and were preparing to push on into Germany, but turned back when Ogedai Khan died. Batu Khan returned to Mogolia to in order to present his case for being the next Great Khan. It proved to be the high water mark of Mongol threats to western Europe.
SOMETHING has to stop an expansionist power.

---

George Kennan predicted this false narrative back in 1998: "I think it is the beginning of new cold war. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say we always told you that is how the Russians are--but this is just wrong."

---

If that's what he thought, then Kennan was foolish for thinking Russia would be content to remain in what it clearly believed to be a diminished state. They have never been content with the footprint they have now, at any point in their history you care to examiine.

---

It's an opinion based on history and experience. Great powers tend to decline messily and with much bloodshed. The Soviet Union under Gorbachev was the exception.

---

no, it's a fact. Russian history is a repetitive cycle of expansion and collapse and expansion and collapse. The USSR and Warsaw Pact was a high water mark for them = not sustainable. Also not exceptional - they've campaigned armies many times before in each of the WP countries in pursuit of imperial expansionism. Also in Nato countries (Turkey). And in non-Nato countries (Iran, China) . But now they want it all back. They always want it all. Ukraine is just in the way.

You have a very incomplete knowledge of history, compounded by a problem with understanding what you do know.

---

You've already acknowledged that Western Europe has a similar history of war and conquest, which cuts the legs out from under your historical argument.
180 degrees wrong. That WE has had a similar history of war and conquest reinforces the historical argument. It demonstrates that not accepting borders as static things and seeking wealth via economic conquest tends to incentivize larger powers to start wars, to build empires, to fix internal problems by invading neighbors.

Calling Russia an autocracy doesn't change that. Autocracy is not synonymous with expansion, nor is democracy any guarantee of peaceful behavior. We do business with autocracies and overthrow democracies any time we think it suits our interests.

---

Autocracies do not have to answer to their people. There is no opportunity for the public to end a war by refusing to fund it in Congress. There is no opportunity to impeach a leader who starts a war. Instead, leaders of democracies have to work to maintain political capital to fund & fight & win wars. For that reason, it is quite rare for an autocracy who embarks on territorial expansion to stop until they are forced to stop, for reasons noted above, or just getting pieces of their anatomy handed to them in battle. They have no brake on their ambitions via democratic process. Only problems with finances and industries can stop them. And armies. Armies can stop them.

Russia invaded Ukraine because it wanted it. Because it thought Ukraine would not be able to stop an invasion. Because it thought Nato would stand by & let it happen. Turns out, none of that was true. Now, Russia cannot climb down, because Putin cannot just resign and retire to his dacha. He has to ride the plane all the way to the ground, whether that's an airport in Lviv or that same crater Prigozhin landed in.

Russia doesn't just want a land bridge to Crimea. It wants a land bridge to Kaliningrad. It will not stop until it attains that.....or until it is stopped. We should stop it in Kherson and Kharkiv, not Krakow.

---

Western democracies are very good at manufacturing consent. There's a reason we fight our wars covertly, and it's not that we're fooling the Russians.

But I get it. You're going to stick with the anti-Russian mythology no matter what. I'm just saying the people who were there and actually dealt with Russian leaders during and after the Cold War know better. Even ex-CIA men suffer occasional bouts of honesty, and you said it as well as anyone: we rammed NATO down Russia's throat because we could. The only problem is that you were wrong. Russia, and increasingly the rest of the world, knows a true expansionist power when it sees one. They drew the line at Ukraine.

---

the only mythology in this thread is the idea that Nato is an expansionist power who forced Russia to invade a sovereign state which was not only non-aligned but actually ineligible for Nato membership, for which it had not even applied until AFTER the Russian invasion. Ukraine did not renounce non-aligned status until after the 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea.


Have you actually familiarized yourself with events in Ukraine and Russia over the last decade?

---

I've done more than that…I've even gone the extra mile and tried to familiarize you with them.

---

Copying and pasting from RT doesn't count vatnik.

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Sounds like a Reckoning...



Just for you Doc...

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Sounds like a Reckoning...



Just for you Doc...

---

I'm fine with it as long as they fight and pay for their own wars and keep me and my tax dollars out of it,

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

They touchin them all right now. Damned shame. Hate to see it.

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.