The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

---

I dont know why you guys refuse to challenge yourself and watch those videos but to summarize, a lot of the ex-CIA and USS Liberty survivors said the Israeli fighters that attacked them were unmarked and they speculated Israel's goal was the sink the USS Liberty, kill everyone on board, and blame it on the United Arab Republic.

Keep in mind in 50 years we still havent had a congessional investigation into this and demanded to know why the Israeli's attacked us?

Speaker Mike Johnson's push to pass a stand-alone package for $17.6 billion in Israel aid is on the brink of collapse amid opposition from far-right Republicans and Democratic leaders, according to multiple GOP sources.

Because of resistance among members of the House Freedom…

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) February 6, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO. Not to mention, your neighboring populace (and other countries) will despise you more than ever.

They have multiple NATO and generally unfriendly neighbors now. Is Ukraine a material difference in that sense? if so, enough to sacrifice so much?

Redbrickbear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Weapons manufacture doesn't enrich us in any real sense. Its purpose is, or should be, to protect the productive economy. The more paper you have to spend on bullets, the less you have for bread and butter. Saving jobs has zero weight as an argument for defense spending.

---

Ironic as we communicate via something developed through defense spending.

You'd think you could grasp at this point we spend the paper on both without the discipline to sacrifice either. One we actually attempt to pay for, the other we just add to its cost.

---

I can grasp it, though I don't know where you get the idea that we're attempting to pay for either. It's all supported by borrowing to a great extent. The difference is that welfare at least has tangible benefits. The only benefit of defense is protection from threats that may or may not exist.

---

No, I don't think you actually grasp it. Do you know how the Federal Budget works? We have direct payroll taxes ($1.4 Trillion) for SS, Medicare, and income security that are woefully below costs. It's a $75 Trillion accruing liability. We have income and related taxes ($3+ Trillion) to pay for discretionary spending that more than covers both defense and non defense spending ($1.7 Trillion). The balance of those taxes then go to cover the massive shortfall of mandatory (entitlement) spending ($4.1 Trillion consisting mostly of SS/Med). The shortfall is then borrowed. If we cut 100% of the defense budget ($700 Billion) we would still have to borrow nearly $800 Billion dollars. That's how out of whack it is.

While there is a minimal short term benefit of the type of welfare we have institutionalized, the long term impact has been a subtle destruction of the middle class and a societal dependency that is a frightening cycle hurting Americans from an inflationary perspective which in turn puts pressure on increasing required entitlement spending. In essence, a death circle of dependency and liability.

So keep the global dominance of our military and the dollar, or the music stops and there will be no chairs to sit in for this welfare. Or we can get serious about entitlements.

---

Well, this is a whole new discussion. If we're going to admit that defense spending is really about propping up the dollar, then sure, I'll agree there's a short-term benefit. The problem is, it's having the opposite effect in the long term. People are starting to see that it's a bad idea to have their wealth held hostage to the whims of American policy. As for your numbers, the dollars are fungible, so we're not really saying anything different.

---

Defense spending is only part of the equation, and the cost piece is a minority expense of the budget. The combination of economic interests and strategic stability is what allows it to happen. Defense is only part of that, and it's been and is critical to our global position, but not that we can't argue refined policy positions.

What's for certain is that no one's being held hostage. We've fallen victim to the complacency that relative peace and prosperity provide over long periods, along with the comfort of first world lifestyles. Social economic expectations are elevated well past the struggles (effort) required to attain them. It's our moral hazard and is reflected in areas like savings rates and personal debt. And our government follows that pattern in its own fiscal behavior in the interest of assuaging their electorate.

The false dilemma is looking at foreign lands, people, or expenditures for the blame when it's our own internal reflection and evaluation that is necessary. But that's much harder than pointing a finger away from us.

---

When I say held hostage I'm talking about other countries not wanting to do business in dollars. All these failed wars and sanctions are going to backfire bigly. The blame is here in the US, but don't blame Americans who struggle to do as well as their parents (if that). You ship the jobs overseas, and people still have to live. Entitlements are built into the neoliberal order just as much as defense, like it or not.

---

Wait a minute. On one hand, you say that Russia is no threat to Nato....bad demographics, bad economy, bad military, can't even defeat Ukraine so how could they possibly ever try to take on Nato. Yet here you are in the post above talking about our policy in Ukraine backfiring bigly.

which is it. Is Russia a threat, or not?

---

That's my position...not his

And its backed up by facts....the russian air force can not even get air superiority over a country right on their borders. That would be like the USA failing to do that over Canada.

Just take their airforce....

[One of the greatest surprises from the initial phase of the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the inability of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) fighter and fighter-bomber fleets to establish air superiority, or to deploy significant combat power in support of the under-performing Russian ground forces...

...failure to establish air superiority could be explained by lack of early warning, coordination capacity and sufficient planning time, the continued pattern of activity suggests a more significant conclusion: that the VKS lacks the institutional capacity to plan, brief and fly complex air operations at scale. There is significant circumstantial evidence to support this, admittedly tentative, explanation]

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/russian-air-force-actually-incapable-complex-air-operations

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-air-force-dying-slow-and-painful-death-ukraine-208045

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/09/12/russias-air-force-goes-missing-at-the-worst-possible-time-during-ukraines-counteroffensive/

---

Old reports which turned out to be wishful thinking IMO.

The Russians want to wear down their opponents as much as possible before committing to a major advance, and the Ukrainians can't seem to stop themselves from obliging. Zaluzhny is reportedly urging retreat from Avdiivka, but Zelensky is determined to repeat his mistake at Bakhmut.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument. As you point out, it does not answer why it would matter given Russia would have zero chance against NATO. So basically, Putin is wasting millions of lives, a $ trillion, and further alienation of neighbors for little practical gain.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument. As you point out, it does not answer why it would matter given Russia would have zero chance against NATO. So basically, Putin is wasting millions of lives, a $ trillion, and further alienation of neighbors for little practical gain.

---

Again that is a policy argument.

That the Kremlin should understand they can't compete with the Western alliance.

When the old guard of 70 year olds in Moscow pass on (something that is inevitable) younger Russian leaders may come to that conclusion.


Until then they want to keep NATO forces as far from their borders as they can and keep any local neighbors aligned with them if they can.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

---

I dont know why you guys refuse to challenge yourself and watch those videos but to summarize, a lot of the ex-CIA and USS Liberty survivors said the Israeli fighters that attacked them were unmarked and they speculated Israel's goal was the sink the USS Liberty, kill everyone on board, and blame it on the United Arab Republic.

Keep in mind in 50 years we still havent had a congessional investigation into this and demanded to know why the Israeli's attacked us?

---

If a false flag fails is it still a false flag?

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

NATO member Turkey controls the Dardanelles Straight and the Bosphorus River. And they'd just move more resources to the Romanian base in Constanta.

Also curious what happens if/when Ukraine falls under sanctions as a Russian puppet should it go down that way. Here's your parting gift for giving up to Russia.

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

---

I dont know why you guys refuse to challenge yourself and watch those videos but to summarize, a lot of the ex-CIA and USS Liberty survivors said the Israeli fighters that attacked them were unmarked and they speculated Israel's goal was the sink the USS Liberty, kill everyone on board, and blame it on the United Arab Republic.

Keep in mind in 50 years we still havent had a congessional investigation into this and demanded to know why the Israeli's attacked us?

---

If a false flag fails is it still a false flag?

---

What kind of stupid ass question is that?

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?

BTW I don't think Putin loses a second of sleep over NATO. I think he knows NATO will never attack and uses it as an excuse. I'm just trying to understand the theory of those justifying the invasion.

Under your theory as I understand it, suppose you could argue for the invasion and the west's support of Ukraine.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

---

I dont know why you guys refuse to challenge yourself and watch those videos but to summarize, a lot of the ex-CIA and USS Liberty survivors said the Israeli fighters that attacked them were unmarked and they speculated Israel's goal was the sink the USS Liberty, kill everyone on board, and blame it on the United Arab Republic.

Keep in mind in 50 years we still havent had a congessional investigation into this and demanded to know why the Israeli's attacked us?

---

If a false flag fails is it still a false flag?

---

What kind of stupid ass question is that?

---

Stupid ass assertion deserves a stupid ass question. So since everyone knows this was a real act and the Israelis are the source of the attack and didn't deflect it to another Arab enemy, is it still a false flag?

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

Yugoslavia made some sense. Libya did not. But I think since European nations tried to lead both responses, most of their military resources are tied to NATO.

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

Yugoslavia made some sense. Libya did not. But I think since European nations tried to lead both responses, most of their military resources are tied to NATO.

---

So then our European allies can get us into wars that we do not want because of our tie to organizations like NATO?

Man really makes you think about the wisdom of continuing to expand this organization…..

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

Yugoslavia made some sense. Libya did not. But I think since European nations tried to lead both responses, most of their military resources are tied to NATO.

---

So then our European allies can get us into wars that we do not want because of our tie to organizations like NATO?

Man really makes you think about the wisdom of continuing to expand this organization…..

---

If we've learned one thing about NATO through the years is that there is no mandatory participation requirement. Which makes Putin's fears even more irrational unless you fear thwarting your invasion plans.

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?

BTW I don't think Putin loses a second of sleep over NATO. I think he knows NATO will never attack and uses it as an excuse. I'm just trying to understand the theory of those justifying the invasion.

Under your theory as I understand it, suppose you could argue for the invasion and the west's support of Ukraine.

---

I think they can defend it now. If they hadn't drawn the line in Ukraine and built up their military as they have, I'm not sure they'd be able to. I don't see that as an argument for supporting Ukraine. Making Russia too insecure isn't in the best interest of stability.

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

---

I dont know why you guys refuse to challenge yourself and watch those videos but to summarize, a lot of the ex-CIA and USS Liberty survivors said the Israeli fighters that attacked them were unmarked and they speculated Israel's goal was the sink the USS Liberty, kill everyone on board, and blame it on the United Arab Republic.

Keep in mind in 50 years we still havent had a congessional investigation into this and demanded to know why the Israeli's attacked us?

---

If a false flag fails is it still a false flag?

---

What kind of stupid ass question is that?

---

Stupid ass assertion deserves a stupid ass question. So since everyone knows this was a real act and the Israelis are the source of the attack and didn't deflect it to another Arab enemy, is it still a false flag?

---

The entire attack was covered up and the general public didn't even know what happened until 1997!

Just bcs they underestimated the competence and bravery of the crew of the USS Liberty and there were survivors doesn't change the intent.

It was a false flag event from our supposed "greatest ally".

I'm beginning to understand why the Israeli's believe they are superior to Americans and we are simply cattle to be exploited.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Cutting entitlements would have to be done carefully too. We can't just eliminate a system that whole generations have paid into and relied upon.

---

Absolutely. It's extremely difficult and gets more so the longer it continues.

Yes it did and we greatly reduced how much we spend on it. It's still in our interest to maintain a token presence.

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

---

I dont know why you guys refuse to challenge yourself and watch those videos but to summarize, a lot of the ex-CIA and USS Liberty survivors said the Israeli fighters that attacked them were unmarked and they speculated Israel's goal was the sink the USS Liberty, kill everyone on board, and blame it on the United Arab Republic.

Keep in mind in 50 years we still havent had a congessional investigation into this and demanded to know why the Israeli's attacked us?

---

If a false flag fails is it still a false flag?

---

What kind of stupid ass question is that?

---

Stupid ass assertion deserves a stupid ass question. So since everyone knows this was a real act and the Israelis are the source of the attack and didn't deflect it to another Arab enemy, is it still a false flag?

---

The entire attack was covered up and the general public didn't even know what happened until 1997!

Just bcs they underestimated the competence and bravery of the crew of the USS Liberty and there were survivors doesn't change the intent.

It was a false flag event from our supposed "greatest ally".

I'm beginning to understand why the Israeli's believe they are superior to Americans and we are simply cattle to be exploited.

---

There were books written about the attack as far back as the 70's, not to mention news articles days after the attack that acknowledged Israel as responsible. They even paid compensation to the dead and injured with public apologies.

So *** are you referring to about 1997?

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And I am honestly sickened this post got any likes... I suggest those posters move to Israel if they care more about Israeli lives than American lives.

---

Lighten up, Francis.

---

Listen to this before you tell anyone to lighten up.

---

well, that's blocked. I'm sure it was a harrowing experience for all involved, one they did not deserve. Same can be said about all those people on Iran Air Flight 655. All you can do in such a situation is apologize, fire the captain, start writing checks, and assess what could be done differently to prevent such from re-occuring.

You really don't like Jews very much, do you?

---

I really don't like Americans being slaughtered in a false flag operation.

Appearently you are another wise boomer who values Israeli lives over American lives.

You are so wise, but you couldn't be bother to watch any of the videos I posted and hear the first hand testimony of the USS Liberty servicemen who survived?

I've been pretty open about my position on Israel. I think they view Americans as cattle. I think AIPAC has done more election interference than Russia, China, and the rest of the world combined. I would like to cut our alliance with them and return to neutrality.

These people are not the chosen ones, God doesn't exist, and the Bible, while having a tremendous amount of literary merit, is still just a very old book.

---

Wait, what was a "false flag operation"?

---

I dont know why you guys refuse to challenge yourself and watch those videos but to summarize, a lot of the ex-CIA and USS Liberty survivors said the Israeli fighters that attacked them were unmarked and they speculated Israel's goal was the sink the USS Liberty, kill everyone on board, and blame it on the United Arab Republic.

Keep in mind in 50 years we still havent had a congessional investigation into this and demanded to know why the Israeli's attacked us?

---

If a false flag fails is it still a false flag?

---

What kind of stupid ass question is that?

---

Stupid ass assertion deserves a stupid ass question. So since everyone knows this was a real act and the Israelis are the source of the attack and didn't deflect it to another Arab enemy, is it still a false flag?

---

The entire attack was covered up and the general public didn't even know what happened until 1997!

Just bcs they underestimated the competence and bravery of the crew of the USS Liberty and there were survivors doesn't change the intent.

It was a false flag event from our supposed "greatest ally".

I'm beginning to understand why the Israeli's believe they are superior to Americans and we are simply cattle to be exploited.

---

There were books written about the attack as far back as the 70's, not to mention news articles days after the attack that acknowledged Israel as responsible. They even paid compensation to the dead and injured with public apologies.

So *** are you referring to about 1997?

---

Interesting….

I will have to order that book "Assault on the Liberty" to learn more

ATL Bear said:

---

They even paid compensation to the dead and injured with public apologies.

---

What the hell is wrong with you?

What kind of ******** tries to equivocate and excuse a mass execution of US servicemen by a foreign nation?

They EXECUTED 34 servicemen and we are suppose to be okay with a very paltry compensation and a "I'm Sorry"

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They even paid compensation to the dead and injured with public apologies.

---

Are you a scumbag?

What the hell is wrong with you?

The rest of the pro-zionist, pro-Israel guys are intelligent to understand this attack is indefensible and dont bother trying to equivocate and excuse a mass execution of US servicemen by a foreign nation

---

I'm not making up **** because I love Jews, but you certainly are because you hate them. In fact I wasn't even defending the incident, only pointing out your factual lie.

Get help,

ATL Bear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

They even paid compensation to the dead and injured with public apologies.

---

Are you a scumbag?

What the hell is wrong with you?

The rest of the pro-zionist, pro-Israel guys are intelligent to understand this attack is indefensible and dont bother trying to equivocate and excuse a mass execution of US servicemen by a foreign nation

---

I'm not making up **** because I love Jews, but you certainly are because you hate them. In fact I wasn't even defending the incident, only pointing out your factual lie.

Get help,

---

I am pissed off bcs its not just Palestinians. Israel can kill Americans with impunity and jackoffs like you would rather argue with me.

It was covered up you disingenuous idiot! The videos I posted had first hand testimony from some of the living survivors who described the cover-up! They said '97 is when the general public became aware of what happened!

Watching the ****ING VIDEOS!!!









I'm the sane one. I'm the one that doesnt think another country should get away Scot-free with the deliberate murder of 34 American servicemen and attempted murder of 171 more American servicemen.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

I'm not. NATO would never attack Russia.

Sam suggested that's what Putin was concerned with and why he invaded Ukraine.

I think that's laughable as I've said many times.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

I'm not. NATO would never attack Russia.

---

I doubt people in Moscow trust DC and their promises anymore than average Americans do.

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

I'm not. NATO would never attack Russia.

---

I doubt people in Moscow trust DC and their promises anymore than average Americans do.

---

It's not about DC trust. It's about not being foolish enough to invade a country with enough nukes to end the world twice over.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

I'm not. NATO would never attack Russia.

---

I doubt people in Moscow trust DC and their promises anymore than average Americans do.

---

Who in the US trusts Russia?

---

Trust? Some in our government want active war with Russia and some on this very board do as well…over a country we are not even an official ally with.

There is no trust between DC and Moscow and there is unlikely to be for a long long time

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

I'm not. NATO would never attack Russia.

---

I doubt people in Moscow trust DC and their promises anymore than average Americans do.

---

It's not about DC trust. It's about not being foolish enough to invade a country with enough nukes to end the world twice over.

---

Man sounds like nukes are the only thing preventing russia from getting the Iraq/Afghanistan treatment….

Thank God our soldiers will not be forced by DC into a 20 year occupation of Siberia

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

I'm not. NATO would never attack Russia.

---

I doubt people in Moscow trust DC and their promises anymore than average Americans do.

---

It's not about DC trust. It's about not being foolish enough to invade a country with enough nukes to end the world twice over.

---

Man sounds like nukes are the only thing preventing russia from getting the Iraq/Afghanistan treatment….

Thank God our soldiers will not be forced by DC into a 20 year occupation of Siberia

---

Don't stray off course. We were discussing Sam's post that Putin is concerned with NATO invading. Putin knows that will never happen because of his nuke arsenal.

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

sombear said:

---

If Putin knows he has zero chance against NATO, why do you buy into the argument that Putin invaded Ukraine over NATO? Said another way, how would invading and taking over Ukraine somehow make Putin the favorite over NATO (or even appreciably shorten the odds)?

---

That itself is a strange question.

Why would any country oppose a hostile foreign military alliance being on its borders?

China knows they have no chance against the Western alliance...yet obviously they would oppose USA troops being placed in Mongolia or Burma.

The geo-strategic imperative of Moscow is to keep Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan on its side (by sweet talk or by military action)

DC seems committed to pulling those countries out of the orbit of Moscow...by coups and proxy wars if necessary.

Why Moscow wants to prevent that is obvious....why DC cares that much is the real question.

Latin America, Central & Western Europe, East Asia, the oil rich Middle east....these are all far more important areas to American prosperity and security than Belarus or Ukraine.

---

Well, obviously, no country wants a rival next door. The question is why Putin would invade and attempt to take over a neighbor (and lose what will probably be millions of lives and a $ trillion) when it does nothing to improve your situation relative to NATO.

---

It prevents NATO from putting troops in eastern Ukraine....faster striking distance into Southern Russia and Rostov-on-Don and Volgograd (old Stalingrad)....major Russian cities.

And it prevents NATO troops from ever being stationed in Crimea/Sevastopol where their Black Sea fleet is located.

So its obvious why they want a friendly government in Kyiv....one not aligned to DC

Now its a different story if it even matters much....they are so far behind the game against the USA-EU in development and military spending that they can never catch back up. But that is then a policy point...Russian leaders after Putin is dead may come to realize they are wasting money in a race they can never win.

Putin is in his 70s...he will not be around forever.

---

I understand that argument.

---

I'm not sure you do. Successfully invading NATO and successfully defending against it are two different things.

---

So you think Putin could defend a NATO attack?
.

---

Why are you contemplating a NATO invasion of Russia?

I thought NATO was a purely defensive organization that does not attack countries that have not attacked it?


Well other than Serbia and Libya….

---

I'm not. NATO would never attack Russia.

Sam suggested that's what Putin was concerned with and why he invaded Ukraine.

I think that's laughable as I've said many times.

---

Launching a crusade for regime change against Russia would be extremely stupid…but that's no guarantee we wouldn't do it. If any state has proven itself irrational in recent decades, it's the US.